PDA

View Full Version : I Played 4th Edition Tonight!



Pages : [1] 2

skywalker
2008-05-11, 11:19 PM
So, I played a little of Keep on the Shadowfell tonight. I'd like to report that I'm thoroughly unimpressed. While it was just the start of a level 1 campaign, all I can say is... meh.

Not worth my money, so far.

Edited in from 5th post so it's easier:

I recommend reading this thread with Charity's Character Sheet Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80204) in another tab for reference. It's how I wrote it.

First, I will make general observations/assumptions. Then I'll talk about combat, and then specific classes.

General Observations:
Re: Powers. They kinda suck. Powers were the part of 4th edition I most looked forward to, and was most disappointed by. I was a huge fan of ToB, but 4th's powers are not like that at all. Whereas powers were supposed to keep fighters out of the "I roll a d20" monotony, there has simply become a "I use cleave. *rolls d20*," along with the added bonus of having to remember to say "I'm using cleave," otherwise the DM just assumes you're using a standard attack.
The main problem here is that there is a definable best power. All the others are subordinate and virtually forgotten except for very specific situations. More info here when I get to specific classes.
Re: Half-Elves. They kinda suck too. Half-Elves either got something left out, have a big back-end racial feature, or are still underpowered.

Re: Combat. It took just as long as 3.5 combat. I know that part of this is learning the new system, but, honestly, I feel like there has been no significant quickening of combat.
Re: Minions. Not sure how many people have heard of minions, but you can replace "minions" with "mooks." The problem here is that, while they seem designed to die, they also have rules protecting them from dying. For instance, the fighter's power that deals damage on a miss doesn't apply to mooks.

Specific Classes:
The Fighter: Seemed to have decent fun. Dealt a lot of damage and was quite able to tank. However, Reaping Strike never came into play, because it was clearly worse than cleave. The one time he did try to use it, it was on a kobold mook, which he was specifically informed that he could not kill with the miss damage.
The Paladin: First of all, that breath weapon is so cool. Second, this character seemed to have the most balanced powers. A variety of powers were used almost equally, depending on the situation.
The Rogue: Is a glass cannon. Seriously, the rogue couldn't take the punishment dished by kobolds. On the other hand, the 2d8 sneak attack absolutely owns. Highest damage dealer by far. The problem with the rogue's powers are, most of them require moving the target. Since the primary way to gain "combat advantage" is flanking, moving the target is a big no-no. Only "sly flourish" received any use. But the power that forces the DM to re-roll an attack was a life saver.
The Cleric: Had zero fun. Since everyone can heal now, the cleric has basically nothing to set it apart. Unlike the 3.5 cleric, this cleric is definably worse at melee than the fighter and paladin, doesn't deal as much damage as the rogue, and doesn't cast as well as the wizard. Biggest power drop by far. Half-elves are also underpowered.
The Wizard: Was interesting. I played the Wizard. While there were some interesting spells, it was, once again, quite clear that magic missile stood above the rest. An interesting note, either my DM read the rules wrong, or scorching burst is completely useless. A burst that only affects one square? Why don't I just magic missile him? As well, I didn't even touch ray of frost. Didn't get a chance to use the dailies, although Acid Arrow seemed deadly. Sleep is no longer the win button, because it requires a save. The save happens to be made against DC10. Excuse me? Not worth it. Let me explain this process a little more in depth. First, I cast sleep. This requires an attack roll(d20+4) against his will defense. If I hit, he makes a save(DC10) to avoid being slowed. Then, he makes another save(DC10) to avoid falling asleep. Each round after that, he makes another save(DC10) to wake up or speed up. The positive chance is, he could never wake up. The downside is, he could never fall asleep.
Further info about my playing the wizard. Having to roll an attack roll sucks. Maybe, again, this is my DM screwing up, but he ruled that if it has an attack roll, cover applies. Which means that when I tried to use burning hands to immolate the entire patch of brush where a kobold was hiding, he ruled I missed because I couldn't see him in the brush. :smallmad: Not sure if this was the correct ruling, BOO if it was.

Rutee
2008-05-11, 11:22 PM
That was informative.

Chronicled
2008-05-11, 11:23 PM
That was informative.

+1

Seriously, no real details at all? Yeesh...

Tequila Sunrise
2008-05-11, 11:24 PM
Your resistance to 4e can only cause your own demise, young Skywalker. Search your feelings; you know this to be true. :smallbiggrin:

Just kidding. Really though, how are you expecting people to respond to such a vague statement?

TS

Vortling
2008-05-11, 11:24 PM
Could you give a full review and a walkthrough of the play session? Or at least be more specific about your likes and dislikes?

TempusCCK
2008-05-11, 11:31 PM
I'd also be interested in hearing why you had issue with it.

skywalker
2008-05-11, 11:57 PM
Could you give a full review and a walkthrough of the play session? Or at least be more specific about your likes and dislikes?

I was just waiting for you to ask. I wasn't sure anyone wanted to know what I had to say. I also wanted everyone to know this, but time to craft this post.

I recommend reading this thread with Charity's Character Sheet Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80204) in another tab for reference. It's how I wrote it.

First, I will make general observations/assumptions. Then I'll talk about combat, and then specific classes.

General Observations:
Re: Powers. They kinda suck. Powers were the part of 4th edition I most looked forward to, and was most disappointed by. I was a huge fan of ToB, but 4th's powers are not like that at all. Whereas powers were supposed to keep fighters out of the "I roll a d20" monotony, there has simply become a "I use cleave. *rolls d20*," along with the added bonus of having to remember to say "I'm using cleave," otherwise the DM just assumes you're using a standard attack.
The main problem here is that there is a definable best power. All the others are subordinate and virtually forgotten except for very specific situations. More info here when I get to specific classes.
Re: Half-Elves. They kinda suck too. Half-Elves either got something left out, have a big back-end racial feature, or are still underpowered.

Re: Combat. It took just as long as 3.5 combat. I know that part of this is learning the new system, but, honestly, I feel like there has been no significant quickening of combat.
Re: Minions. Not sure how many people have heard of minions, but you can replace "minions" with "mooks." The problem here is that, while they seem designed to die, they also have rules protecting them from dying. For instance, the fighter's power that deals damage on a miss doesn't apply to mooks.

Specific Classes:
The Fighter: Seemed to have decent fun. Dealt a lot of damage and was quite able to tank. However, Reaping Strike never came into play, because it was clearly worse than cleave. The one time he did try to use it, it was on a kobold mook, which he was specifically informed that he could not kill with the miss damage.
The Paladin: First of all, that breath weapon is so cool. Second, this character seemed to have the most balanced powers. A variety of powers were used almost equally, depending on the situation.
The Rogue: Is a glass cannon. Seriously, the rogue couldn't take the punishment dished by kobolds. On the other hand, the 2d8 sneak attack absolutely owns. Highest damage dealer by far. The problem with the rogue's powers are, most of them require moving the target. Since the primary way to gain "combat advantage" is flanking, moving the target is a big no-no. Only "sly flourish" received any use. But the power that forces the DM to re-roll an attack was a life saver.
The Cleric: Had zero fun. Since everyone can heal now, the cleric has basically nothing to set it apart. Unlike the 3.5 cleric, this cleric is definably worse at melee than the fighter and paladin, doesn't deal as much damage as the rogue, and doesn't cast as well as the wizard. Biggest power drop by far. Half-elves are also underpowered.
The Wizard: Was interesting. I played the Wizard. While there were some interesting spells, it was, once again, quite clear that magic missile stood above the rest. An interesting note, either my DM read the rules wrong, or scorching burst is completely useless. A burst that only affects one square? Why don't I just magic missile him? As well, I didn't even touch ray of frost. Didn't get a chance to use the dailies, although Acid Arrow seemed deadly. Sleep is no longer the win button, because it requires a save. The save happens to be made against DC10. Excuse me? Not worth it. Let me explain this process a little more in depth. First, I cast sleep. This requires an attack roll(d20+4) against his will defense. If I hit, he makes a save(DC10) to avoid being slowed. Then, he makes another save(DC10) to avoid falling asleep. Each round after that, he makes another save(DC10) to wake up or speed up. The positive chance is, he could never wake up. The downside is, he could never fall asleep.
Further info about my playing the wizard. Having to roll an attack roll sucks. Maybe, again, this is my DM screwing up, but he ruled that if it has an attack roll, cover applies. Which means that when I tried to use burning hands to immolate the entire patch of brush where a kobold was hiding, he ruled I missed because I couldn't see him in the brush. :smallmad: Not sure if this was the correct ruling, BOO if it was.

Please ask questions, I know I missed some things. :smallbiggrin:

TempusCCK
2008-05-12, 12:06 AM
Wait, so, you rolled against his defense, then he made a save, and got to make a save every round that the effect lasted?

A fighter has a power that deals mythic damage when you miss?


That sounds fanciful and like it hinders combat to the most extremes, so far you've told me that the game was bogged down by rules and silly balancing factors...

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't expect that I am, it seems Wizards has more earning potential from rules lawyers and power gamers, so they're going to cater to that market, but damn, that just... roll defense and saves every round.... I mean, come on, you're just wanting to slow down combat with that.

Rutee
2008-05-12, 12:10 AM
The main problem here is that there is a definable best power. All the others are subordinate and virtually forgotten except for very specific situations. More info here when I get to specific classes.
Interesting. Also a bit worrying, but I'm curious why none of the other posting testers mentioned it before.


The Cleric: Had zero fun. Since everyone can heal now, the cleric has basically nothing to set it apart. Unlike the 3.5 cleric, this cleric is definably worse at melee than the fighter and paladin, doesn't deal as much damage as the rogue, and doesn't cast as well as the wizard. Biggest power drop by far. Half-elves are also underpowered.
Heh. Healbotting sucks. I suspect your Cleric was approaching it from a Healbotting mindset, not a buffer mindset.

Mooks: You got it wrong. Minions are there to die, yeah, but they're protected from dying to EVERYTHING in /one/ attack. That protection from Miss damage is for Fireball and the like; AoE powers that deal damage on a miss. One of the best systems I've seen for them is Weapons of the Gods. In Weapons of the Gods, you attack mooks as a group, always. You don't roll to see if you kill them, generally; You roll to see how many you kill. If you AoE, however, rather then killing all Mooks, your attack deals triple damage. The idea is that you want the mooks to see some sort of use, when they fight en masse. You don't generally want them to win, but if you wanted them to all go down at once, you wouldn't have bothered putting them in in the first place. Make sense?

Sleep.. hm. I don't like having to roll to avoid slow down. That means it can be shrugged off completely on a hit, and that seems counter to the idea behind dailies. Is it AoE?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 12:13 AM
Something I've been hearing repeatedly from people who went to these things is "bad DMs". I hear a lot of them didn't allow for interesting roleplaying, didn't improvise, and glossed over the noncombat stuff, which is, y'know, the big stuff DMs are supposed to do.

Edit: a "single best power" could be because they were fighting similar monsters a lot. For example, I'd guess that Reaping Strike would be more effective against the DDXP black dragon, while Cleave would be more effective against kobolds.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 12:16 AM
Wait, so, you rolled against his defense, then he made a save, and got to make a save every round that the effect lasted? Yes, this is what I was told. If you will take a look at the character sheets I linked, you will see that no duration is listed for sleep. I wasn't allowed to see the "big book" and I'm going to ask to see the quick start rules tomorrow. But yes, this is what I was told. My DM is sometimes incompetent, but not that incompetent. He can read, after all.


A fighter has a power that deals mythic damage when you miss?
Yes, reaping strike, check it out.



That sounds fanciful and like it hinders combat to the most extremes, so far you've told me that the game was bogged down by rules and silly balancing factors...

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't expect that I am, it seems Wizards has more earning potential from rules lawyers and power gamers, so they're going to cater to that market, but damn, that just... roll defense and saves every round.... I mean, come on, you're just wanting to slow down combat with that.Well, to clarify, no, I didn't have to roll against his defense every round. In my theory, the fighter having a power that does damage on both a miss and a hit seems like it would speed combat up, because things would die faster. But he's only allowed to hit things that probably won't die with that power.

Another thing I forgot to mention, no, you don't have to confirm criticals, BUT, criticals only do max damage. You don't roll your damage and double it, you don't roll double the dice, you simply max out the dice. So if you normally do 1d8+3, you do 11 on a critical. There is no potential for 19. Perhaps this is personal preference, but I always prefer to take the big risk for the big reward. That's why it's a game, so I can do stuff like that. Supposedly, this was implemented to keep random monsters from killing players on a crit :smallannoyed:

EDIT:
Interesting. Also a bit worrying, but I'm curious why none of the other posting testers mentioned it before.
Heh. Healbotting sucks. I suspect your Cleric was approaching it from a Healbotting mindset, not a buffer mindset. This was the player's first time with a caster. However, I think the main problem is that 1. The cleric has no buffs, and 2. The cleric was either in a situation where everyone was fine, or one person was on the brink of death. HP status seemed to swing wildly from round to round :smalleek:


Mooks: You got it wrong. Minions are there to die, yeah, but they're protected from dying to EVERYTHING in /one/ attack. That protection from Miss damage is for Fireball and the like; AoE powers that deal damage on a miss. One of the best systems I've seen for them is Weapons of the Gods. In Weapons of the Gods, you attack mooks as a group, always. You don't roll to see if you kill them, generally; You roll to see how many you kill. If you AoE, however, rather then killing all Mooks, your attack deals triple damage. The idea is that you want the mooks to see some sort of use, when they fight en masse. You don't generally want them to win, but if you wanted them to all go down at once, you wouldn't have bothered putting them in in the first place. Make sense?I see your point. I agree with your last statement, but from a player's perspective, I'm wielding intense eldritch energy here. Sometimes, I want to drop a fireball on 40 mooks and leave nothing but a smoking crater. I think that's a fair desire to have, honestly. I also would hate to drop a fireball on 40 mooks and have to roll 40! different! attack rolls!


Sleep.. hm. I don't like having to roll to avoid slow down. That means it can be shrugged off completely on a hit, and that seems counter to the idea behind dailies. Is it AoE? Yes, it is, which is why I didn't get to use it, the kobolds surprised us(which, honestly, with their massive hide check, seems like the book railroaded us into being surprised) so they were always among my allies before my turn.

Reel:
Something I've been hearing repeatedly from people who went to these things is "bad DMs". I hear a lot of them didn't allow for interesting roleplaying, didn't improvise, and glossed over the noncombat stuff, which is, y'know, the big stuff DMs are supposed to do.
Edit: a "single best power" could be because they were fighting similar monsters a lot. For example, I'd guess that Reaping Strike would be more effective against the DDXP black dragon, while Cleave would be more effective against kobolds. I won't speak to my DM's competence any more right now(he's the only one I've got most of the year) but actually, he did a fair amount of that stuff. The problem was just when we came to loggerheads over the attack roll crap. I honestly may not play 4th edition just because of that, if he ruled correctly. I dunno how many hitpoints that dragon had, but 3(!) damage on a miss doesn't seem like dragon killing activity.

Behold_the_Void
2008-05-12, 12:24 AM
I'm fairly leery about that module since it's a bunch of pre-built characters and only a few of the available powers. I'm personally holding off until the actual books are out.

Rutee
2008-05-12, 12:35 AM
This was the player's first time with a caster. However, I think the main problem is that 1. The cleric has no buffs, and 2. The cleric was either in a situation where everyone was fine, or one person was on the brink of death. HP status seemed to swing wildly from round to round
Oh, that sounds like CoH defenders. Awesome.


I see your point. I agree with your last statement, but from a player's perspective, I'm wielding intense eldritch energy here. Sometimes, I want to drop a fireball on 40 mooks and leave nothing but a smoking crater. I think that's a fair desire to have, honestly. I also would hate to drop a fireball on 40 mooks and have to roll 40! different! attack rolls!
Well, the GM doesn't want to roll 40! different! Saving throws! So it's no different from 3.5. In either case, I'd need the numbers on stuff to be sure, but I'd probably say something like "Roll 3d20", compare the result of all 3d20 to Reflex AC, and then say you killed that many (So if you rolled a total of say, 40, and their Reflex is 16, conga rats, you just dropped 24). I'm not terribly surprised that 4e still doesn't have mooks quite so elegant as other systems, but it seems better done then now.


Yes, it is, which is why I didn't get to use it, the kobolds surprised us(which, honestly, with their massive hide check, seems like the book railroaded us into being surprised) so they were always among my allies before my turn.

That's gonna be a bitch. First houserule I make is that if you're susceptible to sleep, you're slowed, end discussion. Roll to avoid sleep, not slowdown. And yeah, modules railroad you. Welcome to prebuilt adventures!

Squash Monster
2008-05-12, 12:36 AM
I think the imbalance in power uses was based on bad module design.

I saw the stats for some 4E minions earlier; they had 1hp. That's why you don't get to do your 3 damage on miss; they would just die automatically.

On the other hand, if the entire module was minions, that's pretty lame.


However, the stuff you say about the wizard powers worries me. If your DM didn't mess up with how sleep works, then that just plain sucks.

Tengu
2008-05-12, 12:47 AM
On sleep: if I understand correctly, your DM got it all wrong. First, the attack roll is against enemy's will and he doesn't do a saving throw afterwards, as saving throws no longer exist in 4e, only attack rolls against fortitude/reflex/will. Furthermore, if the attack hits, the enemy falls asleep and is slowed, and if it misses he is only slowed. So this spell is still powerful, your DM just fails at understanding new rules.

On Scorching Burst: I think that Burst 1 means that all creatures within 1 square of the target, apart from the target itself, receive damage.

On cleric: He has buffs. Lance of Faith and Sacred Flame both deal damage and give your friends benefits.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 12:58 AM
On sleep: if I understand correctly, your DM got it all wrong. First, the attack roll is against enemy's will and he doesn't do a saving throw afterwards, as saving throws no longer exist in 4e, only attack rolls against fortitude/reflex/will. Furthermore, if the attack hits, the enemy falls asleep and is slowed, and if it misses he is only slowed. So this spell is still powerful, your DM just fails at understanding new rules. Not to be contrary, but what do you suppose the words "save ends" on the character sheet (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t315/jt1044/HumanWizard2.jpg) mean?


On Scorching Burst: I think that Burst 1 means that all creatures within 1 square of the target, apart from the target itself, receive damage. I thought he got this wrong, but whatever. He wouldn't let me see the book.

On cleric: He has buffs. Lance of Faith and Sacred Flame both deal damage and give your friends benefits.Lance of Faith doesn't seem that great. Either way, the cleric doesn't get to do as much damage, and the player was kinda limited. I will reserve judgment on the class.

@squash monster: I see know problem with auto-killing mooks :smallbiggrin:

Behold_the_Void
2008-05-12, 01:05 AM
Save ends means the ongoing effects of a spell are ended when the character makes a successful save by rolling I believe it is 11 or higher on their turn.

Rutee
2008-05-12, 01:06 AM
I see a problem with auto killing every mook with one action.

Namely that think and page space were wasted statting it. What, you're not going to get a "There's something inherently wrong with auto killing red shirts" for reasons relating to "You can't do that" from me :P

Tengu
2008-05-12, 01:07 AM
Not to be contrary, but what do you suppose the words "save ends" on the character sheet (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t315/jt1044/HumanWizard2.jpg) mean?

It means that the spell lasts until the character passes a save. Do you make a save automatically each round or do you have to use an action for that, I don't know.



Lance of Faith doesn't seem that great. Either way, the cleric doesn't get to do as much damage, and the player was kinda limited. I will reserve judgment on the class.
:smallbiggrin:

Hmm. From the premade character, cleric has the highest number of encounter powers, but all of them are highly situational. I am not sure how to judge that. Maybe there are much better powers in the book and the character just don't have it.


Save ends means the ongoing effects of a spell are ended when the character makes a successful save by rolling I believe it is 11 or higher on their turn.

Wouldn't that be the same way as it was on the attack roll, d20+4 vs Will? All defenses work like an attack roll in 4e.

Jothki
2008-05-12, 01:11 AM
Another thing I forgot to mention, no, you don't have to confirm criticals, BUT, criticals only do max damage. You don't roll your damage and double it, you don't roll double the dice, you simply max out the dice. So if you normally do 1d8+3, you do 11 on a critical. There is no potential for 19. Perhaps this is personal preference, but I always prefer to take the big risk for the big reward. That's why it's a game, so I can do stuff like that. Supposedly, this was implemented to keep random monsters from killing players on a crit :smallannoyed:

It's also there to prevent you from critting for minimal damage if you roll low. Crits always hurt now.

TempusCCK
2008-05-12, 01:11 AM
The fact that you can deal damage on a missed attack roll just... bothers me to no end. D&D is supposed to emulate fantasy, not create a convienant fantasy for you regardless of conventions.

BORIC THE BRAVE MISSES ON HIS MIGHTY ATTACK, HIS FOE ROLLING TO THE SIDE TO AVOID THE SURELY FATAL BLOW.... but scratches appear on him where Boric might have hit? What?

Tengu
2008-05-12, 01:13 AM
The fact that you can deal damage on a missed attack roll just... bothers me to no end. D&D is supposed to emulate fantasy, not create a convienant fantasy for you regardless of conventions.

BORIC THE BRAVE MISSES ON HIS MIGHTY ATTACK, HIS FOE ROLLING TO THE SIDE TO AVOID THE SURELY FATAL BLOW.... but scratches appear on him where Boric might have hit? What?

It's supposed to represent an attack so violent that even if the opponent dodges enough not to be hit fully, you still manage to give them a scratch. At least that's how I understand it. Nothing magical in that.

TempusCCK
2008-05-12, 01:16 AM
But, if they managed to avoid the blow, there's no amount of training that would allow you to still hurt them.

Why not just increase their attack rating to a point where they will hit no matter what?

And then... why can it not work on mooks? It breaks versimilitude, like, everywhere.

I mean, I can see a blunt attack still causing some damage if you just managed to hit their armor, but isn't that already represented by rolling minimum damage?

Now we're just adding game mechanics to represent a game mechanic. Mechanics for mechanics sake is simply poor for a roleplaying game, especially when it breaks versimilitude.

Tengu
2008-05-12, 01:20 AM
Game balance. Also, 3.5 had some attacks that always hit, no matter what, didn't it? Probably somewhere in ToB. This is just a weaker version of them.

Although it's a reasonable houserule to make it work on mooks anyway. As Rutee said, mooks are supposed to die in spades, not to be worthy opponents.

TempusCCK
2008-05-12, 01:24 AM
Eh, I don't play D&D for mechanics, I play it for the fantasy simulation, when game balance becomes so important that it's alright to break the versimilitude to ensure it, I'm playing the wrong system. Honestly, if I wanted a system where rules superceded the versimilitude in the name of ultimate balance, I would just go and play (gasp) WoW.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 01:25 AM
But, if they managed to avoid the blow, there's no amount of training that would allow you to still hurt them.
It's called "hitting really hard". You can still clip someone who dodges out of the way. You can hit their weapon hard enough to sting their hands. You can hit their shield hard enough to cause pain.
And no, that's not what minimum damage represents. You don't really think "1d8+STR" represents everything from bruises/scratches to serious wounds?


Why not just increase their attack rating to a point where they will hit no matter what?
Because then it'll do full damage.


And then... why can it not work on mooks? It breaks versimilitude, like, everywhere.
Because mooks get dropped in one solid blow, which is what their HP represents. Missing with Reaving Strike means it wasn't a solid blow.


I mean, I can see a blunt attack still causing some damage if you just managed to hit their armor, but isn't that already represented by rolling minimum damage?
A sword impacting against your side through your armor is no picnic, either. Nor is being nicked by it.


Now we're just adding game mechanics to represent a game mechanic. Mechanics for mechanics sake is simply poor for a roleplaying game, especially when it breaks versimilitude.
Concealment and cover, doing different things? Heck, maybe AC should be a percentile miss chance that concealment and cover add to! Why roll vs. AC to see if you hit, then roll percentile dice... to see if you hit?

D&D combat rules haven't been about verisimilitude for a long time. I mean, isn't it funny how a chain shirt protects you equally well against swords, arrows, and clubs? They used to have tables for things like that; everyone hated'em.

Rockphed
2008-05-12, 01:26 AM
Futhermore, HP isn't entirely how hurt you actually are. It includes morale and a couple other things. Also, a miss against AC isn't always a MISS, sometimes it is a hit on their armor or shield.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 01:27 AM
I see a problem with auto killing every mook with one action.

Namely that think and page space were wasted statting it. What, you're not going to get a "There's something inherently wrong with auto killing red shirts" for reasons relating to "You can't do that" from me :P

The sad thing is, they weren't even completely statted, is what he said. They have an attack bonus, deal 4 damage, and have 1 HP. Oh, I suppose they have "save defenses" too. I guess that's enough ink...

Tengu, the "saving throw" is definitely something the "victim" rolls. Death and dying changed, forgot to mention that. Instead of being bleeding from -1 to -9, now, once you go below zero, you get three rounds to make a "saving throw"(which means roll anything above a 10 on a d20) or you die. You also die if you go below your "bloody number" in one hit. So if you're bloodied at 15, an attack that puts you at -15 kills you, apparently with no "saving throw" at all.

I know for sure that a saving throw is something a character rolls. I know for sure it's against DC10, since there aren't any DCs on the wizard's character sheet. The only thing in doubt is whether or not you have to take an action to roll the saving throw.

Chronicled
2008-05-12, 01:27 AM
skywalker, thanks for the details.


Eh, I don't play D&D for mechanics, I play it for the fantasy simulation, when game balance becomes so important that it's alright to break the versimilitude to ensure it, I'm playing the wrong system. Honestly, if I wanted a system where rules superceded the versimilitude in the name of ultimate balance, I would just go and play (gasp) WoW.

Perhaps you're incorrectly looking at how the attack is portrayed. Especially since in 4e HP is not necessarily wounds (until the enemy is bloodied, anyhow).

Tengu
2008-05-12, 01:28 AM
Eh, I don't play D&D for mechanics, I play it for the fantasy simulation, when game balance becomes so important that it's alright to break the versimilitude to ensure it, I'm playing the wrong system. Honestly, if I wanted a system where rules superceded the versimilitude in the name of ultimate balance, I would just go and play (gasp) WoW.

I'll sound harsh: then don't play 4e. Wizards finally started to realize that game balance is important or otherwise two people at the table will sit bored while the wizard and the cleric breeze through all challenges (also the non-combat ones), and people start whining that they don't like that and balance is only good for computer games. I don't see any breaking of versimilitude here, just some attacks with different flavours that may be hard to swallow for the "warriors should only be able to auto-attack!!1" crowd.



Tengu, the "saving throw" is definitely something the "victim" rolls. Death and dying changed, forgot to mention that. Instead of being bleeding from -1 to -9, now, once you go below zero, you get three rounds to make a "saving throw"(which means roll anything above a 10 on a d20) or you die. You also die if you go below your "bloody number" in one hit. So if you're bloodied at 15, an attack that puts you at -15 kills you, apparently with no "saving throw" at all.


Hmm, it appears I was mistaken on the passive part of the spell, then. Which means that Sleep is basically a slowing spell with 50% chance of putting the enemies to sleep. Still quite decent, if you ask me, just not ground-breaking.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 01:35 AM
I seem to recall reading somewhere that you make saving throws against effects on you at the end of your turn. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it was from someone's "we tried a 4E game with the info from DDXP" thread on another forum.

It sounds reasonable, and if it's true, then beating their Will defense puts them to sleep until the end of their round. Time it right and your party member can execute the sleeping critter.

tyckspoon
2008-05-12, 01:35 AM
I know for sure that a saving throw is something a character rolls. I know for sure it's against DC10, since there aren't any DCs on the wizard's character sheet. The only thing in doubt is whether or not you have to take an action to roll the saving throw.

The DDXP reports, I think, say no, it's not an action. Saving throws are rolled automatically at, IIRC, the end of somebody's turn. Which means throwing Sleep *will* slow its victims for one turn, because they have to act under the condition before they can save against it, and if you hit with it may put them out completely for at least one more turn.


Edit: Stupid ninjas.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 01:38 AM
I see.

I'm really glad they spelled that out clearly so my DM would know how to run the game. [/sarcasm]

Rutee
2008-05-12, 01:44 AM
1: It's Beta. That's the kinda stuff they learn about properly in Beta.
2: You keep saying your DM is incompetent, and you expect us to believe the problem is in the transmitter of information, not the Receiver.

TempusCCK
2008-05-12, 01:47 AM
Tengu, that's entirely fair and not at all harsh. I happen to believe that if you avoid a blow you avoid it, and anything that would happen from you not making a hit (scratches and bruises) aren't effective enough to do anything to your character, and therefore not enough to do anything to your HP.

And yes, I do think minimum damage could easily represent a glancing blow, HP is an abstract after all.

also, this attack not working on mooks because "a single solid blow kills mooks, not glancing blows" is incomplete. Obviously, if this glancing blow isn't supposed to kill them, then they need to have more HP than the glancing blow is able to deal. Instead of making a descision that made sense, they just went with whatever was mechanically "balanced". Or so it seems.

I'm still reserving full judgement SRD, or the open source, or whatever when it comes out and I can take a look at the system fully and see if it's truly balanced, but so far as I can see, this is mechanics for mechanics sake.

Starsinger
2008-05-12, 01:47 AM
More importantly...


Sleep is no longer the win button, because it requires a save. The save happens to be made against DC10. Excuse me? Not worth it.

About. Damn. Time.

Also, sleep has to be a win button to be worth your time? Sounds like you're spoiled by how wizards have it now...

skywalker
2008-05-12, 02:16 AM
More importantly...
About. Damn. Time.

Also, sleep has to be a win button to be worth your time? Sounds like you're spoiled by how wizards have it now...
And your point is? :smallbiggrin: It's not that it needs to be a "win button," but (as I understood it before I was corrected) it was practically a "lose button" the way it was ruled tonight :smallconfused: (and back in the day, you put them to sleep, and cut their throats. Then you did it again. This was how you did not die. Nostalgia is good sometimes).

Rutee:I never said the problem with the saving throw was his problem, I said it was Wizards' problem for not spelling it out for those of us who didn't pay attention to the D&DXP, and that he had probably read something else wrong regarding a different power.

Anterean
2008-05-12, 02:52 AM
The fact that you can deal damage on a missed attack roll just... bothers me to no end. D&D is supposed to emulate fantasy, not create a convienant fantasy for you regardless of conventions.

BORIC THE BRAVE MISSES ON HIS MIGHTY ATTACK, HIS FOE ROLLING TO THE SIDE TO AVOID THE SURELY FATAL BLOW.... but scratches appear on him where Boric might have hit? What?

Of course the majority of your defence against melee attacks comes from from armour, and bonus from the full plate represents the armour's ability to soak up the attack not you sudden improvement in dodge by putting on some 50 kilograms of metal plating, so an attack with miss damage could represent an attack that armour simply cannot fully withstand.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-12, 03:38 AM
The Fighter: Seemed to have decent fun. Dealt a lot of damage and was quite able to tank. However, Reaping Strike never came into play, because it was clearly worse than cleave. The one time he did try to use it, it was on a kobold mook, which he was specifically informed that he could not kill with the miss damage.

It seems to me that reaping strike is specifically designed to be used whenever you aren't in a position to cleave. Even though I know that, for most people, 4th Edition will feature more creatures per encounter than 3rd Edition, there still must be times when the fighter won't have two creatures standing next to each other.

Reaping strike is also useful in any situation where hitting is sufficiently difficult.

Cleave average expected damage is (3.5 + 3.5 + 3 = 10) x probability to hit + 0 x probability to miss

Reaping strike average expected damage is (3.5 + 3.5 = 7) x probability to hit + 3 x probability to miss.

If the probability to hit is 50/50, then you end up with cleave = (10 * 50%) 5 and reaping strike = (7 * 50% + 3 * 50% = 3.5 + 1.5) 5.

So, if my late night math is correct here, reaping strike is going to deal more damage to your opponents in any situation where you have to roll a natural 12 or higher to hit.

Of course, there'll also be situational considerations. Cleave is going to be more useful when fighting multiple minions; reaping strike is going to be more useful when you're facing off against just one non-minion.

The two seem to have a fairly equal amount of utility to me. And I'm actually fairly impressed by how two distinctive fighting styles emerge quite naturally out of the probabilities -- in one you're swinging away like wild because your significantly superior to your opponents (you have a 50/50 or better shot of hitting them); in the other you're performing a variety of jabs and cutting blows against a more skilled opponent.


The problem with the rogue's powers are, most of them require moving the target. Since the primary way to gain "combat advantage" is flanking, moving the target is a big no-no.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing, at least based on the character sheets. I'm seeing verbiage that says "can slide", not "must slide".

More importantly, I'm not seeing how your conclusion follows from your premises. Surely the ability to move your opponent into an advantageous flanking position must come in useful?

You also talk about the rogue being very vulnerable. But I suspect that might have something to do with your rogue never taking advantage of his ability to dart in, hit the guy for massive damage, and then use his slide abilities to shove him out of melee range and into a position where counter-attacking would be difficult.


The Cleric: Had zero fun. Since everyone can heal now, the cleric has basically nothing to set it apart. Unlike the 3.5 cleric, this cleric is definably worse at melee than the fighter and paladin, doesn't deal as much damage as the rogue, and doesn't cast as well as the wizard. Biggest power drop by far. Half-elves are also underpowered.

Huh. I'd have to see it in play to judge, but it certainly looks to me like the cleric can now heal-or-buff and fight at the same time while occasionally dealing out some whupass with his encounter and daily powers.

I mean, it's clearly the class where you're going to have to find satisfaction in being that buffer and facilitator, but the numbers -- mathematically, anyway -- seem to suggest a fairly solid balance. Any given attack is dealing less damage than your 3rd Edition cleric, but it balances out because you're not taking frequent time outs in which you stop dealing damage in order to start dishing out the healing.


The Wizard: Was interesting. I played the Wizard. While there were some interesting spells, it was, once again, quite clear that magic missile stood above the rest. An interesting note, either my DM read the rules wrong, or scorching burst is completely useless. A burst that only affects one square? Why don't I just magic missile him? As well, I didn't even touch ray of frost.

The DM must have gotten the burst rules wrong, as others have noted.

Ray of frost vs. magic missile is more inexplicable to me. It seems like the only time that would be useful is if some creature had a remarkably good Reflex save but a poor Fortitude save.


Sleep is no longer the win button, because it requires a save. The save happens to be made against DC10. Excuse me? Not worth it.

They seem to be employing the same "fix" they gave hold person in 3.5 for these types of spells. Unfortunately, in this case the word "fix" meant "neuter". No one ever used hold person once 3.5 came out because the spell was completely useless. Now sleep can be tossed in the same "waste of time" bucket.

In 3rd Edition I fixed this by having the save-or-die or save-or-paralyze/sleep spells either deal a large amount of flat ability damage when first cast or a small amount of ongoing ability damage until a saving throw as made.

So, for example, hold person might deal 1d4 points of Dex damage each round until the target succeeded at a saving throw. This made the spell mechanically more interesting -- if it went off, the victim would be immediately effected by it but not completely taken out of play. This gave the victim multiple saves to avoid being taken completely out of the battle and it also gave them an opportunity to proactively do something to stop the damage. And even if they did manage to avert catastrophe or make a saving throw, the spell wasn't completely pointless because the ability damage they had suffered was still an impediment -- the spell had still accomplished something.

Since 4th Edition has gotten rid of ability damage, that solution won't work. But I'm sure I'll be able to figure out some way to make these spells work in a way that lands somewhere between the "win button" and the "don't bother" waste of time.

I can't believe they carried over this flawed design from 3.5.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 03:42 AM
Since 4th Edition has gotten rid of ability damage, that solution won't work. But I'm sure I'll be able to figure out some way to make these spells work in a way that lands somewhere between the "win button" and the "don't bother" waste of time.

I can't believe they carried over this flawed design from 3.5.

You know, I've seen Clerics use Hold Person all the time. All it takes is the first failed save, and then someone CdGs them.

Also, Hold Person seems weak compared to, say, Deep Slumber. 4E isn't going to have things like deep slumber. Status effects are all, or mostly, going to be. I don't think that'll make them worthless. It just means you can't land a single power and effectively take an opponent out of the fight.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-12, 03:46 AM
Tengu, that's entirely fair and not at all harsh. I happen to believe that if you avoid a blow you avoid it, and anything that would happen from you not making a hit (scratches and bruises) aren't effective enough to do anything to your character, and therefore not enough to do anything to your HP.

I'm not going to argue strongly with your claim that 4th Edition features dissociated mechanics that have no recognizable or coherent relationship to the game world (because that's clearly the case), but I think your displeasure may be a little off base here.

This particular ability represents the fighter's ability to put up a carefully coordinated flurry of blows which his opponent cannot entirely avoid. It's an artful attack pattern that finds every little flaw in an otherwise perfect defense and uses those flaws to deliver countless scratches and bruises and minor injuries.

There are, of course, ways that truly masterful fighters could avoid such assaults. I would not be in the least surprised to learn that, in the full rulebook, such work-arounds will be found.

If you want to rage about dissociated mechanics, go find a thread talking about the complete nonsense which are the marking mechanics.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-12, 05:34 AM
1: It's Beta. That's the kinda stuff they learn about properly in Beta.

Given the amount of time it takes to print and ship rulebooks all over the world, I think it's fair to say that the rules have most likely been finalized at this point.

Smight
2008-05-12, 06:59 AM
Question about miss damage,
is it that you cant do lethal damage with miss like bringing down enemies below 1 , or that you cant deal damage because he is a mook?
in first case i agree with the rule cause it only means you cant finish off someone with a miss, but if it's other case it's totally ridiculous.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-12, 07:22 AM
Question about miss damage,
is it that you cant do lethal damage with miss like bringing down enemies below 1 , or that you cant deal damage because he is a mook?

The latter. Minions are explicitly defined as immune to damage from missed attacks.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-12, 07:35 AM
I think the problem with sleep is that they didn't read the quick start rules, they just jumped into the game. "Save Ends" is quite clear in the quick start rules... your DM/Group was clinging to the 3rd edition of "Saves".

Also, I had a chance to talk to the group that played the same module that you did. Every one of them had the opposite reaction as you, everyone had fun and a good time.

I may get to play it tonight. :smallbiggrin:

SoD
2008-05-12, 07:44 AM
Paladins get breath weapons? Why? ''I am a person whose extreme devotion to goodness allows me to breath fire! Pshaw!''

SamTheCleric
2008-05-12, 07:45 AM
Because the Paladin is a Dragonborn and dragonborn get breath weapons. :smalltongue:

SoD
2008-05-12, 07:49 AM
Oh, a racial ability, that's acceptable (I was so confused...).

Trust me to forget about 4e races. I was picturing everyone being a standard human.

BlackStaticWolf
2008-05-12, 08:11 AM
Tengu, that's entirely fair and not at all harsh. I happen to believe that if you avoid a blow you avoid it, and anything that would happen from you not making a hit (scratches and bruises) aren't effective enough to do anything to your character, and therefore not enough to do anything to your HP.

And yes, I do think minimum damage could easily represent a glancing blow, HP is an abstract after all.

Ah, but along the veins of HP being an abstract... a loss of HP can represent something that isn't actually a hit at all. For example, it can represent the loss in energy and morale resulting from narrowly dodging that vicious attack.

Saph
2008-05-12, 08:11 AM
Tengu, the "saving throw" is definitely something the "victim" rolls. Death and dying changed, forgot to mention that. Instead of being bleeding from -1 to -9, now, once you go below zero, you get three rounds to make a "saving throw"(which means roll anything above a 10 on a d20) or you die. You also die if you go below your "bloody number" in one hit. So if you're bloodied at 15, an attack that puts you at -15 kills you, apparently with no "saving throw" at all.

Interesting. It looks like they've copied the basic idea of this one over from the Saga rules. In Star Wars Saga, if you drop below zero, you have to make saves after a certain length of time to not die, but if the attack that drops you does more damage than your Fort defence (which happens VERY often), you die instantly.

Star Wars Saga allows you to spend a Force Point to stay alive in that situation, though, and D&D doesn't have Force Points. But it might be pretty difficult to drop someone to negative half their HP in one shot.

- Saph

Tyger
2008-05-12, 08:46 AM
Yeah, the more I read here, and on those character sheets, the more it appears that the majority of the issues you had were simply due to the mis-interpretation of the rules.

1) Rogue's attacks don't require that he move, they actually allow him to move the opponent. Not making it harder to gain combat advantage, actually making it far easier.
2) Wizard's Sleep spell automatically slows the target for at least the one round (assuming a hit) and if they fail their first save, they fall asleep.
3) Wizard's Scorching Burst spell does hit more than one target, its implicit in its description. Ditto the "Blast" effect of the Burning Hands usage. Though without knowing exactly how "blast" is defined this could still be questionable.
4) Cleric did in fact have a number of "buffs" available to him... +2 for my ally to hit the target of the Lance fo Flame? Check! One ally gets to make a free saving throw to throw off an existing effect when I smite with my Sacred Flame? Check! I smack someone and then one of my allies heals? Check! Reduce damage (crit to non-crit) with Armor of Bahamut? Check!

I could go on. But suffice to say, it looks like most of those were simply misunderstanding, or mis-reading of what's written on the character sheets. Now, that is not to say that 4E is the be all and end all that some people make it out to be. But the 'mechanical problems' reported here are not problems in the system, but problems in the understanding of it.

TempusCCK
2008-05-12, 08:55 AM
[/QUOTE]
Of course the majority of your defence against melee attacks comes from from armour, and bonus from the full plate represents the armour's ability to soak up the attack not you sudden improvement in dodge by putting on some 50 kilograms of metal plating, so an attack with miss damage could represent an attack that armour simply cannot fully withstand.

Armor 101- Armor is not designed to absorb, it's designed to deflect. If armor absorbed, then you'd have all kinds of issues. Armor augments your moving the hell out of the way, making it so you have to move less to get the same amount of protection.


[QUOTE= BlackStaticWolf;4312199] Ah, but along the veins of HP being an abstract... a loss of HP can represent something that isn't actually a hit at all. For example, it can represent the loss in energy and morale resulting from narrowly dodging that vicious attack.

Yes, because we all know when your morale get's so low that you roll over and begin to bleed until the point you bleed to death.[insert annoying smiley] Sorry, I don't buy into the whole HP as morale thing. Also, the fact that his attack is so vicious that even if I avoid it, I'm still demoralized.... that's just silly, if anything, not being hit by such an obviously vicious attack should make me feel pretty good about my ability to move out of the way, assuming of course I have the ability to feel good about my accomplishments.

The more I think about it the less sense it makes, justify it with HP as morale in your games if you so choose, however, to me, HP is solid damage, if you don't make a hit, there is no reason damage should be dealt. This ability just seems like a transparent cop out to make melee-types feel better about themselves in combat.

Tyger
2008-05-12, 09:02 AM
Well, off the original point, and on to the Hit Point thing...

I have always had to consider Hit Points as a really abstract thing. Otherwise, "it just don't make no sense." Let's assume that a STR 20 Raging Barbarian hits my character with a Greataxe. Let's further assume that he hit my unarmored character for his maximum damage possible... say 25 points after all his various bonuses. And lets say that my unarmored character has 30 hit points.

That means, in "real" terms, that I was just hit, about as hard as it is possible to be hit, with a razor sharp piece of steel that weighs more than my head. I am dead. No question, no discussion. Yet, I still have 5 hit points left, so I am not...

If HP are not an abstraction, they just don't make any sense at all. To me.

Charity
2008-05-12, 09:09 AM
How about a STR 6 halfling performs a CDG on an average incapacitated 5 HP human ... yup a 1 in 20 chance of killing him out right and that isn't from HP damage, of course they are an abstraction they simply have no real life equivilant nothing has change here, move along.

fendrin
2008-05-12, 09:22 AM
Armor 101- Armor is not designed to absorb, it's designed to deflect. If armor absorbed, then you'd have all kinds of issues. Armor augments your moving the hell out of the way, making it so you have to move less to get the same amount of protection.
Minor corrections: medieval plate armor was designed to deflect. Chain was designed to convert slashing/piercing attacks into blunt-force trauma, a padded hauberk was there to cushion against blunt force trauma (and protect against chaffing). That's why a heavily armored knight would wear all three.
Medieval armor wasn't designed to only work in one way, as there were a multitude of types of attacks to be defended against.

Modern armor on the other hand (such as a kevlar vest), is mostly designed to ablate and absorb damage. Newer advancements are being made to protect against slashing/piercing attacks (a sharp knife can cut through kevlar like, well, a hot knife through butter).

The point is that armor is far to complex to be accurately represented in just one way.


Yes, because we all know when your morale get's so low that you roll over and begin to bleed until the point you bleed to death.[insert annoying smiley] Sorry, I don't buy into the whole HP as morale thing. Also, the fact that his attack is so vicious that even if I avoid it, I'm still demoralized.... that's just silly, if anything, not being hit by such an obviously vicious attack should make me feel pretty good about my ability to move out of the way, assuming of course I have the ability to feel good about my accomplishments.
Yeah, I don't buy into HP as morale either. Otherwise, Intimidate would do damage, and we wouldn't have fear statuses.


The more I think about it the less sense it makes, justify it with HP as morale in your games if you so choose, however, to me, HP is solid damage, if you don't make a hit, there is no reason damage should be dealt. This ability just seems like a transparent cop out to make melee-types feel better about themselves in combat.
Here's my take on it. In 3e we are told that a single attack roll is actually a representation of numerous exchanges in which the combatants are prodding each other's defenses, trying to find an opening, and the attack roll represents that one 'opening'. As a fencer and eastern martial artist, that makes a ton more sense than the mechanically obvious interpretation of only swinging a sword once per six seconds.

Now, with this power, a fighter is not just prodding your defenses while looking for an opening, he's scoring a number of small, individually insignificant cuts while looking for an opening. Those small cuts don't do much, but two or three of them per round adds up to a few HP lost... even if the 'opening' never appears (i.e. no successful attack roll).

Charity
2008-05-12, 09:51 AM
(a sharp knife can cut through kevlar like, well, a hot knife through butter)
Sorry but
http://image.ec21.com/image/chsafety/oimg_GC00741213_CA00741229/Kevlar_Anti-cut_Gloves.jpg
This is a picture of some Kevlar anti-cut gloves, I sell them they work against even very sharp knives, they are no good against stabbing but that is due to the weave not the kevlar which is very difficult to cut.
but this does at least go to further support your point

The point is that armor is far to complex to be accurately represented in just one way.



Stuff about HP.
I'm sure we've been here before, how do you explain the Coup de grace (i.e. stab in the eye/neck/squishy bits that has no chance of being fatal (through HP damage)) it makes no sense to try to model them as one thing or the other.
HP's display moral-injury duality all good physicist/physicians know this.

Oslecamo
2008-05-12, 10:19 AM
I'm sure we've been here before, how do you explain the Coup de grace (i.e. stab in the eye/neck/squishy bits that has no chance of being fatal (through HP damage)) it makes no sense to try to model them as one thing or the other.
HP's display moral-injury duality all good physicist/physicians know this.

Yeah, because we all know how having an high moral will allow you to do acrobatic swiming inside lava and come out breathing.

Coup de graces demand fort save. Fort shows how tough you are, not how high your moral is. That would be will save. If someone cuts your neck arteria, you'll probably go in shock and die due to the blood loss, but if you're naturally tough and are used to pain/injuries there is a chance you may still keep going.

Just like there's plenty of cases of people who got shot in the head and manage to survive, or suffer other equally awfull things and live to tell the tale. That is making sucessfull fort saves against death.

Anyway, it's that hard to imagine that the characters are indeed geting tougher and tougher after enduring severe punishment during their career, and that they become able to laugh at injuries that would kill untrained people?

fendrin
2008-05-12, 11:01 AM
Sorry but
http://image.ec21.com/image/chsafety/oimg_GC00741213_CA00741229/Kevlar_Anti-cut_Gloves.jpg
This is a picture of some Kevlar anti-cut gloves, I sell them they work against even very sharp knives, they are no good against stabbing but that is due to the weave not the kevlar which is very difficult to cut.
but this does at least go to further support your point

Perhaps I should have said 'stabs through kevlar', but who stabs butter? Perhaps it seemed like I was referring to 3e weapon damage types. that was not my intent.


I'm sure we've been here before, how do you explain the Coup de grace (i.e. stab in the eye/neck/squishy bits that has no chance of being fatal (through HP damage)) it makes no sense to try to model them as one thing or the other.
HP's display moral-injury duality all good physicist/physicians know this.

I certainly wouldn't say that coup de gras kills by demoralizing.

HP is an abstraction, and like all abstractions, is not 100% accurate. Besides, what I said was a perfectly valid rational explanation of Reaping Strike or whatever it was called without relying on a particular explanation of HP as anything other than physical trauma. Why argue it if it works?

BlackStaticWolf
2008-05-12, 11:26 AM
Sorry, I don't buy into the whole HP as morale thing. Also, the fact that his attack is so vicious that even if I avoid it, I'm still demoralized.... that's just silly, if anything, not being hit by such an obviously vicious attack should make me feel pretty good about my ability to move out of the way, assuming of course I have the ability to feel good about my accomplishments.

Spoken like someone who's never dodged a full force swing from a large opponent. :smalltongue: There are two real ways that morale can factor into HP in a negative way after that vicious attack:

1) You narrowly dodge and now your heart is pounding and you have to suppress the thought: Oh my god, I'm going to die. This, in turn makes you shaken and now your own mind is working towards your defeat.

2) You narrowly dodge and now you're thinking: Ha! I can do this! He's mine! Which in turn, inspires an unintended dropping of your guard and now you're leaving openings where you weren't before.


The more I think about it the less sense it makes, justify it with HP as morale in your games if you so choose, however, to me, HP is solid damage, if you don't make a hit, there is no reason damage should be dealt. This ability just seems like a transparent cop out to make melee-types feel better about themselves in combat.

You're not thinking abstract enough. HP as abstraction isn't just morale. It's not just stamina. And it's not just good solid hits. In other words, in my view, the only way the HP system makes any sense whatsoever is if it doesn't model any remotely serious hits until your HP is almost completely depleted.

Because well... quite frankly, if a person takes a solid hit from say... a hand axe... he croaks. Or loses a hand. Or loses the ability to fight very effectively.

Of course, even as an abstraction, HP models this absolutely horribly.

That's why I use the Vitality/Wound system in my games. :smallwink:

Keld Denar
2008-05-12, 11:35 AM
The thing is, from what I've seen when I went to DDXP, is that all daily powers do something on a miss. The miss effect is minor, but still something. One of the paladin's dailys does like 3d8+cha damage on a hit, and 1d8 on a miss. If it hits, the target gains a debuff. If they hit anyone with the debuff on, they take 1d8 damage. A save ends this effect. The save is made at the beginning of the affected persons turn. SIMILARLY, a wizards sleep spell puts a slows a target on a successful hit, or slows them for 1 round on a miss. If the wizard hits, then on the creatures turn, it can make a save. If it makes it, its mearly slowed for (I think) 3 rounds. If it fails, it falls asleep. A succcessful save ends the sleep. Its a daily power, its ment to be strong, even on a miss, because you can only do it once a day.

As far as effects having lesser effect even on a unsuccessful attack, consider spells like Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Destruction, and a handful of others. A failed save means death or massive damage. A successful save means a smaller amount of damage, but less certain death. In 4.0, since the traditional "save" mechanic was replaced by an attack roll, its still the same. If you miss with your attack with Finger of Death, the target's fortitude fends off the bulk of your arcane might, but a little bit of him still dies inside. Its not a totally abstract concept, why can't you accept it? Apply the same thing to physical attacks. Just because you avoided most of the damage, doesn't mean you still don't get grazed or hit. I don't care who you are, getting sliced by a sword that penetrates even a 1/4 inch through your squishy bits is gonna hurt like hell. And from what I've seen, its mostly only daily powers that have affects even if you miss, because they are supposed to be encounter changing events, even if you roll a 1.

Draz74
2008-05-12, 12:04 PM
On effect sizes:

"Burst" sizes do not include the square they are centered on. "Burst 1" means a target square, and all squares within 1 of it -- i.e. 9 squares in a 3x3 pattern.

"Blast" sizes do include all squares in them. "Blast 3" means a 3x3 pattern, or 9 squares.

So Burst 2 and Blast 5 affect the same area. Burst 3 and Blast 7 affect the same area. "Blast 1" would indeed be useless, unless there are rules for more than one creature in the same square; but "Burst 1" is far from useless.

On the HP abstraction and Reaping Strike issue: what's wrong with seeing HP as representing Stamina, and Reaping Strike being an attack that requires a greater-than-usual effort and expenditure of energy to dodge? So you can take 4 damage from a missed Reaping Strike because you got pretty tired, maybe even pulled a muscle slightly, making the mighty effort to dodge the attack.

On the "mooks immune to miss-damage" thing ... you have to fluff it up. You attacked the mook with a Reaping Strike, and it missed, and you did no damage because it's a mook? Describe it as a grazing strike or a really-hard-to-avoid attack, just like any other missed Reaping Strike. Describe the mook as scratched or winded or whatever. It's just that, OOC, he hasn't taken any HP damage. The only thing that really doesn't make sense about this system is that you can't wear a mook down and kill him with lots of token-damage-on-missed-attacks effects, like you can do with a normal monster. But, since he dies with one "hit" of any sort, we're supposed to overlook this little inconsistency.

fendrin
2008-05-12, 12:19 PM
And from what I've seen, its mostly only daily powers that have affects even if you miss, because they are supposed to be encounter changing events, even if you roll a 1.

Except that the fighter can do it at will with Reaping Strike.

Other than that, good points.

Keld Denar
2008-05-12, 12:39 PM
Except that the fighter can do it at will with Reaping Strike.

Other than that, good points.

Ah, I didn't know that. The sample Dwarf Fighter from DDXP had Cleave and Tide of Iron as his 2 at will powers. The daily he had was called Brute Strike, which did 3[W] + str? damage. It did no damage if it missed, but unlike most encounter or daily powers, it was not consumed if it missed, meaning the fighter could attack with it again the next round again and again if it missed until it finally hit and was consumed.

Chronicled
2008-05-12, 12:56 PM
You know, I've seen Clerics use Hold Person all the time. All it takes is the first failed save, and then someone CdGs them.

Also, Hold Person seems weak compared to, say, Deep Slumber. 4E isn't going to have things like deep slumber. Status effects are all, or mostly, going to be. I don't think that'll make them worthless. It just means you can't land a single power and effectively take an opponent out of the fight.

The Beguiler in my last campaign loved Hold Person and Hold Monster. He found that they're quite effective when used after Slow, as you need a full-round action to get out of Hold _____, and Slow denies you that full-round action (unless I'm misunderstanding the rules).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-12, 12:57 PM
Nope, what slow does means you have to spend two rounds to get out of it. You can take partial actions to wiggle free.

tyckspoon
2008-05-12, 01:09 PM
The Beguiler in my last campaign loved Hold Person and Hold Monster. He found that they're quite effective when used after Slow, as you need a full-round action to get out of Hold _____, and Slow denies you that full-round action (unless I'm misunderstanding the rules).

They'd have to use the Start/Complete Full Round Action standard action. Still pretty effective if you have something you really need to lock down even after successfully applying Slow.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 01:16 PM
Yeah, the more I read here, and on those character sheets, the more it appears that the majority of the issues you had were simply due to the mis-interpretation of the rules.

1) Rogue's attacks don't require that he move, they actually allow him to move the opponent. Not making it harder to gain combat advantage, actually making it far easier.
2) Wizard's Sleep spell automatically slows the target for at least the one round (assuming a hit) and if they fail their first save, they fall asleep.
3) Wizard's Scorching Burst spell does hit more than one target, its implicit in its description. Ditto the "Blast" effect of the Burning Hands usage. Though without knowing exactly how "blast" is defined this could still be questionable.
4) Cleric did in fact have a number of "buffs" available to him... +2 for my ally to hit the target of the Lance fo Flame? Check! One ally gets to make a free saving throw to throw off an existing effect when I smite with my Sacred Flame? Check! I smack someone and then one of my allies heals? Check! Reduce damage (crit to non-crit) with Armor of Bahamut? Check!

I could go on. But suffice to say, it looks like most of those were simply misunderstanding, or mis-reading of what's written on the character sheets. Now, that is not to say that 4E is the be all and end all that some people make it out to be. But the 'mechanical problems' reported here are not problems in the system, but problems in the understanding of it.

1)No, the rogue has 2 at will powers. One of them was worded in a way that makes it seem useless. I get to move an extra two squares before I attack? Yay, I can leave the party even farther behind. I also fail to see how hitting someone I'm right next to and sliding them three squares(meaning I have to chase them next turn) makes it easier to gain combat advantage. Of course, up until this point in my life, I had been thinking you had to move people in straight lines, which, now that I think about it, doesn't really make sense. These powers seem more useful now. I really hope I get to play the rogue next time.
2)They do fall asleep but they get a "highs/lows check" each round to wake up.
3)I thought it was implicit in the rules too, but "Rules as Implied" and "Rules as Written" are two different things. It would've been nice to have an explanation right out where it could be seen. I'm not trying to just completely hate on 4th, but the power descriptions don't appear written very well, I can't speak to the quick-start rules :smallannoyed:
4)The cleric used Lance of Flame almost every round, the problem was that she either never hit with it, or there was no one else attacking that enemy. Of course, the obvious answer here is that she was using the wrong damn power but I also said I will reserve judgment on this class because it didn't seem like it was played very well last night.

I think, honestly, that while some of the trouble may have come from misunderstanding the system. However, as someone who was capable of grasping everything in 3.5 except grapple rules and LA+Racial HD after one night with the SRD, I think part of it may be 4th's(or the book's) fault in being hard to understand.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 01:26 PM
1)No, the rogue has 2 at will powers. One of them was worded in a way that makes it seem useless. I get to move an extra two squares before I attack? Yay, I can leave the party even farther behind. I also fail to see how hitting someone I'm right next to and sliding them three squares(meaning I have to chase them next turn) makes it easier to gain combat advantage. Of course, up until this point in my life, I had been thinking you had to move people in straight lines, which, now that I think about it, doesn't really make sense. These powers seem more useful now. I really hope I get to play the rogue next time.
I think your group's rogue just... Cunning Plan, All the Way Through, etc.

Look, what happens if you're two squares from an enemy, move up, and attack? You still have a move action left. You can get away from them. Even if you provoke an AoO, that's still a lot better than being subject to the offensive powers of them and their buddy.

What happens if you go up to a big enemy, hit it... and move it next to the Fighter? The Fighter's abilities kick in, and the creature has a hard time getting away... which means that it can't go tear the rogue's guts out, thus preventing him from taking all that damage he was taking.


2)They do fall asleep but they get a "highs/lows check" each round to wake up.
Which is fair enough. One round of sleeping is enough for at least one person to brutalize their sleeping enemy. Is Coup de Grace still around?
Sleep no longer ends fights. That just puts it on par with everyone else's powers.


I think, honestly, that while some of the trouble may have come from misunderstanding the system. However, as someone who was capable of grasping everything in 3.5 except grapple rules and LA+Racial HD after one night with the SRD, I think part of it may be 4th's(or the book's) fault in being hard to understand.
Probably the book. I guess they were trying to make it runnable without explaining everything (leaving some stuff for the PHB release).

Tyger
2008-05-12, 01:41 PM
1)No, the rogue has 2 at will powers. One of them was worded in a way that makes it seem useless. I get to move an extra two squares before I attack? Yay, I can leave the party even farther behind.

If you have initiative, and thus still have combat advantage, that's pretty sweet, no? You can get in further and faster than the rest of the party, getting behind the enemy to take advatage of flanking...


I also fail to see how hitting someone I'm right next to and sliding them three squares(meaning I have to chase them next turn) makes it easier to gain combat advantage. Of course, up until this point in my life, I had been thinking you had to move people in straight lines, which, now that I think about it, doesn't really make sense. These powers seem more useful now. I really hope I get to play the rogue next time.

Yeah, think more about moving them into a position where you can now flank them. Suddenly it seems a whole lot better. :)


2)They do fall asleep but they get a "highs/lows check" each round to wake up.

Well, its a first level spell. And, a 50/50 chance of waking up is also a 50/50 chance of not waking up. And a sleeping opponent is quite often a dead opponent in one round. :)


3)I thought it was implicit in the rules too, but "Rules as Implied" and "Rules as Written" are two different things. It would've been nice to have an explanation right out where it could be seen. I'm not trying to just completely hate on 4th, but the power descriptions don't appear written very well, I can't speak to the quick-start rules :smallannoyed:

Well, it sounds like the definition of burst just was not read or not followed. Now, I haven't seen the books yet, so its possible that "Burst" was never defined, in either the PHB or DMG... but I strongly doubt it. And are you working from full copies of the books? Or just some pre-release stuff?


4)The cleric used Lance of Flame almost every round, the problem was that she either never hit with it, or there was no one else attacking that enemy. Of course, the obvious answer here is that she was using the wrong damn power but I also said I will reserve judgment on this class because it didn't seem like it was played very well last night.

Yeah, that is just bad tactics on the part of the player, not a bad mechanic. Glad to hear you are going to give it another chance. Even Timestop looks weak if the player doesn't take advantage of it appropriately. :)


I think, honestly, that while some of the trouble may have come from misunderstanding the system. However, as someone who was capable of grasping everything in 3.5 except grapple rules and LA+Racial HD after one night with the SRD, I think part of it may be 4th's(or the book's) fault in being hard to understand.

Yeah, and here again I have to ask if you have a full copy (which I wasn't aware they were doing, but my Google Fu is tired today and I don't have quite enough interest to search through a few hundred forums to see if they pre-released actual book copies or not... :smallbiggrin:

skywalker
2008-05-12, 01:42 PM
I think your group's rogue just... Cunning Plan, All the Way Through, etc.

Look, what happens if you're two squares from an enemy, move up, and attack? You still have a move action left. You can get away from them. Even if you provoke an AoO, that's still a lot better than being subject to the offensive powers of them and their buddy.

What happens if you go up to a big enemy, hit it... and move it next to the Fighter? The Fighter's abilities kick in, and the creature has a hard time getting away... which means that it can't go tear the rogue's guts out, thus preventing him from taking all that damage he was taking. Well, deft strike never came up usefully. There was either needing to move more than two squares to get to the opponent, or not wanting to move because of combat advantage. As well, the rogue got scorched during a surprise round, then had lower initiative than the kobolds, which equaled lots of pain.
I think that if we had had a better understanding of the way the fighter's stickiness power worked, the "moving the enemy next to the fighter trick" would've worked, but honestly I don't think anybody saw that the fighter gets all those AoOs until the end.



Which is fair enough. One round of sleeping is enough for at least one person to brutalize their sleeping enemy. Is Coup de Grace still around?
Sleep no longer ends fights. That just puts it on par with everyone else's powers.Nobody mentioned Coup de Grace *shrug*



Probably the book. I guess they were trying to make it runnable without explaining everything (leaving some stuff for the PHB release).
In fact, the only thing we were allowed to read(2-3 pages of "This is D&D") said "These are only the quick start rules. If you want to actually play the real version of this game, go by the PHB." :smallsigh:

AKA_Bait
2008-05-12, 01:45 PM
Well, the GM doesn't want to roll 40! different! Saving throws! So it's no different from 3.5.

Without getting into the proposed houserules, I'd point out that in 3.5 a DM with a Fireball lovin' mage can preroll the expected reflex saves of the mooks ahead of time, thereby saving time in combat. The player can't do that.


1: It's Beta. That's the kinda stuff they learn about properly in Beta.

They want me to pay for Beta?

Rutee
2008-05-12, 01:54 PM
Without getting into the proposed houserules, I'd point out that in 3.5 a DM with a Fireball lovin' mage can preroll the expected reflex saves of the mooks ahead of time, thereby saving time in combat. The player can't do that.
Uh. Yeah they can. It's the same thing.




They want me to pay for Beta?
You have to pay for keep from shadowfell? SCREW THAT! Every other company offers their previews for free. WTF!?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 01:55 PM
Well, deft strike never came up usefully. There was either needing to move more than two squares to get to the opponent, or not wanting to move because of combat advantage. As well, the rogue got scorched during a surprise round, then had lower initiative than the kobolds, which equaled lots of pain.
I think that if we had had a better understanding of the way the fighter's stickiness power worked, the "moving the enemy next to the fighter trick" would've worked, but honestly I don't think anybody saw that the fighter gets all those AoOs until the end.
Man, yeah, taking advantage of the fighter's stickiness seeems like one of the most basic uses of that power.
I can imagine lots of other ways for it to come in handy--from pushing an opponent next to a couple more for the wizard to Acid Orb them, to pushing a Paladin-marked enemy far enough from the Paladin that they can't get to him (either preventing an attack, or having the Divine Challenge kick in and do damage when it attacks you).
I kinda want to play a 4E rogue now. It seems like they're going to be especially tactical.


Nobody mentioned Coup de Grace *shrug*
might not've been included in quick start. I find it hard to believe you can't whack a sleeping enemy without some kind of major advantage.


In fact, the only thing we were allowed to read(2-3 pages of "This is D&D") said "These are only the quick start rules. If you want to actually play the real version of this game, go by the PHB." :smallsigh:
Which is fair enough, for a quick-start preview, really.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-12, 01:55 PM
You're not thinking abstract enough. HP as abstraction isn't just morale. It's not just stamina. And it's not just good solid hits. In other words, in my view, the only way the HP system makes any sense whatsoever is if it doesn't model any remotely serious hits until your HP is almost completely depleted.

Explaining Hit Points (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/explaining-hit-points.html)


They want me to pay for Beta?

Well, sure! They already asked you to pay for their advertising copy, right? :smallbiggrin:

SamTheCleric
2008-05-12, 02:04 PM
I'll be running Keep on Shadowfell as a regular adventure, the first in my home game which will start up in August. I'm also gonna run it with the preview characters for some other people locally...

So buying it isn't that big of a deal for me... you can still use it when the full rules come out as a good "kickstart" for a campaign, taking you from level 1 to 3.

Draz74
2008-05-12, 02:43 PM
might not've been included in quick start. I find it hard to believe you can't whack a sleeping enemy without some kind of major advantage.

Some kind, yes. But coup de grace, I think, actually is out. Since full-round actions don't exist anymore, and all.

What does the DDM Rules pdf say about the Helpless condition, again? I think it was that you automatically crit the targe with a melee attack. So auto-crit is nice, especially with something like a pick, but it's not as lethal as coup de grace used to be.

... again, keeping Sleep from being a "win button" anymore.

Talya
2008-05-12, 02:48 PM
I'll sound harsh: then don't play 4e. Wizards finally started to realize that ...


I don't plan to. And if they have "realized" that, they realized wrong. D&D has been the most popular RPG for decades, not because of "balance."

AKA_Bait
2008-05-12, 02:48 PM
Uh. Yeah they can. It's the same thing.

Not really. For one thing, there is a big game table difference bettween the DM prerolling and a PC doing so. For another, the DM knows they will be throwing a bunch of mooks at the PC's. The PC's do not know a bunch of mooks will be coming after them that session.



You have to pay for keep from shadowfell? SCREW THAT! Every other company offers their previews for free. WTF!?


Well, sure! They already asked you to pay for their advertising copy, right?

Sad but true.


I'll be running Keep on Shadowfell as a regular adventure, the first in my home game which will start up in August. I'm also gonna run it with the preview characters for some other people locally...

So buying it isn't that big of a deal for me... you can still use it when the full rules come out as a good "kickstart" for a campaign, taking you from level 1 to 3.

My point is only that it is either a Beta or not. If it's a Beta, there can be a lot more flaws and problems with it that are excusable, because at least usually, beta tests of things are free or massivley discounted. KoS is neither, so if it's a beta, charging us for it is not exactly up my alley. If it's not, then problems with clarity and adventure design are no so easily excused.

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 03:00 PM
I don't plan to. And if they have "realized" that, they realized wrong. D&D has been the most popular RPG for decades, not because of "balance."

smart marketing moves?

About this hitting automatically even if they avoid the hit, can this be used by foes as well? Because i know that some PCs might whine if they are killed by a shot that they avoided anyways
from
EE

Vortling
2008-05-12, 03:04 PM
My point is only that it is either a Beta or not. If it's a Beta, there can be a lot more flaws and problems with it that are excusable, because at least usually, beta tests of things are free or massivley discounted. KoS is neither, so if it's a beta, charging us for it is not exactly up my alley. If it's not, then problems with clarity and adventure design are no so easily excused.

This. WotC need to get with the times. How are they going to attract the video game generation of people who expect demos to be cheap or free with the "pay for preview" attitude they've got going?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-12, 03:36 PM
smart marketing moves?

About this hitting automatically even if they avoid the hit, can this be used by foes as well? Because i know that some PCs might whine if they are killed by a shot that they avoided anyways
from
EE

Sure they do.... just look at Earth Shock from today's Giant preview:



Earth Shock (standard; encounter)
Close burst 2; +18 vs. Fortitude; 2d10 + 6 damage, and the target is stunned until the end of the earth titan’s next turn. Miss: Half damage, and the target is not stunned.

fendrin
2008-05-12, 03:37 PM
While I would have loved to see a free preview scenario, I would not expect a 96-page hardcover book for free!

SamTheCleric
2008-05-12, 03:43 PM
If it's not, then problems with clarity and adventure design are no so easily excused.

Also... This is just one account of the Preview game. I've heard that the rules are perfectly fine... and I've even skimmed the Quick Start Rules myself, and it all seems laid out fine.

There is also a DM guide that comes with it that I would imagine covers more of the rules. I wouldn't base everything off of Skywalker's account, as it seems like he had a lot of things go wrong.

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 04:02 PM
Sure they do.... just look at Earth Shock from today's Giant preview:

1) Can they take the class and get teh same ability however?
2) Your right. Well i can imagine some PCs making a big deal about that some time in the future
from
EE

skywalker
2008-05-12, 04:14 PM
smart marketing moves?

About this hitting automatically even if they avoid the hit, can this be used by foes as well? Because i know that some PCs might whine if they are killed by a shot that they avoided anyways
from
EE

I'm not sure. The kobold fighters we fought were just that, fighters. However, none of them seemed to be using powers, besides a kobold racial ability that allows you to shift twice in a round, instead of once. So I'm not sure. My first instinct said yes, they can. But we'll see.

As for what rules these are and whether they are final, this is the *dealer demo* of Keep on the Shadowfell that others have mentioned. As someone else suggested, I'm fairly certain the Keep on the Shadowfell books are already printed, and there is nothing mentioned to suggest that this is "beta" or "a test" or anything else. This seems like a straight copy(albeit in a soft cover folder, not hardcover) of H1: Keep on the Shadowfell.

fendrin
2008-05-12, 04:24 PM
Yeah, I flipped through the dealer demo a few minutes ago. I doubt that the book version will be any different, It's just that the dealer demo copies were printed and bound in a much cheaper (and faster) method so that they could be in the stores sooner.

However, this is still a preview product, and there may be rules differences between H1 and the PHB. Probably nothing major, though.

I would still place bets on the problems being due to consumer error (DM and/or players). Anyone in tech support knows that human error is the #1 problem... :smallannoyed:

Starbuck_II
2008-05-12, 04:31 PM
I'm not sure. The kobold fighters we fought were just that, fighters. However, none of them seemed to be using powers, besides a kobold racial ability that allows you to shift twice in a round, instead of once. So I'm not sure. My first instinct said yes, they can. But we'll see.


Are you sure those aren't kobold Dragonshields?
They had these stats...

Kobold Dragon Shield Level 2 Soldier
Small Natural Humanoid XP 125
Initiative +4 Senses Perception+2, Darkvision
HP 36/18 AC 18; Fortitude 14, Reflex 13, Will 13; see also trap sense
Speed 6
Short Sword (standard; at-will) • Weapon +7 vs. AC; 1d6+3 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the Kobold dragonshield’s next turn.
DragonShield Tactics (immediate reaction, when an adjacent enemy shifts away or an enemy moves adjacent; at-will) .
The kobold DragonShield shifts 1 square.
Mob Attack The kobold dragonshield gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls per kobold ally adjacent to the target.
Shifty (minor, at-will) The kobold shifts 1 square as a minor action.
Trap Sense The kobold gains a +2 bonus to all defenses against traps.
Alignment Evil. Languages Draconic. Skills Acrobatics +8, stealth +10, Thievery +10. Str 8 (-1) Dex 16 (+3) Con 11 (+0) Wis 10 (+0) Int 6 (-2) Cha 15 (+2).
Equipment scale armor, heavy shield, short sword.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 04:37 PM
I would still place bets on the problems being due to consumer error (DM and/or players). Anyone in tech support knows that human error is the #1 problem... :smallannoyed:
This is why you aren't allowed to do sales, and they only let you talk to people who have already bought the product. :smallbiggrin:

Starbuck, yes, they were dragon shields. I am quite positive. But I was told they had fighter levels, when it is obvious from the stats you posted that they do not. C'est La Vie. I retract my earlier statement about them being fighters.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-12, 05:34 PM
About this hitting automatically even if they avoid the hit, can this be used by foes as well? Because i know that some PCs might whine if they are killed by a shot that they avoided anyways

Do they complain about fireball or similar effects in previous editions?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-12, 05:36 PM
I like that the power is called "Shifty"... it's just so... evocative.

You can just picture him like this..

>_> .... <_< .... >_<

Rutee
2008-05-12, 05:39 PM
Not really. For one thing, there is a big game table difference bettween the DM prerolling and a PC doing so. For another, the DM knows they will be throwing a bunch of mooks at the PC's. The PC's do not know a bunch of mooks will be coming after them that session.
"Hm. I'm at the bottom of the Init, and I'm probably going to toss a fireball on my action. Mind if I roll now?"

fendrin
2008-05-12, 05:56 PM
Do they complain about fireball or similar effects in previous editions?

Also, it's 3 hp. That's it. Compare that to 3.5 Burning Hands and it's really not game breaking at all. (.5 HP more on average if the mob makes BH's ref save, but BH can hit multiple targets)

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 05:59 PM
Do they complain about fireball or similar effects in previous editions?

When they take full damage despite having a positive reflect save, then yes

I don't really mind the power, i just can imagine that PCs complaining about it
from
EE

fendrin
2008-05-12, 06:00 PM
"Hm. I'm at the bottom of the Init, and I'm probably going to toss a fireball on my action. Mind if I roll now?"

How about this: make one attack roll, and compare it to each of the bad guys' defense + 10. The defense roll thing adds some variability, but not enough (in my opinion) to justify the extra combat time.

It's the old option of 'the players make all the rolls' flipped around a bit.

Draz74
2008-05-12, 06:01 PM
When they take full damage despite having a positive reflect save, then yes

Who said anything about any 4e power dealing full damage on a miss?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-12, 06:07 PM
How about this: make one attack roll, and compare it to each of the bad guys' defense + 10. The defense roll thing adds some variability, but not enough (in my opinion) to justify the extra combat time.

It's the old option of 'the players make all the rolls' flipped around a bit.

I believe that you roll vs the defense of each target separately...so if your sleep were to hit 3 kobolds, you'd roll an attack roll against each one. Which, really, is just the opposite of them each making saving throws separately. :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 06:23 PM
Who said anything about any 4e power dealing full damage on a miss?

No it is the idea. For example, a really nasty power hurting you, fine. Save or die? Well broken, but in theory fine. An attack that if it hits you and your family will burst into a pink cloud (one that in theory you might get your self). Fine. However when you actually dodge it, instead of getting off, as you should because of your niffty high roll, you take damage (however slight) anyways, no matter what you do. It is like rolling your reflex save then taking the full damage anyways, or at least more than you should. It isn't a major complaint, or even my complaint, i can just see it happen. True if i were teh DM i'd just go "yeah, life isn't fair, next turn" but i can see the idea of the complaint
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 06:37 PM
EE.

How is an attack that misses and then deals less damage... any different from a fireball where you make your save and take less damage? The Fireball that "misses" does a lot more of its damage than the missed Reaving Strike, even.

Farmer42
2008-05-12, 06:39 PM
And why would you even tell the players if they made their save or not? The either take damage or they don't, that's all they need to know.

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 06:42 PM
EE.

How is an attack that misses and then deals less damage... any different from a fireball where you make your save and take less damage? The Fireball that "misses" does a lot more of its damage than the missed Reaving Strike, even.
Because with the fire ball, you know your screwed ether way. While with the normal attack, the general understanding is, is that if you avoid the swing, your good. If you don't, then you aren't happy. It is like if they cast stun on you and even after making your save, you took a minus anyways. Personally i like it, however i can see why some people wouldn't. Ironically, the people who wouldn't like it seem to be the ones who promote player empowerment
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 06:45 PM
Because with the fire ball, you know your screwed ether way. While with the normal attack, the general understanding is, is that if you avoid the swing, your good. If you don't, then you aren't happy. It is like if they cast stun on you and even after making your save, you took a minus anyways.

Stun Ray, from the SpC. Stuns for 1d4+1 rounds on a failed Fort save, for 1 on a successful one. In core, Ray of Exhaustion still fatigues you on a successful save.

I'm guessing Reaving Strike isn't the only "damage on a miss" power in 4E, so even the few players who would be shocked (shocked, I say!) at taking damage from a melee miss will no doubt get used to that sort of thing. Besides which, 3 damage isn't enough to kill anyone.

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 06:50 PM
Stun Ray, from the SpC. Stuns for 1d4+1 rounds on a failed Fort save, for 1 on a successful one. In core, Ray of Exhaustion still fatigues you on a successful save.

I'm guessing Reaving Strike isn't the only "damage on a miss" power in 4E, so even the few players who would be shocked (shocked, I say!) at taking damage from a melee miss will no doubt get used to that sort of thing. Besides which, 3 damage isn't enough to kill anyone.

somebody 3 points away from death
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 06:53 PM
somebody 3 points away from death
from
EE

Somebody 3 points away from death is unconscious and, presumably, gets auto-hit.

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 06:56 PM
Somebody 3 points away from death is unconscious and, presumably, gets auto-hit.

i don't know, bleeding bodies can move pretty fast

But anyways, i would imagine it would get annoying. 3 hits every round adds up. also 3 hits away from zero? Ouch

Oh well
from
EE

Project_Mayhem
2008-05-12, 07:10 PM
How is an attack that misses and then deals less damage... any different from a fireball where you make your save and take less damage? The Fireball that "misses" does a lot more of its damage than the missed Reaving Strike, even.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a class ability or something that worked like evasion.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 07:14 PM
I believe that you roll vs the defense of each target separately...so if your sleep were to hit 3 kobolds, you'd roll an attack roll against each one. Which, really, is just the opposite of them each making saving throws separately. :smallbiggrin:

To me, it always made more sense, verisimilitudinally, for them to make separate saves. To me, it's much more realistic to say, "well, this guy was feeling particularly ornery so he didn't go to sleep, but this guy wasn't as pissed off." As opposed to the caster rolling separate attack rolls, the only explanation for one person falling asleep and the other not is "Well, you were feeling really powerful when you cast it at him, but not so much at him." To which I respond "I only cast one spell!!!"

As for the 3HP from death argument, there is no 3HP from death. Unless your "bloodied number" is 3(which I'm fairly sure is impossible under the new rules), then you can't die from a hit that does 3 damage. You can only start dying, and then have to make your saves.
EDIT: Even more explanation, 3 per turn can't stack to your bloodied number. You have to be dealt enough damage to be bloodied in one hit to die from it, if anyone was confused.

Ralfarius
2008-05-12, 07:31 PM
To me, it always made more sense, verisimilitudinally, for them to make separate saves. To me, it's much more realistic to say, "well, this guy was feeling particularly ornery so he didn't go to sleep, but this guy wasn't as pissed off." As opposed to the caster rolling separate attack rolls, the only explanation for one person falling asleep and the other not is "Well, you were feeling really powerful when you cast it at him, but not so much at him." To which I respond "I only cast one spell!!!"
But... Couldn't you give the 'resisted the effect' explanation for caster attack rolls? I mean, it's still a check between a spell and a defence, the only real difference is the player gets to roll the dice.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-12, 07:36 PM
For those of you who don't like the taking damage on a miss rule, you can can use house rules like the following.

Every defense can have 2 values, the second one being 7 lower then the regular one. If you role above the first defense value, that means you did a complete hit. If you roll below the first defense value, but still above the second one, it means you almost hit. In that case you do the damage , or effect, that is indicated in the miss section. If you get below the second defense value, it means you completely missed. In that case the opponent suffers no damage.

Doing that would be more realistic. It would also be more time consuming for the game. It is simpler to just consider every miss an almost-hit. I still see it as a good house rule to add in though.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 07:40 PM
But... Couldn't you give the 'resisted the effect' explanation for caster attack rolls? I mean, it's still a check between a spell and a defence, the only real difference is the player gets to roll the dice.

Or has to roll the dice... It's all in how you look at it. I have a friend who always played casters because he almost never had to roll d20s to do damage.

Rutee
2008-05-12, 08:09 PM
Oh my God in heaven. Complaining about this /freaking again/?

The GM has less time then the players. This is fact; If there are 5 players, one of whom is GMing, and a turn takes 5 minutes, the GM has spent 5 minutes on the turn; The other players have spent 20 minutes (It's like Man Hours, but in Minutes instead). Having the players roll the dice is flatly more expedient. Yes, the GM could preroll, but in admitting that it must be done ahead of time, you admit that it's a larger strain on the GM to do this at the table then it is for the players to do so.

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 08:12 PM
Oh my God in heaven. Complaining about this /freaking again/?

The GM has less time then the players. This is fact; If there are 5 players, one of whom is GMing, and a turn takes 5 minutes, the GM has spent 5 minutes on the turn; The other players have spent 20 minutes (It's like Man Hours, but in Minutes instead). Having the players roll the dice is flatly more expedient. Yes, the GM could preroll, but in admitting that it must be done ahead of time, you admit that it's a larger strain on the GM to do this at the table then it is for the players to do so.

Rolling three dice. That hardly seems to be a hard choice for the sake of consistent ency, something that is always good to have in games
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-12, 08:22 PM
Rolling three dice. That hardly seems to be a hard choice for the sake of consistent ency, something that is always good to have in games
from
EE

Consistency? The quality wherein the object in question behaves in a similar manner in a similar situation?

In 3e:
Attacker Rolls on all attacks EXCEPT Non-Ray Magical Attacks. In the case of Ray Magical Attacks, the Attack is made at a different AC Value, calculated by removing most of the things we term "Armor". If the ATtacker is making a non-ray Magical Attack, the Defender Rolls instead against a fixed value from the attacker.


In 4e:
Attacker Rolls on all attacks
The Defender rolls to resist all ongoing effects.

How in the name of God's Green Earth is 4e /less/ consistent?

skywalker
2008-05-12, 08:24 PM
Oh my God in heaven. Complaining about this /freaking again/?

The GM has less time then the players. This is fact; If there are 5 players, one of whom is GMing, and a turn takes 5 minutes, the GM has spent 5 minutes on the turn; The other players have spent 20 minutes (It's like Man Hours, but in Minutes instead). Having the players roll the dice is flatly more expedient. Yes, the GM could preroll, but in admitting that it must be done ahead of time, you admit that it's a larger strain on the GM to do this at the table then it is for the players to do so.

Please stop. I was just adding a little anecdote, not complaining. I wasn't saying it was a hardship on the players, only that in the very specific case of my very unlucky friend, wizards would probably be less fun. I've already explained the reason why I don't like spells being an attack roll vs. a certain defense. As well, if the DM is playing a caster, and attack multiple players, he has to roll just as many dice(this, in fact, happened last night.) I don't think there's a noticeable time gain for the DM. As EE says, it's not as if rolling 3 dice takes forever.

Rutee
2008-05-12, 08:31 PM
Rolling 3 dice doesn't take forever? Is that so?

The (Incorrect) process you listed for Sleep involved 3 dice rolls. You complained how long it took. There is no gain to be had in inconsistency, whereas things are more intuitive if you make things consistent. There's no inherent gain, one way or the other, in having the Attacker Roll against a value from the defender, as well (On the one hand, PCs AoE; On the other, NPCs can be mooks which appear in high numbers).

In point of fact,t he inconsistency, such as it was, added quite a few die rolls ot the GM, since monsters are more likely to be the victim of Magic, and are more likely to attack.

Say you take a bunch of mooks. You have to roll to hit with every attack they've made. Fine. Then you also have to roll all defenses against AoE that they suffer.

Chronicled
2008-05-12, 08:39 PM
I don't think there's a noticeable time gain for the DM. As EE says, it's not as if rolling 3 dice takes forever.

I beg to differ. When I tried a campaign where the players rolled all the dice, combat was noticably faster. Also, the DM rolling dices takes the DM's attention away from the players and forces him/her to pay attention to those dice instead.

fendrin
2008-05-12, 08:40 PM
I believe that you roll vs the defense of each target separately...so if your sleep were to hit 3 kobolds, you'd roll an attack roll against each one. Which, really, is just the opposite of them each making saving throws separately. :smallbiggrin:

Er, yeah, that's the way it is supposed to be. I was suggesting simplifying it to a single 'resistability' roll. For some reason I was under the impression that there was a defense roll in opposition to the attack roll, which is just plain wrong.

I actually like the idea of a single 'resistability' roll. It makes the success or failure a matter of 'how well the PC cast the spell' (or executed the exploit, etc) instead of the 3e 'how well does the enemy resist the spell'. Sure, it makes it more likely to be an 'all or nothing' situation, but that's not all bad... bookkeeping is easier, and combat is streamlined.

The 4e 'save' system is functionally only different from the 3e system in where the variability is. If a DM wants to make the rolls, just assume the PC always rolls a 10 and the enemies roll and add their defense - 10. Not so hard, really. I still like my idea better.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-12, 08:48 PM
A big difference I think is players cast spells on monsters, much more often then NPc's cast spells on them.

Plus rolling for attack instead of defense means that it is easy for certain spells to swap out dex from int for a modifer, and for spells to advance with power/accuracy with time. It makes spell power increase, syncronized with attack accuracy when you gain a level. It allows for a simpler, and at the same time flexible system.

skywalker
2008-05-12, 08:50 PM
Rolling 3 dice doesn't take forever? Is that so?

The (Incorrect) process you listed for Sleep involved 3 dice rolls. You complained how long it took. There is no gain to be had in inconsistency, whereas things are more intuitive if you make things consistent. There's no inherent gain, one way or the other, in having the Attacker Roll against a value from the defender, as well (On the one hand, PCs AoE; On the other, NPCs can be mooks which appear in high numbers).

In point of fact,t he inconsistency, such as it was, added quite a few die rolls ot the GM, since monsters are more likely to be the victim of Magic, and are more likely to attack.

Say you take a bunch of mooks. You have to roll to hit with every attack they've made. Fine. Then you also have to roll all defenses against AoE that they suffer.

To quote BritneySpears14, Funny I still don't see it. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/bloodninja) In fact, I went back over the whole thread and never once saw a post from me complaining about how long rolling dice took. The only thing that can be construed that way would be when I complained that sleep was no longer as powerful as it used to be.

I'm willing to accept that it might be faster for the players to roll instead of the DM. I also understand that, if there is no luck in this world and random chance is absolute, then statistically, there's no difference between a player rolling the dice and the DM rolling them. However, if you will look at my post that you complained about, you will see that it references(not for the first time) my seemingly very unlucky friend who is seemingly very bad at rolling d20s(As in he always gets low numbers)

EvilElitest
2008-05-12, 10:16 PM
Your......your respondnig to me...........a miracle



Consistency? The quality wherein the object in question behaves in a similar manner in a similar situation?

In 3e:
Attacker Rolls on all attacks EXCEPT Non-Ray Magical Attacks. In the case of Ray Magical Attacks, the Attack is made at a different AC Value, calculated by removing most of the things we term "Armor". If the ATtacker is making a non-ray Magical Attack, the Defender Rolls instead against a fixed value from the attacker.


In 4e:
Attacker Rolls on all attacks
The Defender rolls to resist all ongoing effects.

How in the name of God's Green Earth is 4e /less/ consistent?

I'm referring to the fact that it seems to be official that kolbolds roll as a. Instead of each monster having a separate roll to deiced the effect, the same way each PC does, they are now in groups. Rather inconsistent, unless we are talking about something else now
fm
EE

Jack Zander
2008-05-12, 10:43 PM
All I have to say is that they took out believability and put in balance. I want both. Is that too hard to ask?

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-12, 10:55 PM
No it is the idea. For example, a really nasty power hurting you, fine. Save or die? Well broken, but in theory fine. An attack that if it hits you and your family will burst into a pink cloud (one that in theory you might get your self). Fine. However when you actually dodge it, instead of getting off, as you should because of your niffty high roll, you take damage (however slight) anyways, no matter what you do. It is like rolling your reflex save then taking the full damage anyways, or at least more than you should.

You're making a bizarre logical leap in the middle there that I'm just not following.

Make an attack vs. Reflex -> Success = full damage; Failure = partial damage
Make an attack vs. AC -> Success = full damage; Failure = partial damage

You're saying the former is A-OK, but the latter is incomprehensible.


The GM has less time then the players. This is fact; If there are 5 players, one of whom is GMing, and a turn takes 5 minutes, the GM has spent 5 minutes on the turn; The other players have spent 20 minutes (It's like Man Hours, but in Minutes instead). Having the players roll the dice is flatly more expedient. Yes, the GM could preroll, but in admitting that it must be done ahead of time, you admit that it's a larger strain on the GM to do this at the table then it is for the players to do so.

I'm afraid this paragraph was nearly incoherent to me. You seem to be claiming that player-faced mechanics (i.e., mechanics where players are responsible for all dice-rolling) are faster than having the DM roll the same dice for the NPCs that the players roll for the PCs.

In reality, this may or may not be true. It seems like a good idea on the face of it because you're distributing the workload from one person onto multiple people. But, by doing so, you are leaving the DM without any workload -- which means you're reducing the total amount of dice-rolling manpower at the table.

Even more importantly, this type of distribution can prevent the use of time-saving techniques on the part of the DM while increasing the workload he needs for getting information back from the players.

Take attack rolls, for example. As a DM I keep a cheat sheet with the ACs and saving throws of the PCs on it. When I'm dealing with a large number of NPC opponents, I roll all their dice simultaneously (using either color-coding or left-to-right positioning to figure out which dice belong to which NPC). This allows me to very rapidly resolve attacks from 10-20 similar opponents within less than 30 seconds.

Trying to turn this to player-faced mechanics results in a huge slowdown: First I have to parcel out the dice rolls (you get attacked three times; you get attacked once; you get attacked twice). And then my players have to make the die rolls -- and they're generally less efficient at that than I am. What would take me 30 seconds to resolve ends up taking 5 minutes to work out.

OTOH, I can see how -- with a less efficient DM -- player-faced mechanics could save time (and certainly open up the DM so that his multitasking brain can be focusing on other things).

Of course, when we're talking about 4th Edition we're not actually talking about player-faced mechanics... which would appear to render your entire point moot. Casters make attack rolls instead of targets making saving throws. Well, that's all well and good, but it only saves dice rolling for the DM up until the point when it's the DM running the casters.

And, of course, your argument ignores the fact that -- for many effects (like sleep) -- saving throws still have to be made.

Jack Zander
2008-05-12, 11:31 PM
You're making a bizarre logical leap in the middle there that I'm just not following.

Make an attack vs. Reflex -> Success = full damage; Failure = partial damage
Make an attack vs. AC -> Success = full damage; Failure = partial damage

You're saying the former is A-OK, but the latter is incomprehensible.


Well sure. If you dodge a tossed grenade, you'll still probably take damage from the shrapnel. If you dodge a sword, there's no AoE for you to take damage from. You either take damage or you don't.

Abardam
2008-05-12, 11:42 PM
Well sure. If you dodge a tossed grenade, you'll still probably take damage from the shrapnel. If you dodge a sword, there's no AoE for you to take damage from. You either take damage or you don't.AC's not all dodging. (Armor class, remember.) You could block with a shield, parry with your weapon, etc. The guy attacking you could've hit you so hard that, while it didn't penetrate your armor, you still get bruised or whatever.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-12, 11:55 PM
AC's not all dodging.

But a reasonable amount of it is. AC was simplified for the purposes of game mechanics and a line had to be drawn somewhere. I am on the fence that if you don't hit the AC you should deal no damage. However I do find it reasonable that this power exists. It isn't essentially about the damage it is more about the accuracy. 1 per encounter you can have an attack that is so accurate it can't be completely dodged... at least thats how my head interprets the fluff.

Jack Zander
2008-05-12, 11:59 PM
AC's not all dodging. (Armor class, remember.) You could block with a shield, parry with your weapon, etc. The guy attacking you could've hit you so hard that, while it didn't penetrate your armor, you still get bruised or whatever.

So tell me what happens when you use it against a weaponless wizard?


But a reasonable amount of it is. AC was simplified for the purposes of game mechanics and a line had to be drawn somewhere. I am on the fence that if you don't hit the AC you should deal no damage. However I do find it reasonable that this power exists. It isn't essentially about the damage it is more about the accuracy. 1 per encounter you can have an attack that is so accurate it can't be completely dodged... at least thats how my head interprets the fluff.

So my level 1 fighter can hit a level 20 rouge with 0% chance of failure?

Rutee
2008-05-13, 12:15 AM
Of course, when we're talking about 4th Edition we're not actually talking about player-faced mechanics... which would appear to render your entire point moot. Casters make attack rolls instead of targets making saving throws. Well, that's all well and good, but it only saves dice rolling for the DM up until the point when it's the DM running the casters.

And, of course, your argument ignores the fact that -- for many effects (like sleep) -- saving throws still have to be made.

If you'd check the context, that was an objection to the idea that the GM should have to roll most of the dice (As the 3e system often turns out if one attempts to use mooks.), one that stood apart from 4e and 3e mechanics. But hey, I guess if you want to claim it was something else, I can't object. I can't possibly know my own intentions and arguments better then you.

Had you checked further down, you would see that I did in fact, refute any concept of 4e having player faced mechanics; Player faced mechanics would be the players roll /all/ the dice. 4e is offense-based die rolls. This is easier on a GM then 3e mechanics in many situations, but not all (A single huge monster facing off with the party, for instance)

Abardam
2008-05-13, 12:25 AM
So tell me what happens when you use it against a weaponless wizard?Wizard throws himself to the side, didn't go far enough. Fighter's sword nicks him.

Here, I will quote the flavor text of the power:
"You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy's defenses."

Draz74
2008-05-13, 12:34 AM
AC's not all dodging. (Armor class, remember.) You could block with a shield, parry with your weapon, etc. The guy attacking you could've hit you so hard that, while it didn't penetrate your armor, you still get bruised or whatever.

Or -- to go back to an earlier part of the thread -- you could dodge so strenuously that it wears you out.

So the Level 1 Fighter can't automatically nick the Level 20 Rogue, no. But when he uses a specially-trained move, he can make the high-level Rogue have to dodge a bit more desperately than normal, routine dodging. (And if that still seems too powerful, consider how much the Rogue won't care when he takes 3 damage, since by the time he's level 20, he has about 115 HP.)

xirr2000
2008-05-13, 01:23 AM
HP status seemed to swing wildly from round to round

Since when was that NOT the case for 1st level characters?

Kompera
2008-05-13, 01:26 AM
Great thread. Skywalker, thanks for posting your take on the 4e module.

Re: Saving Throws

I seem to recall reading somewhere that you make saving throws against effects on you at the end of your turn.That would make the Cleric's Sacred Flame ability make more sense. When I first read it I thought it was truncated... "[One ally you can see can choose to gain some HP] or to make a saving throw." My initial impressions was "Huh? Make a saving throw against what?" But if saves are made at the end of the turn, getting one on an allies turn has a pretty significant value:
I'm sub 0 HP and dying, and I have 3 turns to make a saving throw or die. Woot! I just got a 4th chance.
I'm Slept (Sleep Spell) and only get to save to awaken at the end of the turn. Woot! I might wake up right now.
&cet.

Re: HP and the auto-damage effect of Reaping Strike.

Also, the fact that his attack is so vicious that even if I avoid it, I'm still demoralized.... that's just silly, if anything, not being hit by such an obviously vicious attack should make me feel pretty good about my ability to move out of the way, assuming of course I have the ability to feel good about my accomplishments.

The more I think about it the less sense it makes, justify it with HP as morale in your games if you so choose, however, to me, HP is solid damage, if you don't make a hit, there is no reason damage should be dealt. This ability just seems like a transparent cop out to make melee-types feel better about themselves in combat.
HP have been abstracted since the game began. It might not have been written up as such until 2nd or so, but they have always been abstracted. There's no other logical explanation for a 1st level Fighter taking an arrow for 8 damage and dying (prior to "max HP at 1st level" rules this was quite possible) and the 12th level Fighter standing next to him taking 10 such arrows and living. It's possible for one man to take more damage than another man. It's impossible for one man to take 10 times the damage and live. Thus, the high level Fighter was said to have been nicked and cut, had his luck eroded, his morale, and any number of other abstractions in order to explain away this impossibility.

Because with the fire ball, you know your screwed ether way. While with the normal attack, the general understanding is, is that if you avoid the swing, your good.
The general understanding will come to be, in 4e, that a 'miss' result can still damage you. People will get used to it and will play through.

On the HP abstraction and Reaping Strike issue: what's wrong with seeing HP as representing Stamina, and Reaping Strike being an attack that requires a greater-than-usual effort and expenditure of energy to dodge? So you can take [3] damage from a missed Reaping Strike because you got pretty tired, maybe even pulled a muscle slightly, making the mighty effort to dodge the attack.

On the "mooks immune to miss-damage" thing ... you have to fluff it up.
Exactly. All it takes to sustain verisimilitude is to read the description. You punctuate [your major attack] with [a pile of minor attacks, some of which] slip through your enemy's defenses." Thus, you either connect with the major and some of the minor, dealing the 'on hit' damage, or you connect with a few of the minor and get the 3 points 'on miss' damage.
For Mooks, if they are statted out with 1 HP then having this attack not auto kill them is fine. That sustains their place as "minor opponents who die to any solid hit" while keeping the mechanic of the Reaping Strike from being OP. I'm glad they left that loophole closed.

On the Rogue being a "glass cannon". I'm confused as to why. Maybe it was just the luck of the dice, but looking at the char sheets the Rogue is only 1AC lower than the Fighter and has 25 HP compared to the Fighter's 31. That doesn't seem like a glass cannon in comparison. And always had a lower Initiative than the Kobolds? The Rogue has a +4, the Fighter a +1, and the Kobolds +4. Over several encounters the Rogue player must have been unlucky to always be lower on the Initiative than the Kobolds.

Looking at the character sheets, I'd think I'd love to play the Rogue. Between his "move opponents" abilities, the Fighters "AOO" equivalent attacks, Mark, and "If you don't attack me while being next to me you take a penalty" ability, and the Paladin's Mark, the Rogue should be able to be fairly safe from any attack which doesn't either enable his side an AOO or force the attacker to roll at a penalty. That should negate any glass cannon tenancies, even if I don't see it from the character stats.
Additionally, I don't know how Healing Surge works, but the Rogue gets 7 of them at a value of 6. If this let's the Rogue spend a turn healing himself for 6 points, that's fantastic. If it can be used in combination with any of the Rogues movement abilities, that's even better.

Jack Zander
2008-05-13, 01:28 AM
Wizard throws himself to the side, didn't go far enough. Fighter's sword nicks him.

But then wouldn't you, you know, have hit for 3 damage and not rolled a natural 1?


Here, I will quote the flavor text of the power:
"You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy's defenses."

That sounds like what every attack is trying to do, not a special power.


Or -- to go back to an earlier part of the thread -- you could dodge so strenuously that it wears you out.

So the Level 1 Fighter can't automatically nick the Level 20 Rogue, no. But when he uses a specially-trained move, he can make the high-level Rogue have to dodge a bit more desperately than normal, routine dodging. (And if that still seems too powerful, consider how much the Rogue won't care when he takes 3 damage, since by the time he's level 20, he has about 115 HP.)

HP does not work that way. What happens when the fighter puts poison on his blade and then swings at the level 20 30 rogue?

xirr2000
2008-05-13, 01:31 AM
AC's not all dodging. (Armor class, remember.) You could block with a shield, parry with your weapon, etc. The guy attacking you could've hit you so hard that, while it didn't penetrate your armor, you still get bruised or whatever.

Well said, why is this concept so hard to grasp for some people. When did folks' imagination die?

A daily attack power that has some effect even on a miss simply represents a very effecient and useful power on the part of the PC or NPC. It generally is saved for tough fights and you need to make sure you do something to help win the fight. I like it a lot. No matter what you can be sure of doing something that round cuz you pulled out all the stops. With any luck you'll hit and do some serious damage or cause the fight to turn, but no matter what it wasn't a complete waste of time.

Abardam
2008-05-13, 01:48 AM
But then wouldn't you, you know, have hit for 3 damage and not rolled a natural 1?The 'nick' counts for 3 damage. If you want, it could've taken the skin off his arm, or pierced a minor vein, or struck with the blunt part instead. Or you made him 'dodge so hard' (I still don't get this). Whatever.


That sounds like what every attack is trying to do, not a special power.The description actually sounds to me like some sort of Flurry of Blows, not a strong focused strike (Brute Strike), a slash so wide that it hits two foes (Cleave, or possibly Passing Attack), or a complicated sweep kick that follows an attack (whatever that one was called).

Also, you know, Reaping Strike isn't really that special. It's At-Will, so it really can be your 'every attack'.

xirr2000
2008-05-13, 01:49 AM
I'd also like to reply to the "Glass Cannon" description of the rogue. The rogue was without a doubt the most dynamic character in the play session ran in my group. Some of their powers allow them to move their opponents but I do not remember this being a requirement. And often the ability to move an opponent worked very well. One encounter my rogue basically used this ability to throw a caster over 10 ft drop, the attack didn't quite kill the caster but the 10ft fall did. Worked out great. They have as many hit points as anyone else in the group and better AC than most. They have that one standard attack that lets them move 2 squares before an attack, effectively giving them 8 squares of movement in a round to get in position. Also as I was using a halfling he was forced to use either dagger or shortsword which have great bonuses to hit so the rogue has the best accuracy in the group. Especially after he moves into flanking position. Pluse the rogue has several attacks that can be used against either AC, reflex or even one against Will so he has a lot of options based on who he's fighting. So basically you've got :

- high dps
- good mobility
- ability to move opponents into a good position for you or out of a good position for them
- accuracy
- Relatively good AC

If the rogue goes down more than other PCs its not for any other reason other than an irrational dislike by the GM :) I had a blast playing a rogue and I've never enjoyed them in previous editions. I like them, respected them, but never enjoyed playing one until now.

Charity
2008-05-13, 01:58 AM
HP does not work that way. What happens when the fighter puts poison on his blade and then swings at the level 20 30 rogue?

We have not seen how poison works in 4e yet, have you?
I imagine not, how is it you can use this to prove "HP does not work that way"?
HP do not work one way round or the other, they never have, they are an abstraction; for every argument in favour of HP = injury there is another that suggests HP = morale.

What you are saying is in fact is '4e is not 3e', well done now move on please.

horseboy
2008-05-13, 02:43 AM
I see your point. I agree with your last statement, but from a player's perspective, I'm wielding intense eldritch energy here. Sometimes, I want to drop a fireball on 40 mooks and leave nothing but a smoking crater. I think that's a fair desire to have, honestly. I also would hate to drop a fireball on 40 mooks and have to roll 40! different! attack rolls!
You know, I brought this up a while back when this mechanic was announced, about what a pain making 20 to-hit rolls, and how they should have gone with one roll, especially with them mix-and-matching monsters.
Sorry but this is a picture of some Kevlar anti-cut gloves, I sell them they work against even very sharp knives, they are no good against stabbing but that is due to the weave not the kevlar which is very difficult to cut.Do those come in XXL size? The Crib at work says they don't, but well there's got to me some sort of adult male size to those things. :smallannoyed:

They want me to pay for Beta?Oh no! I really is like an MMO! Curse you SWG! :smallwink:

Charity
2008-05-13, 07:16 AM
My you do have big hands Horsey :smallwink:
Well we sell one size fits all stretchy ones, but there are loads out there I'm sure you can find some that fit unless...
http://www.temporaryservices.org/big_hands_pr_1.jpg

SamTheCleric
2008-05-13, 08:59 AM
Well, I just got tapped to play the whole thing... and have been given the role of the Half-Elf Cleric of Bahamut.

Time to learn the rules!

skywalker
2008-05-13, 09:13 AM
To those speaking of the rogue being or not being a glass cannon:
I've already said that it never dawned on us that you could slide someone, say, maybe, one square to the left, one square back, one square to the right. We were only thinking in straight lines, which clearly made the rogue suck a little more. You also may have heard me ranting about sleep being made less powerful. This is because I have a few old-school tendencies. One of these other tendencies leads to another cardinal rule: Rogues walk in the front, where they're theoretically supposed to notice the bad guys because they're theoretically capable of spotting them. We found out the kobolds had a hide bonus that virtually guaranteed them a surprise round. Which meant, in combination with the rogue rolling lower initiative, that the rogue took 6 dragon shield swords before having a chance to act herself. However, when the rogue did have combat advantage, she absolutely laid waste to everything. It was impressive. This is what made me say "glass cannon."

As for throwing someone off a drop, first of all, where'd you find a drop? Second of all, not to sound like a broken record, but I don't think my DM would let me do that :smallannoyed:

Draz74
2008-05-13, 09:14 AM
HP does not work that way. What happens when the fighter puts poison on his blade and then swings at the level 20 30 rogue?

Yes, HP in 4e most certainly does work that way. (3e, too, but less so, since there are less stamina/morale effects that can heal you ... HP in 3e is basically quite inconsistent indeed!)

If injury poison still works the same way in 4e as it did in 3e, and can be delivered by a Reaving Strike, then I will grant you there is an inconsistency going on.

(I think the only 4e poison attack we've seen was a shower of spines, though, and therefore more like an area-of-effect attack.)

Vortling
2008-05-13, 09:35 AM
Well, I just got tapped to play the whole thing... and have been given the role of the Half-Elf Cleric of Bahamut.

Time to learn the rules!
Will you be posting your thoughts here or in a new thread?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-13, 09:44 AM
I'll probably post in a new thread.

I'm having the DM scan in the Quick Start Rules for me... and as soon as I get them... so will you. :smallcool:

skywalker
2008-05-13, 09:56 AM
I'll probably post in a new thread.

I'm having the DM scan in the Quick Start Rules for me... and as soon as I get them... so will you. :smallcool:

Oh, you kids and your getting to see the rules before you start playing. What will you think of next...

fendrin
2008-05-13, 12:11 PM
Oh, you kids and your getting to see the rules before you start playing. What will you think of next...

I walked into my LGS (which is most definitely not F) and looked at their (paltry) D&D section. Lo, right in front of me on the shelf was a cardboard display with a paper-stapled set of KoS preview materials. One booklet had the quick start rules, another had the module. There were also poster-style maps.

It would not surprise me if there are scans of the whole thing online somewhere already.

Theodoxus
2008-05-13, 01:30 PM
In essense, I think of HPs as Wounds/Vitality, though without the abstract Crits go to wounds.

Your HPs at 1st level are your physical HPs (an arrow could conceivably kill anyone, though really tough bastards (dwarven barbarians, for instance) could shrug off a few before going down). Everything else is morale/fortitude/willpower, etc. Thus the 20th level fighter who's been blasted by dragon fire and hacked by minions has been abused, but not bloodied (to steal from 4th ed). Once he gets down to his 1st level base though, it's gonna be game over pretty quick, and real injuries start to pile up.

4th ed's change from this concept to Bloodied, just moves the base-line back, increasing resiliance as you level. The concept is more fantastical, but then, it seems like the entire game is moving in that direction, so no harm, no foul.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-13, 02:01 PM
So, just got word that I'm NOT playing the cleric. Someone wanted to try the Cleric and he was playing the Rogue... so now I get to Rogue it up.

Interesting note: The halfling has a speed of 6. Faster than the dwarf.

Still waiting on my quickstart rules, I promise they are coming.

Vortling
2008-05-13, 02:34 PM
Darn it. I wanted to pick a cleric player's brain. Guess I'll have to wait on that.

Mike_G
2008-05-13, 02:42 PM
coup de gras

This means "Blow of Fat" in French.

Delivering the killing blow to a fallen foe is a coup de grace, which roughly translates to "Blow of mercy."

So, unless you plan on smacking him with a slab of bacon, or trying to cut his throat with a stick of butter, please refrain from using "gras."

Blue Paladin
2008-05-13, 02:51 PM
[Coup de gras] means "Blow of Fat" in French.

delivering the killing blow to a fallen foe is a coup de grace, which roughly translates to "Blow of mercy."

So, unless you smacking him with a slab of bacon, or trying to cut his throat with a stick of butter, please refrain from "gras."Holy carp. I have a new character concept.

Thank you GitP forums (extra kudos to fendrin and Mike_G)!

fendrin
2008-05-13, 03:04 PM
This means "Blow of Fat" in French.

delivering the killing blow to a fallen foe is a coup de grace, which roughly translates to "Blow of mercy."

So, unless you smacking him with a slab of bacon, or trying to cut his throat with a stick of butter, please refrain from "gras."

You're right, coup de gras does kill by demoralization. :smalltongue:

In other news, I cant believe I flubbed that. Years of French classes and [more] years of D&D and I still got it wrong. I hang my head in shame. :smallfrown:

But seriously, you realize that you quoted me from [exactly] 90 posts prior to yours? A bit unnecessary, neh? :smallannoyed: Kind of like 'punctuating' each point with a smiley. :smallredface:

kc0bbq
2008-05-13, 03:12 PM
This means "Blow of Fat" in French.

Delivering the killing blow to a fallen foe is a coup de grace, which roughly translates to "Blow of mercy."

So, unless you plan on smacking him with a slab of bacon, or trying to cut his throat with a stick of butter, please refrain from using "gras."I have this image of the slightly less intelligent, but reddish, cousin on a Hoovooloo smacking a sleeping goblin with fatback. Rouge's coup de gras.

kc0bbq
2008-05-13, 03:20 PM
oops, dp. nothing to see here.

Mike_G
2008-05-13, 04:44 PM
But seriously, you realize that you quoted me from [exactly] 90 posts prior to yours? A bit unnecessary, neh? :smallannoyed: Kind of like 'punctuating' each point with a smiley. :smallredface:


Eh.

I was working a 24 hour ambulance shift yesterday, so I didn't read any of this thread until this afternoon, and I replied as soon as I saw it, since it's a fairly common misspelling that drives me nuts.

Plus, I'm half French and thus difficult, condescending and nitpicky. It's our thing.

Cuddly
2008-05-13, 06:23 PM
EDIT: This was the player's first time with a caster. However, I think the main problem is that 1. The cleric has no buffs, and 2. The cleric was either in a situation where everyone was fine, or one person was on the brink of death. HP status seemed to swing wildly from round to round :smalleek:

Low levels tend to be like that in systems that lack granularity (like most PnP RPGs).

Sequinox
2008-05-13, 09:09 PM
so how did u play? Do u work for Wizards?

Please tell me 4th ed isnt out yet... I was all ready to be there at midnight! (mentally anyway)

Norsesmithy
2008-05-13, 10:16 PM
They are playing the Keep on the Shadowfell quickstart preview thingy.

Skyserpent
2008-05-13, 10:29 PM
Darn it. I wanted to pick a cleric player's brain. Guess I'll have to wait on that.

I played a Cleric in the delve. It was fun.

xirr2000
2008-05-13, 10:33 PM
As for throwing someone off a drop, first of all, where'd you find a drop? Second of all, not to sound like a broken record, but I don't think my DM would let me do that :smallannoyed:

Well I haven't read all the posts so if you already mentioned moving your opponent in other directions, my apologies. As for the drop, we were playing one of the 4e adventure .pdf files from enworld. That had a ledge we had to climb up to in order to get to the caster. The rules say the rogue can move an opponent 1 square with the encounter power he was using and I decided it would be the square over the side of the ledge. I'm sure there will be some rule about this in the books when they get released, but as for now there was nothing saying my rogue couldn't just trip him over the side. It made for a nice death scene in addition to not contradicting any known rules so my DM didn't have a problem with it. Huzzah to the little people!

xirr2000
2008-05-13, 10:35 PM
Low levels tend to be like that in systems that lack granularity (like most PnP RPGs).

Granularity?

TheOOB
2008-05-14, 12:55 AM
Thus far I am liking what I am seeing for 4e. I will, of course, withhold my final judgment until after the final product is in my hands and I have played a few sessions, but most of what has been released has a lot of potential.

A few things to remember about the characters WotC has released thus far. First, you didn't get to pick your abilities, they where selected for you. When you actually have a list to pick from, you won't have to settle for abilities that you think are sub-par, and instead you just pick the ones you like. Don't like the attack that deals damage on a miss(which by the way would be incredibly useful for tough high AC enemies), don't take it. Another thing to keep in mind is that while first level characters are a heck of a lot more developed then they where in 3e, they still need some time to develop. According to the Tiers artical, a 10th level PC will have 11 powers, compared to a level 1 characters 4(both before racial powers), giving the characters much more versatility and chances to do cool interesting things.

The hp system doesn't seem to have changed, other then allowing the clerics to do more cool things other then heal. Hp still works a lot like Conan health. When a mook gets hit with a sword, it cleaves through them and kills them. When a hero gets hit by the sword it scratches them in the arm. Hero's collect many superficial wounds, perhaps getting one more vital wound (aka bloodied) but otherwise they keep on fighting until that one good hit that takes them down (aka 0 hp).

horseboy
2008-05-14, 07:01 AM
My you do have big hands Horsey :smallwink:
Well we sell one size fits all stretchy ones, but there are loads out there I'm sure you can find some that fit unless...We use the Cut level 2 ones. So after three or four days all the rhino-liner looking stuff is peeled off and my knuckles are thread bare. Stupid sheet metal. :smallannoyed: Wow, we're WAY off topic, huh?

Oslecamo
2008-05-14, 07:13 AM
The hp system doesn't seem to have changed, other then allowing the clerics to do more cool things other then heal.

You clearly didn't play 3rd edition. If you couldn't see that a 3.X cleric could do more than healing, then you probably never touched the PHB.

Sebastian
2008-05-14, 09:21 AM
Now, with this power, a fighter is not just prodding your defenses while looking for an opening, he's scoring a number of small, individually insignificant cuts while looking for an opening. Those small cuts don't do much, but two or three of them per round adds up to a few HP lost... even if the 'opening' never appears (i.e. no successful attack roll).

The problem is that those minor cuts he can do them to anything, if that fighter went against a great wyrm, a pit fiend, a ghost, or even demogorgon he would still be able to inflict it some "small cuts". Sure, he would die in a couple rounds, but just the fact than a 1st level can auto-hurt a epic level crittr bugs me a little. Let's just hope in 4e there are no ways to put poison on your weapons or it could get messy. :)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-14, 09:30 AM
You clearly didn't play 3rd edition. If you couldn't see that a 3.X cleric could do more than healing, then you probably never touched the PHB.

Corollary: What TheOOB said, but add without overpowering the party.

Geez, we don't have to spell it.

Vortling
2008-05-14, 10:06 AM
I played a Cleric in the delve. It was fun.

I have many questions. I will try to keep them positive despite my reservations about the new system. What does the cleric do? Does it stand in the back healing and buffing? Does it get to stand in the front and be as useful as the fighter? Are the choices for the cleric meaningful or do the at-will buffs go to the same other party member every time? Did you ever get to open a can of divine whoop-ass? Role-wise how did it compare to playing a cleric in 3.5? Do you feel that the "smack things to buff my allies" mode of play is cool and exciting?

Thanks

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-14, 10:30 AM
The problem is that those minor cuts he can do them to anything, if that fighter went against a great wyrm, a pit fiend, a ghost, or even demogorgon he would still be able to inflict it some "small cuts". Sure, he would die in a couple rounds, but just the fact than a 1st level can auto-hurt a epic level crittr bugs me a little. Let's just hope in 4e there are no ways to put poison on your weapons or it could get messy. :)

Two points:

1) To an epic great wyrm with 900hp, 3 damage is functionally identical to 0 damage.

2) Any creature that is as strong as the one you're worried about "auto-hurting" will likely have a resistance to non-magical weapons, or perhaps resist: Any, making the 3 damage completely identical to 0.

fendrin
2008-05-14, 10:47 AM
The problem is that those minor cuts he can do them to anything, if that fighter went against a great wyrm, a pit fiend, a ghost, or even demogorgon he would still be able to inflict it some "small cuts". Sure, he would die in a couple rounds, but just the fact than a 1st level can auto-hurt a epic level crittr bugs me a little.
It doesn't bug me any more than a level 1 3.5 wizard auto-hurting an epic creature with magic missile. Of course, in 3.5 SR makes that unlikely; but put a level 1 4e fighter up against such a foe and DR will likely eliminate the 3 HP anyway. So what's the big deal?


Let's just hope in 4e there are no ways to put poison on your weapons or it could get messy. :)
I suppose... I'm still not concerned, though.

Jack Zander
2008-05-14, 11:56 AM
And thus, the great wyrm Smog was killed by a mere 300 troops in Rohan's army, who all were trained in a single technique to deal 3 damage even on a miss.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 11:59 AM
And all 300 died in the process.

(the young dragon preview had an ability that anytime someone missed a melee attack against it, the dragon got to tail slap them as an immediate action.)

Vortling
2008-05-14, 12:06 PM
Assuming of course that said dragon gets unlimited immediate actions for that special power. Otherwise only one of them need perish.

Chronicled
2008-05-14, 12:09 PM
And thus, the great wyrm Smog was killed by a mere 300 troops in Rohan's army, who all were trained in a single technique to deal 3 damage even on a miss.

Assuming they had a way to deal with it, I don't know, flying away. Or torching them all. Or whatever else BFDragons have to keep mooks away.

Jack Zander
2008-05-14, 12:24 PM
Assuming they had a way to deal with it, I don't know, flying away. Or torching them all. Or whatever else BFDragons have to keep mooks away.

Dragons do not fly away from their treasure horde. Nor do they kill 300 mooks with a breath weapon because the mooks have the minion subtype and take considerably less damage from it. You know, cuz they're not the commander. :smallconfused:

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 12:27 PM
Oh, and the dragons I've seen all recharge their breath weapon and get to use it as an immediate action once they become bloodied.

Sure, the 300 person swarm is gonna do damage, but I doubt that it will really be as overdramatic as you're making it.

Jack Zander
2008-05-14, 12:43 PM
I'm pretty sure around 100 men could kill it (the size of a small town angry mob).

The dragon uses it's breath weapon the first turn. Minons take little damage from their awesomeness of pledging themselves to the Captain of the Guard. Mob's turn, dragon takes 240-300 damage. Dragon kills one with his tail swipe counter-attack thing. Dragon's turn. 2 claws and a bite, possibly more attacks. 3-7 minions fall down go boom. Mob's turn. Dragon has now taken 450-590 damage, making him bloodied. He can now fire his laser again. Dragon fired the laser, took his turn to full attack them, there go another 20-30. Minon's turn, Dragon is taken down to 600-770. We have 40-60 minions remaining at this point. Dragon can take a second wind to delay them, but without his breath weapon he's only going to kill less than 10 a turn, and unless it recharges faster than 1d4+1 rounds later, he's not going to get another chance to use it before he's dead.

And that's only 1/3 the original troops suggested.

If NPCs can have the minion subtype, then Players should be able to also. If I play, I'm declaring myself apprentice to another party member so that fighters can use this dirty, dirty trick on me.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 12:47 PM
I'm pretty sure around 100 men could kill it (the size of a small town angry mob).

The dragon uses it's breath weapon the first turn. Minons take little damage from their awesomeness of pledging themselves to the Captain of the Guard. Mob's turn, dragon takes 240-300 damage. Dragon kills one with his tail swipe counter-attack thing. Dragon's turn. 2 claws and a bite, possibly more attacks. 3-7 minions fall down go boom. Mob's turn. Dragon has now taken 450-590 damage, making him bloodied. He can now fire his laser again. Dragon fired the laser, took his turn to full attack them, there go another 20-30. Minon's turn, Dragon is taken down to 600-770. We have 40-60 minions remaining at this point. Dragon can take a second wind to delay them, but without his breath weapon he's only going to kill less than 10 a turn, and unless it recharges faster than 1d4+1 rounds later, he's not going to get another chance to use it before he's dead.

And that's only 1/3 the original troops suggested.


I believe the dragon got to use his tail slap counter at will at DDXP.

Breath weapon recharged on a 5 or 6 (on a 1d6), so 33% chance of having breath weapon every round.

He could also.. you know... hover out of reach, since that auto damage power is melee only.

Jack Zander
2008-05-14, 12:51 PM
He could also.. you know... hover out of reach, since that auto damage power is melee only.

Melee only you say? Well then that would take a lot longer than my suggested 10 rounds or so...

But since his tail slap is an at will ability, everyone can delay to charge him after the minion in front of him. We can get all 300 crammed around him to charge and then his tail will move so fast his body will rip apart. Dragon defeated, even though we had to sacrifice a small town to do it. We've also taken out those nasty catgirls in the process. Everybody wins!

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 12:59 PM
Yes, melee only... and its not just a flat "3" damage. It looks as though as its going to be Str damage on a miss. That's just speculation though.


Reaping Strike - Fighter Attack 1
You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows the slip through your enemy's defenses.
At Will - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action, Melee Weapon
Target One Creature
Attack +6 vs AC
Hit 2d6+3 damage
Miss 3 damage

Oh, and you couldnt charge and do the power, the power is a standard action and charging is a standard action (in 4e quick start rules charging is a standard action that only gives a +1 to hit and provokes)

fendrin
2008-05-14, 01:02 PM
I'm pretty sure around 100 men could kill it (the size of a small town angry mob).

The dragon uses it's breath weapon the first turn. Minons take little damage from their awesomeness of pledging themselves to the Captain of the Guard. Mob's turn, dragon takes 240-300 damage. Dragon kills one with his tail swipe counter-attack thing. Dragon's turn. 2 claws and a bite, possibly more attacks. 3-7 minions fall down go boom. Mob's turn. Dragon has now taken 450-590 damage, making him bloodied. He can now fire his laser again. Dragon fired the laser, took his turn to full attack them, there go another 20-30. Minon's turn, Dragon is taken down to 600-770. We have 40-60 minions remaining at this point. Dragon can take a second wind to delay them, but without his breath weapon he's only going to kill less than 10 a turn, and unless it recharges faster than 1d4+1 rounds later, he's not going to get another chance to use it before he's dead.

And that's only 1/3 the original troops suggested.

Right, because great wyrms are stupid enough to wade into a crowd of minions when they could fly safely above and, failing anything better (i.e. a breath weapon), drop rocks on them.

I'd also be willing to bet that minions can't have class levels, so minions would never be able to pull off a Reaping Strike. Class levels make you special, and minions by definition are the exact opposite of special.


If NPCs can have the minion subtype, then Players should be able to also. If I play, I'm declaring myself apprentice to another party member so that fighters can use this dirty, dirty trick on me.

Now, I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to wager that minions have to be a significant amount weaker than their 'captain', so you probably wouldn't want to be a fellow party member's minion, unless you enjoy being useless. Furthermore, would you really want to only have 1 hp? Sure, you're protected against a Reaping Strike miss, but you always die if it (or anything else) hits. That doesn't sound like a great trade-off to me. Like any other minion, you are highly unlikely to survive a single combat.

Jack Zander
2008-05-14, 01:16 PM
Now, I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to wager that minions have to be a significant amount weaker than their 'captain', so you probably wouldn't want to be a fellow party member's minion, unless you enjoy being useless. Furthermore, would you really want to only have 1 hp? Sure, you're protected against a Reaping Strike miss, but you always die if it (or anything else) hits. That doesn't sound like a great trade-off to me. Like any other minion, you are highly unlikely to survive a single combat.

That's why you simply declare your independence before attacked, unless it's from a reaping strike miss. Then you can simply declare your allegiance after it misses you, but before the wind cuts you (or whatever is supposed to happen). Swear fealty mid-dodge if you have to.

I'm really just showing how silly the minion subtype is. It makes no sense.

I enjoy playing DnD because in most cases, it accurately models real life. 4th edition looks so far like its going to play like a game instead of model various circumstances. Yeah, I've probably been playing the wrong system all along for this kind of thing and I probably should switch, because 4th edition is going in the opposite direction I was hoping (too much wargaming mechanical crap, little to no realism).

nagora
2008-05-14, 01:27 PM
All sounds as expected. WotC's design criteria are totally confused and were bound to lead to a mess.

They want characters to be leveled but they want 1st level characters to be like action heroes from the get go, they want development and instant gratification for the attention-deficit-disorder generation.

They want combat to be faster but also have lots of silly power-ranger options like kids have in video games.

They want to have a role-playing game but don't want to bother simulating a real world where people get tired or die or have any meaningful relationship with time at all.

They want to simplify compared to 3ed but they want such grand scales of play that everything turns into a vast spreadsheet of largely meaningless numbers.

But worst of all: WotC wanted to design a game, but Hasbro told them to pander to the lowest common denominator that will shift product. It's inevitable that the result looks like the car that Homer Simpson designed.

Within 5 years WotC will all be working on MMORPGs or unemployed and D&D will be up for sale. I hope someone who actually cares about quality will buy it.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 01:36 PM
All sounds as expected. WotC's design criteria is spot on and is bound to lead to profit.

They want characters to be leveled but they want 1st level characters to be like action heroes from the get go, they want development and instant gratification for the humans that play the game.

They want combat to be faster but also have options for every class so that no one is left wondering what to do on a turn.

They want to have a role-playing game and don't want to bother with things that don't really matter to their character or are flippant details that don't pertain to the story.

They want to simplify compared to 3ed because 3ed was overly complicated and hard to "jump into" in the last years of it's run without buying the entire library.

But best of all: WotC wanted to design a game and Hasbro is their parent company and told them how to market it to best serve the consumers. It's inevitable that the result looks like a streamlined RPG that lots of people will enjoy.

Within 5 years WotC will be developing 5th edition and will have a much bigger budget from the great success 4th edition will be.

Making sweeping generalizations is fun!

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 01:46 PM
All sounds as expected. WotC's design criteria are totally confused and were bound to lead to a mess.

They want characters to be leveled but they want 1st level characters to be like action heroes from the get go, they want development and instant gratification for the attention-deficit-disorder generation.
...what?
First-level characters no longer die in one hit. That's a great starting point. That can't fail to make the low levels more enjoyable for anyone who isn't a fan of "well, the orc rolled a 20. I'll get me coat a new sheet" and of all of your modifiers being absolutely dwarfed by what you roll.
Does that mean they somehow have nowhere to go?
First-level characters are more powerful than 3E first-level characters, because being first level in 3E (or 2E, or etc) sucked, except for a handful of gamers who were all about that. "I know! We can start as commoners and gain our first class level later!"


They want combat to be faster but also have lots of silly power-ranger options like kids have in video games.
They want turns to be faster. A long combat could well take the same amount of time, but more would be happening.
As for the other bit, I have no idea what you're talking about. Is it the powers? How are those meaningfully different from the various class abilities that came before?


They want to have a role-playing game but don't want to bother simulating a real world where people get tired or die or have any meaningful relationship with time at all.
That's a cry for, what... fatigue rules? Aging rules? Maybe they're in there... or maybe we don't need them? I've never seen aging rules come up except as a way of shifting your stats around at chargen, and fatigue rules only come up when someone casts spells that inflict it.


They want to simplify compared to 3ed but they want such grand scales of play that everything turns into a vast spreadsheet of largely meaningless numbers.
I'm not even sure what you're complaining about, here. I don't know that you are, either.


But worst of all: WotC wanted to design a game, but Hasbro told them to pander to the lowest common denominator that will shift product. It's inevitable that the result looks like the car that Homer Simpson designed.

Within 5 years WotC will all be working on MMORPGs or unemployed and D&D will be up for sale. I hope someone who actually cares about quality will buy it.
This is the exact same kind of doomsaying that people were engaged in before 3E came out. For all its flaws, 3E was a hell of a lot better designed than 2E, and 4E is similarily going to be better... and to sell like hotcakes. Let's not forget how much more popular 3E was than 4E.

WotC wanted to design a game, and they did. Somehow, I think that Mike Mearls has better ideas about game design than you do, and the same applies to most of the rest of the people working on 4E.


Look, we know you're a grognard who wishes 1E would rise to the top, but it's not happening. No matter what you may like to think, people stopped playing 1E not because they're ignorant teenagers with ADD who can't roleplaying, not because they "can't handle it", or anything of the sort.

alchemyprime
2008-05-14, 02:00 PM
Okay. Last Saturday I played in one of the preview events with a few friends and a few people I didn't know, but I recuited a few for my home group.

Anyhow, I will say these:

PROS:
I played an Eladrin ranger. I like the Eladrin race. With the teleport ability of eladrin and the archery abilities of the ranger, I was doing pretty good. (Except the dice hated everyone but the DM!)
The Paladin was using different abilities left and right. So was I and so was the Warlock. The wizard was mostly using magic missile, but he tossed the occasional orb of force and acid arrow in there. The cleric... well... JD's a dumbass, I've known him since kindergarten, so I won't mention the cleric.
The battles went so much faster. The fighter hit 1 HP before using a healing surge, the main bad guy almost got away, but the warlock and I took care of him (yay archers!).
The combat took us the same amount of time as 3.5, yes. But we were getting used to 4e. We've been playing 3.5 for 3 years now, and 3e for a year before that. And by the end of the session, I was amazed. The whole campaign took us an hour less than a home campaign does, even if both were mostly fighting. And we spent the same amount of time RPing.

CONS:
YEah. Fighter cleaves. Alot.

That's about it. I'm getting 4e. I'll still play 3.5 (thank you, Pathfinder! :smallbiggrin:) and you know what? That's just fine.

Because trust me: 4e is not 2e Redux. Thank (Enter Non-Evil Patron Deity Here) for that.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 02:01 PM
That's why you simply declare your independence before attacked, unless it's from a reaping strike miss. Then you can simply declare your allegiance after it misses you, but before the wind cuts you (or whatever is supposed to happen). Swear fealty mid-dodge if you have to.
You're either a minion or you're not. "Swearing fealty"? WTF?


I'm really just showing how silly the minion subtype is. It makes no sense.
No, you're just showing how silly "lol, I'm a minion now!" is. "Fealty" has nothing to do with it.
Man, it's not like previous editions didn't have minions (numerous weak creatures serving the strong ones).
It's not like plenty of other games, good games, don't have minion rules.
Minion rules work in some genres and not others. D&D Fantasy Adventure is one of the ones in which they do. Pulp action is another.


I enjoy playing DnD because in most cases, it accurately models real life.
Really? How does it do that?
Is it the wizards and dragons and unicorns?
Is it the way the Profession skill works?
Is it the way you can hit anyone 5% of the time?
Maybe the way you can completely dodge an explosion of flame in a 5'x by 5' room?

Oh, I know! It's the way how you're just as likely to make a 20-foot long jump after a running start as a 5-foot long jump!

Seriously, I have never heard someone claim that they enjoy D&D because it models real life.

(Ooh, ooh! Is it hit points? It MUST be hit points, and the way they let high-level characters jump off of cliffs!
...okay, I'm done now.)


4th edition looks so far like its going to play like a game instead of model various circumstances. Yeah, I've probably been playing the wrong system all along for this kind of thing and I probably should switch, because 4th edition is going in the opposite direction I was hoping (too much wargaming mechanical crap, little to no realism).
Given that the game aspect of the game is pretty important, I sure hope it plays like a good game. Games that go for "realism" and "modeling" generally wind up being bogged down, unbalanced, and un-fun in various ways.

If you want to model real life, you're looking for a physics engine.

You could try GURPS, I guess? I honestly don't know what to recommend if you want intense realism and accurate modelling of real life. Games just don't do that, even the ones that claim they do.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 02:08 PM
I honestly don't know what to recommend if you want intense realism and accurate modelling of real life. Games just don't do that, even the ones that claim they do.


You could go outside and swing a sword at traffic, screaming that you're a level 12 fighter at the top of your lungs. Then reality will kick really quickly. :smallbiggrin:

nagora
2008-05-14, 02:09 PM
Look, we know you're a grognard who wishes 1E would rise to the top, but it's not happening. No matter what you may like to think, people stopped playing 1E not because they're ignorant teenagers with ADD who can't roleplaying, not because they "can't handle it", or anything of the sort.

The reason people got turned off 1st and 2ed was that TSR started down this exact same road of treating their audience like morons instead of doing the re-write that 1ed needed (you know, because having "Demons" in the game was really 1ed's priority problem!). They went bust doing that and I think WotC will too, or rather they will stop making enough money for Hasbro to justify their existance and be cut adrift.

The OGL is the only thing that's kept d20 afloat, IMO, by letting enough real fans produce support to make up for the lousy quality of the material coming from the source company. If they really are serious about cutting that grassroots support off then all 4ed is going to be is a dull semi-roleplaying, semi-boardgame with the long-diluted "Dungeons and Dragons" brand hanging onto it by a leprous thread. That's not enough.

But, as you suggest, 1ed is still out there and it is still a great game. It leaves a lot to the DM to decide and fill in, but that's its strength. No amount of tables and charts can make a bad DM design good scenarios.

Chronicled
2008-05-14, 02:18 PM
You could go outside and swing a sword at traffic, screaming that you're a level 12 fighter at the top of your lungs. Then reality will kick really quickly. :smallbiggrin:

The mental image is too good :smallamused:.

nagora
2008-05-14, 02:28 PM
They want to have a role-playing game and don't want to bother with things that don't really matter to their character or are flippant details that don't pertain to the story.

Ah, "the story". If your DM's doing things to the characters for "the story" then you have a crap DM, IMO. The genius of the original D&D was the idea that certain characters can be freed from "the story" and write their own destiny. Once you start scrapping things like reasons for monsters to have treasure, or reasons why you encountered this group of bandits here or what happens when the characters aren't around because they're "flippant details" - which is WotC's consistant drive - then far from getting a good story you'll find that all you get is a list if encounters that don't mean squat to anybody.

Realism isn't in the mechanics - they're just fluff. Realism - the true "crunch" of an RPG - is in the reasons why things in the world are how they are and how they interact with the PCs. Did it seem real (not "like real life")?: That's the gold standard test at the heart of any good role-playing session. Did it make you care about what happened?

Throwing more and more mechanical detail on rarely addresses that question.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 02:32 PM
If there was no overarching plot that the DM makes happen, every game would come down to someone doing something stupid, killing someone and then chaos would ensue.

A game needs a goal.

Jack Zander
2008-05-14, 02:38 PM
Man, it's not like previous editions didn't have minions (numerous weak creatures serving the strong ones).

Previous editions didn't have a template for minions. Minion isn't some sort of mechanical thing that happens to you. You either serve a higher power, or you don't. It's not a template you can apply to everyone you've ever knighted.



Really? How does it do that?
Is it the wizards and dragons and unicorns?
Is it the way the Profession skill works?
Is it the way you can hit anyone 5% of the time?
Maybe the way you can completely dodge an explosion of flame in a 5'x by 5' room?

Oh, I know! It's the way how you're just as likely to make a 20-foot long jump after a running start as a 5-foot long jump!

Seriously, I have never heard someone claim that they enjoy D&D because it models real life.

(Ooh, ooh! Is it hit points? It MUST be hit points, and the way they let high-level characters jump off of cliffs!
...okay, I'm done now.)

Ah, here come the strawmen, let me knock them down for you.

First, take note that I said the word mostly. I know there are bugs that let you do stupid tricks. I'm pretty sure anyone with the IQ of a WoW junkie could realize that's not what I was talking about.

Real life doesn't have unicorns and fairies and monsters so we obviously can't compare those.

Let's look at the things we can compare. You mentioned jump checks. Well I'm going to start by saying 3.5 went in the opposite direction of realism with these. In 3.0 a running long jump was your jump check -5, and that's how many feet you jumped. Average person will not be able to jump 20 feet, and may not even be able to jump 5 if he's really unlucky.

Now if you have the time to assess the jump and there are no distractions, your mind will force you to take a ten and you'll always make the same jump (give or take a few inches). Unfortunately, when you're in the middle of battle and orcs are firing arrows at you, three things could happen: You could get tripped up form the distractions (or arrows in your gut) and not jump as far as usual. You could do just as well as normal. Or your adrenaline
could give you that extra boost to make it that extra 5 feet. There are all sorts of real life examples of these things happening.

Let's look at some other examples. You mentioned Profession right? Well unless you've got orcs attacking you while you sell meat pies, you can take a ten on that check too, and wisdom is a major factor of marketing your goods or service to make more money from it (whether your job is based on str, dex, int, or cha, wis will be used to see not how well you do, but how much money you were able to make with what you do well).

Oh no, your entering into a new market and a big competitor may squeeze you out? Better roll for that one. You've got three things that can happen again: You got too nervous and did something too risky (or not risky enough) and didn't do as well as normal. You did just fine. Or you completely smashed the competition and people started coming to you that week instead of your competitors, so you made 1.5 times the amount of money.

How about combat now? Everything here is so random we can't ever take a ten. That's good, fights can go either way (though the odds are usually stacked one way or the other). I want to grab my opponent and tackle him to the ground. Well he gets an AoO because I have to enter a much closer space to him, a space that he's constantly guarding with his sword, and when I enter it, he's going to jab his sword at me to keep me back.

I manage to dodge out of the way and grab his sword arm. Now he's going to try and shake me off before I can get a full hold on him. I make a grapple check and so does he (strength plus how much combat training you've had). I may be a weakling, but there are so many things that could happen (I might have grabbed his arm just the right way, or he might have tripped up trying to back away and is now trying not to fall over more than he's trying to get me off of him). I succeed and now I'm holding onto him and may deal damage if I so choose (strangle, headlock, headbutt, etc.)

Give me another one.


Given that the game aspect of the game is pretty important, I sure hope it plays like a good game. Games that go for "realism" and "modeling" generally wind up being bogged down, unbalanced, and un-fun in various ways.

If you want to model real life, you're looking for a physics engine.

You could try GURPS, I guess? I honestly don't know what to recommend if you want intense realism and accurate modelling of real life. Games just don't do that, even the ones that claim they do.

Well maybe no one has come up with the right mechanics yet. I'm not giving up hope for a realistic and balanced game. Maybe I'll make one myself.

nagora
2008-05-14, 02:39 PM
If there was no overarching plot that the DM makes happen, every game would come down to someone doing something stupid, killing someone and then chaos would ensue.

Every NPC should have a reason for what they are doing. Some of them might be doing things that the PCs want to stop/help/watch/pay for. But it's important that the choice is the players, not the DM's


A game needs a goal.

No, every NPC should have a goal, a game never should.

Well, "never" is a bit sweeping, but special closed-ended campaigns are usually not as much fun as the open-ended game.

Players, of course, usually have goals in mind for their characters. Generally, the best games are where the players work towards those goals and find help and hinderance in the world the DM has created, rather than waiting for the DM to tell them what's knocked on the door, although the DM should not be completely reactive - s/he should be tracking the NPC's efforts to attain their goals.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 02:45 PM
The reason people got turned off 1st and 2ed was that TSR started down this exact same road of treating their audience like morons instead of doing the re-write that 1ed needed (you know, because having "Demons" in the game was really 1ed's priority problem!). They went bust doing that and I think WotC will too, or rather they will stop making enough money for Hasbro to justify their existance and be cut adrift.
Except, of course, that 3E was highly profitable.

People got turned off 1st edition because they liked 2E better.
People stopped playing 2nd edition and started playing 3rd because they liked 3E better. Not because "people are idiots", but because they were better systems. They were more fun. People learned things from the previous edition and applied it in the making of the next.


The OGL is the only thing that's kept d20 afloat, IMO, by letting enough real fans produce support to make up for the lousy quality of the material coming from the source company. If they really are serious about cutting that grassroots support off then all 4ed is going to be is a dull semi-roleplaying, semi-boardgame with the long-diluted "Dungeons and Dragons" brand hanging onto it by a leprous thread. That's not enough.
YO is wrong--3E was making bank. The books sold in various quantities, with "Complete Psionic" doing awfully because it was awful and the PHB II doing well because it was good.
You wanna check out how third-party supplements did? Not so great, in quality or quantity.

They're also not cutting anything off.


But, as you suggest, 1ed is still out there and it is still a great game. It leaves a lot to the DM to decide and fill in, but that's its strength. No amount of tables and charts can make a bad DM design good scenarios.
It really, really isn't a great game. No amount of tables and charts can make a bad DM design good scenarios, but a solid ruleset where encounters are easy to put together and the mechanics are fun can make for a fun casual game, or it can make up for a mediocre or mostly-competent-but-bad-at-some-stuff DM, or it can let a good DM focus on other things.

Speaking of "tables and charts", I thought that was what AD&D was all about.
I believe that a good DM can make a 1E game fun, despite the mechanics sucking and not being fun to use.
But I'd rather have a good DM and fun mechanics. If I were playing role-playing games for the roleplaying alone, I'd be playing freeform. And I do, occasionally. I've run a pretty dang fun freeform game. I could also play rules-light games, and I do.
But if I play a crunchy game, the mechanics of the game better either do something good for/define the game (like Nobilis), help emulate the genre (Spirit of the Century), or be something that's fun to use.

fendrin
2008-05-14, 02:51 PM
That's why you simply declare your independence before attacked, unless it's from a reaping strike miss. Then you can simply declare your allegiance after it misses you, but before the wind cuts you (or whatever is supposed to happen). Swear fealty mid-dodge if you have to.

That's just like how in 3.5 you can change alignment mid-save to avoid the effects of Blasphemy. Oh wait, you can't.

Please, don't be ||||||silly about this. 4e is not perfect. Nothing will be. But don't cling so hard to an incorrect point that you start saying ridiculous things. You want to criticize 4e, fine. You can do that. Seriously though, when you say things like the above you only undermine other people's opinions of your ||||||||||||rationality.


Well maybe no one has come up with the right mechanics yet. I'm not giving up hope for a realistic and balanced game. Maybe I'll make one myself. Go for it. I wish you luck. Seriously. If you succeed to your own high standards, please, let me know, you may have a convert.

I have my doubts you will ever get there, though, because realism plus magic-users is inherently unbalanced. I highly prefer the wuxia idea that through sufficient training, a non-spell-caster can tap into the inherent magic of the world. It lets non-spell-casters do fantastic things to rival what spell-casters can do. It's fun. What it isn't, however, is realistic.

Farmer42
2008-05-14, 02:57 PM
The OGL is the only thing that's kept d20 afloat, IMO, by letting enough real fans produce support to make up for the lousy quality of the material coming from the source company.

How, exactly do other companies sales figures support WotC? Or are you presuming that it drives players to pick up the core 3? I think you'd have a real point here if you needed the core 3 for the best ogl products, but you don't. M&M2e, Conan d20, and many, many more are completely independent of the core 3. Heck, you don't even need the core to actually play D&D. The OGL is not driving sales. Period. I use the SRD more often than any of my books with the exception of PHBII, which has WBL and basic magic item rules in it. I've never even owned a copy of the 3.5 DMG. There are better books to spend money on, especially since most of the relevant info is available for free. And I'm not alone. The only really unique thing about me is that, of the gamers I know, I have the most non-WotC material for d20, and by the most I mean any at all.

SparkMandriller
2008-05-14, 03:06 PM
First, take note that I said the word mostly. I know there are bugs that let you do stupid tricks.

Evasion is a bug? High level characters jumping off cliffs or being submerged in acid and then walking away/fighting/using magic completely unimpaired is a bug?


There sure are a lot of bugs in this game. I'm surprised none of the authors fixed them to be more realistic.

kc0bbq
2008-05-14, 03:07 PM
Well, "never" is a bit sweeping, but special closed-ended campaigns are usually not as much fun as the open-ended game. That's a copout, and only interesting to people who love attention deficit wonderlands. It's also not true in any game system. On the Edge's Al Amarja would not without the natural tides of the Control Freaks exerting control over the Duped and Narcotized Masses and various gangs of Chaos Boys trying to undo that. In Shadowrun the Corps get bigger and stronger. In D&D it's BBEGs trying to become BiggerBEGs or whatever. They are natural laws, not individual goals, it's like the tide. Because even if a certain BBEG didn't exist another would take their place. Time flows, plot flows. It's not a sandbox full of random activities. At least in a decent game it's not.

Geez, now I want to play some OtE.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 03:20 PM
I'm going to pick up a copy of the quick start rules now. :smallbiggrin:

Vortling
2008-05-14, 03:29 PM
Darn you! Darn you all! I was hoping to get some answers regarding how clerics played in this new edition. Now look what you've done to the thread! :smallannoyed:

MartinHarper
2008-05-14, 03:29 PM
Previous editions didn't have a template for minions. Minion isn't some sort of mechanical thing that happens to you. You either serve a higher power, or you don't. It's not a template you can apply to everyone you've ever knighted.

I don't think 4e has a template for minions either. "Minion" is a type of monster, like "Brute", "Lurker", and so forth. Templates are things like the Lich template and the Vampire Lord template, and are previewed here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418a

Of course, you can be a "minion" in role-playing terms without having the "Minion" monster type, and vica versa.


I'm not giving up hope for a realistic and balanced game. Maybe I'll make one myself.

Maybe you and Azerian Kelimon should team up.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 03:30 PM
Every NPC should have a reason for what they are doing. Some of them might be doing things that the PCs want to stop/help/watch/pay for. But it's important that the choice is the players, not the DM's
But what they're doing, and the reasons why, is up to the DM. If the PCs are up against an evil cult, it's because the DM threw that evil cult in there.


No, every NPC should have a goal, a game never should.

Well, "never" is a bit sweeping, but special closed-ended campaigns are usually not as much fun as the open-ended game.
"Never" is really sweeping. It's perfectly fine to run games with a tight focus, whether that's a chain of events or just a theme.
"Open-ended sandbox game" is one way of playing. It is not the only way of playing. People who run games other ways are not having badwrongfun.


Players, of course, usually have goals in mind for their characters. Generally, the best games are where the players work towards those goals and find help and hinderance in the world the DM has created, rather than waiting for the DM to tell them what's knocked on the door, although the DM should not be completely reactive - s/he should be tracking the NPC's efforts to attain their goals.
They should also have a reason to be sticking together. Yeah, we know.
But "tracking the NPCs' efforts" only goes so far. It's fine for the DM to decide who wins an offscreen fight, rather than rolling it out.
Sometimes, just tracking the NPCs' efforts isn't the best thing to do.

Jayabalard
2008-05-14, 03:44 PM
If the PCs are up against an evil cult, it's because the DM threw that evil cult in there.If the PC's are up against the evil cult it's strictly be because they have chosen to go up against them rather than joining them, or ignoring them, going off and doing something else.

cloneof
2008-05-14, 03:51 PM
Woah, woah, woah... You mean that those little pieces of paper (that cut peoples fingers :smallannoyed:) right next to the 3,5 edition rulesbooks at the roleplaying store are actually previews of the 4th edition?

nagora
2008-05-14, 03:53 PM
Except, of course, that 3E was highly profitable.

People got turned off 1st edition because they liked 2E better.

I suppose that's why sales halved.

Rutee
2008-05-14, 03:57 PM
Ah, "the story". If your DM's doing things to the characters for "the story" then you have a crap DM, IMO. The genius of the original D&D was the idea that certain characters can be freed from "the story" and write their own destiny. Once you start scrapping things like reasons for monsters to have treasure, or reasons why you encountered this group of bandits here or what happens when the characters aren't around because they're "flippant details" - which is WotC's consistant drive - then far from getting a good story you'll find that all you get is a list if encounters that don't mean squat to anybody.

Realism isn't in the mechanics - they're just fluff. Realism - the true "crunch" of an RPG - is in the reasons why things in the world are how they are and how they interact with the PCs. Did it seem real (not "like real life")?: That's the gold standard test at the heart of any good role-playing session. Did it make you care about what happened?

Throwing more and more mechanical detail on rarely addresses that question.

.....So you're saying that realism isn't inherent in either 3e or 4e, but in the way the GM handles it? Yeah that sounds pretty accurate.

(FYI: The story is a perfectly good reason for a group to get involved in role playing; To whit, it's not just the GM writing it)

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-14, 04:06 PM
If the PC's are up against the evil cult it's strictly be because they have chosen to go up against them rather than joining them, or ignoring them, going off and doing something else.

True, to a degree. The DM has a lot of tools at his disposal to encourage the PCs to take certain actions. A good DM will be able to get the PCs to willingly and joyfully go up against the evil cult if that's what the DM wanted them to do.

For your convenience, here are 5 ways that the DM could encourage the players to go agains the evil cult:

1) The evil cult has kidnapped somebody near and dear to the PCs, a sister perhaps. The PCs could ignore this, but seems unlikely.

2) The PCs discover that the cult is about to end the world with a ritual and only the PCs are close enough to stop them.

3) The Evil Cult has occupied a dungeon area that has prior been established to hold the object of the PCs desires.

4) The Evil Cult have taken over the PCs' home town.

And a crazy one:

5) The Evil Cult is inexplicably made up of dopplegangers that resemble the PCs and their trusted allies.

In all of the above situations, the PCs could just ignore or join the cult, sure, but I think your above statement is a bit obtuse, perhaps purposely so.

nagora
2008-05-14, 04:06 PM
Speaking of "tables and charts", I thought that was what AD&D was all about.

Well, you also think that D&D is about "killing things and taking their stuff", which is like saying that Hamlet is about stabbing people. If that's how little you expect from any RPG then it's unlikely that you'll get anything more out of it.

Human Paragon 3
2008-05-14, 04:14 PM
Well, you also think that D&D is about "killing things and taking their stuff", which is like saying that Hamlet is about stabbing people. If that's how little you expect from any RPG then it's unlikely that you'll get anything more out of it.


nagora, I think the problem inherent in your arguments, and what nobody seems to be addressing, is that the rules do not in any way prohibit or discourage the DM from making up backstories for the NPCs and all of their gear. It merely gives guidelines for the amount of wealth the PCs should acquire and the rate that it should happen in the larger framework of the game (and it is a game). If the DM wants to go the extra mile, like yours obviously does, there's nothing in his way. Much like prior editions, what happens in game is entirely up to the whim of the DM and his playgroup. For example, I always ignored wealth by level in 3e. The treasure parcels listed in the article are fairly broad (a level 5 magic item, for example, could be almost anything), but even then you could not use them without any major effect on your campaign.

Rutee
2008-05-14, 04:14 PM
Well, you also think that D&D is about "killing things and taking their stuff", which is like saying that Hamlet is about stabbing people. If that's how little you expect from any RPG then it's unlikely that you'll get anything more out of it.

That's what DnD's about. It's what the rules support, it's what classes are built for. "Go into the dungeon, kill 'em all, Greyhawk their stuff." You can do more; I /encourage/ it. But that's not what DnD's about.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 04:15 PM
Previous editions didn't have a template for minions. Minion isn't some sort of mechanical thing that happens to you. You either serve a higher power, or you don't. It's not a template you can apply to everyone you've ever knighted.
Minion isn't a template you apply, either. It represents a weak enemy. A mook. Before, you just threw a bunch of lower-level monsters at the players. Now, you can throw level-appropriate Minions.

Minion monster type isn't the same as "serving a higher power", any more than "Solo" means that the monster always appears alone.


Ah, here come the strawmen, let me knock them down for you.

First, take note that I said the word mostly. I know there are bugs that let you do stupid tricks. I'm pretty sure anyone with the IQ of a WoW junkie could realize that's not what I was talking about.
I'm not talking about "bugs" or "stupid tricks". I'm talking about the fundamental nature of the game, in which anyone can hit anyone else 5% of the time, high-level characters have the HP to walk off of cliffs, etc.


Real life doesn't have unicorns and fairies and monsters so we obviously can't compare those.

Let's look at the things we can compare. You mentioned jump checks. Well I'm going to start by saying 3.5 went in the opposite direction of realism with these. In 3.0 a running long jump was your jump check -5, and that's how many feet you jumped. Average person will not be able to jump 20 feet, and may not even be able to jump 5 if he's really unlucky.

Now if you have the time to assess the jump and there are no distractions, your mind will force you to take a ten and you'll always make the same jump (give or take a few inches). Unfortunately, when you're in the middle of battle and orcs are firing arrows at you, three things could happen: You could get tripped up form the distractions (or arrows in your gut) and not jump as far as usual. You could do just as well as normal. Or your adrenaline
could give you that extra boost to make it that extra 5 feet. There are all sorts of real life examples of these things happening.
Except that you decide when you take 10.

"Jump check" and "Jump check -5" doesn't change much. Because a result of 20 is still a 15-foot long jump. Fifteen feet! But only 5% of the time.
Let's say we've got a competition in which everyone is trying their absolute best. They're not gonna take 10, now are they? They have, let's say, Elite array, 15 STR, and 5 ranks in Jump, with a +2 synergy bonus from 5 tumble ranks. That's +9 on the jump check. This isn't unreasonable stuff, here.
So, with the 3.0 -5, about 5 of our 100 competitors are gonna jump 24 feet.

Let's take 100 peasants with no ranks, instead. About 5 of them will still jump 15 feet.

Oh, and every athlete's performance is going to vary enormously. Each of those peasants, trying to do their best over and over, is likely to get results as low as negative five feet, too.

Oh, and let's not mention that a 5-foot long jump is the absolute standard. 6 feet is the 1928 women's world record, 7.9 being the men's world record set that year. But every female peasant can move around in running jumps of five feet all the time. "Realism". Uh-huh.

While we're at it, come the hell on. Trying hard--that is, rolling to get the best possible result--makes you vastly more likely to fail. You can always jump 5 feet... but if you want to jump 15 feet, you're going to do it sometimes, but you'll fail to jump at all just as often.
What I'm getting at here is that using a d20 as your variable is inherently unrealistic, because it produces an even distribution, not even an incorrect bell curve!


Let's look at some other examples. You mentioned Profession right? Well unless you've got orcs attacking you while you sell meat pies, you can take a ten on that check too, and wisdom is a major factor of marketing your goods or service to make more money from it (whether your job is based on str, dex, int, or cha, wis will be used to see not how well you do, but how much money you were able to make with what you do well).
The money Profession makes you doesn't line up with the prices for anything... and Profession(lawyer) and Profession(street beggar) make you the same amount of money.

Profession(Musician) makes you scant silvers. Meanwhile, using the Perform skill to make money will make you a lot more, after a certain point, and can even attract extraplanar attention. The ninth-level bard can be just sitting around, taking 10 on perform checks on his MW flute, and a genie will pop in to ask him to play at his kid's Bar Mitzvah, to paraphrase someone.


Oh no, your entering into a new market and a big competitor may squeeze you out? Better roll for that one. You've got three things that can happen again: You got too nervous and did something too risky (or not risky enough) and didn't do as well as normal. You did just fine. Or you completely smashed the competition and people started coming to you that week instead of your competitors, so you made 1.5 times the amount of money.
But the amount of money you make makes no sense.


Furthermore, you don't automatically take 10 out of combat. If you insist that you do, well, then 8-INT people don't know ANYTHING (9 on knowledge checks, when "common knowledge" is DC 10... of course, if they're NOT taking 10, they still only know 45% of the things everyone with 10+ INT knows), 8-WIS people can't understand spoken conversations (DC 0, +10 to make out what they're saying... of course, that'll still happen 45% of the time if you roll)...


How about combat now? Everything here is so random we can't ever take a ten. That's good, fights can go either way (though the odds are usually stacked one way or the other). I want to grab my opponent and tackle him to the ground. Well he gets an AoO because I have to enter a much closer space to him, a space that he's constantly guarding with his sword, and when I enter it, he's going to jab his sword at me to keep me back.
You can be bigger, heavier, stronger, armored, and armed with a sword while I'm armed with a gauntlet.
But my odds of getting lucky are still unrealistically large.


I manage to dodge out of the way and grab his sword arm. Now he's going to try and shake me off before I can get a full hold on him. I make a grapple check and so does he (strength plus how much combat training you've had). I may be a weakling, but there are so many things that could happen (I might have grabbed his arm just the right way, or he might have tripped up trying to back away and is now trying not to fall over more than he's trying to get me off of him). I succeed and now I'm holding onto him and may deal damage if I so choose (strangle, headlock, headbutt, etc.)

Give me another one.
I don't think I need to. Trying to defend d20 as realistic is ridiculous.
First, deal with the fact that d20+stuff leads to an even distribution, not a bell curve, and hugely varying results. Then we can get into the nitty-gritty (like examining real bell curves for various things).


Well maybe no one has come up with the right mechanics yet. I'm not giving up hope for a realistic and balanced game. Maybe I'll make one myself.
Realism and balance don't go together well. A realistic game would be incredibly complicated, and really would be, basically, a physics engine. (And that's just for the physical stuff! Just try modeling social interaction realistically!)

Matthew
2008-05-14, 04:23 PM
Let's not forget how much more popular 3E was than 4E.

Future seeing powers? :smallbiggrin:



WotC wanted to design a game, and they did. Somehow, I think that Mike Mearls has better ideas about game design than you do, and the same applies to most of the rest of the people working on 4E.

Interestingly, Mike Mearls has gone on record as saying he would rather play AD&D than D20. He prefers 4e to AD&D, but in his words...

"I love 4e to bits (obviously; there'd be something deeply wrong if I didn't)"

Source: A Tale of Two 4e's (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/01/tale-of-two-4es.html)

With regards to OD&D he says this:

"I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[OD&D players] are probably more likely to accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check)."

Source (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=campaignstories&action=display&thread=543)

At first I suspected it wasn't really him, but I am assured that it really is...

Chronicled
2008-05-14, 04:32 PM
Darn you! Darn you all! I was hoping to get some answers regarding how clerics played in this new edition. Now look what you've done to the thread! :smallannoyed:

You maniacs! You blew it up! Oh, damn you! Goddamn you all to hell!

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 04:32 PM
Future seeing powers? :smallbiggrin:
That, or a typo... nah, couldn't be.


Interestingly, Mike Mearls has gone on record as saying he would rather play AD&D than D20. He prefers 4e to AD&D, but in his words...
Sure, OK. It's probably not because of the mechanics, though. I'm fine with people playing whatever edition they want. I'm not fine with them sneering about how everyone who doesn't play their edition is clearly an inferior roleplayer and human being.


"I love 4e to bits (obviously; there'd be something deeply wrong if I didn't)"

Source: A Tale of Two 4e's (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/01/tale-of-two-4es.html)

With regards to OD&D he says this:

"I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[OD&D players] are probably more likely to accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check)."

Source (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=campaignstories&action=display&thread=543)

At first I suspected it wasn't really him, but I am assured that it really is...
Sure. Of course, 3E can accommodate that playstyle.
And, of course, freeform games are entirely based on things other than the rules. Plenty of games are even more rules-light than OD&D. And I enjoy some of them. I've played in and run freeform games. My favorite games, Spirit of the Century and Nobilis (although Nobilis takes enough mental energy I can only do so much of it), are rules-light and very rules-light, respectively.

But that's not what I want out of D&D. And if D&D tried to give me that kind of experience, it'd fail, for a variety of reasons.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 04:43 PM
If the PC's are up against the evil cult it's strictly be because they have chosen to go up against them rather than joining them, or ignoring them, going off and doing something else.
It's not like the world you make motivates the PCs, or anything. Like they react to events that you decide happen. It's not like you can predict whether or not they'll want to join an evil cult.


I suppose that's why sales halved.
O, rly? Proof, please. Somehow, I doubt that twice as many 1e books were solid, even in the first X years of release, than 2e books. The number of players has only increased. Part of that is the popularity of the hobby, of course.

And, of course, 3E sold far, far better than both.


Well, you also think that D&D is about "killing things and taking their stuff", which is like saying that Hamlet is about stabbing people. If that's how little you expect from any RPG then it's unlikely that you'll get anything more out of it.
I expect a lot more from other RPGs.

But let's be honest, here. The game is called Dungeons and Dragons. The combat rules are gone over far more extensively than any other kind. The spell lists? Mostly for combat. Class features? Combat. The Fighter, one of the four basic kinds of characters, gets next to no skills other than killing people and taking their stuff. 2E sure as heck didn't give you XP for talking to people... it gave you XP for killing things. And for the stuff you took from them.

The stuff you don't need a system for, the intensive roleplay, the emotional conversations, all that--it doesn't matter what you're playing. The stuff you don't have rules for would work almost the same in any system that doesn't have rules for it.
It mostly matters that you're playing D&D when it comes to how you kill people and take their stuff.

I don't turn to D&D for my immersive roleplaying experiences. There are other games that are better suited to that and better at it, including good freeform (not that that's easy to find). When I play D&D, I expect there to be some amount of people-killing and stuff-taking... in part, because that's what almost any character's capabilities are all about. That's what the system is designed for.

That isn't to say that I enjoy dungeon crawls (ugh, dungeons), or encounter after encounter with nothing but combat and no story. I like the game to be interesting roleplaying-wise. But a game of D&D that's only interesting roleplaying-wise isn't much better than one that's only interesting mechanically.

Matthew
2008-05-14, 04:50 PM
Sure, OK. It's probably not because of the mechanics, though.

Well, he doesn't elaborate, but I don't think it's improbable. Indeed, I prefer the mechanics of AD&D to D20, and not from some misplaced nostalgia, crazy misunderstanding of D20 or poor DM experiences. I just prefer them and thus consider them subjectively better.



I'm fine with people playing whatever edition they want. I'm not fine with them sneering about how everyone who doesn't play their edition is clearly an inferior roleplayer and human being.

Sure, me too.



Sure. Of course, 3E can accommodate that playstyle.
And, of course, freeform games are entirely based on things other than the rules. Plenty of games are even more rules-light than OD&D. And I enjoy some of them. I've played in and run freeform games. My favorite games, Spirit of the Century and Nobilis (although Nobilis takes enough mental energy I can only do so much of it), are rules-light and very rules-light, respectively.

Indeed, but the point is really that previous editions offered different things from what D20 and 4e offer.



But that's not what I want out of D&D. And if D&D tried to give me that kind of experience, it'd fail, for a variety of reasons.

Certainly, which I think is the crux of the matter. What people want out of D&D differs from person to person and from gaming group to gaming group. This is exactly the reason why D20 fails to give me what I want (and why 4e will also likely fail). Of course, I am fully aware that what I want out of D&D and what the majority of fans want are quite different.



O, rly? Proof, please. Somehow, I doubt that twice as many 1e books were solid, even in the first X years of release, than 2e books. The number of players has only increased. Part of that is the popularity of the hobby, of course.

Sales figures are hard to come by, but AD&D and BD&D sold ridiculous amounts in the 70s and early 80s by all accounts. The hobby was much larger in terms of fanbase. Wizards don't release their own sales figures, I am told, but I can think of one 70s source off the top of my head for TSR: Dungeons & Dragons - What it is and where it is going (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28807) Gygax (1979)

Jerthanis
2008-05-14, 04:54 PM
I suppose that's why sales halved.

Could you provide a link to sales figures on this? I'm having trouble understanding how sales could have halved when I see D&D3rd edition books for sale almost everywhere, and don't imagine Borders would keep something on its shelves if it didn't sell at least decently well. Were FLGSs just ludicrously profitable in the 80s?

So I've been playing the NES game D&D: Pool of Radiance recently, and have been enjoying it. However, the game has atrocious documentation... there's no description of what any spells do, or what weapons which classes can use, so I whipped out my 2nd edition rulebooks to refresh myself. My goodness those books are poorly laid out! I had to read through the Magic-User description paragraph by paragraph to see which weapons it can equip. I had to search three different chapters before I could figure out whether Fighter/Magic-users can wear armor while casting spells. I swiftly learned to ignore strength on any character that wasn't a fighter, since the best I could hope for without exceptional strength is a +1 to hit and damage. The Magic system? Organizing spells by spell level is just... I don't know... I can't tell if it's good or bad.

Reading over those 2nd edition books made me glad for the relatively clear, relatively well laid out books I've got in 3rd edition, because I don't feel they're getting in the way of finding the information I'm looking for, and hope 4th edition is even better as far as this goes.

This is also probably my biggest reason I feel I could never step backwards in editions... the fact that I don't feel like I could understand the game without studying it for a good while. I don't like it when the rules or the rules learning process are getting in the way of the fun. It's also the reason 4th edition seems easy to jump into so far. All the mechanics I've heard of so far are fairly straightforward, and it sounds like the class chapters are going to go over a class' abilities and weaknesses in easy-to-reference-during-play detail. (Heh, let's see how grappling works though, and hope there's no Monte Cook style "advice" to be given)

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 04:54 PM
Well, he doesn't elaborate, but I don't think it's improbable. Indeed, I prefer the mechanics of AD&D to D20, and not from some misplaced nostalgia, crazy misunderstanding of D20 or poor DM experiences. I just prefer them and thus consider them subjectively better.

And that, I don't get. But shine on, you crazy diamond.


Indeed, but the point is really that previous editions offered different things from what D20 and 4e offer.

Certainly, which I think is the crux of the matter. What people want out of D&D differs from person to person and from gaming group to gaming group. This is exactly the reason why 4e and D20 fail to give me what I want.
This, I do get. And I have no qualms with it, and more luck to ya. And unlike nagora, you don't sneer about how everyone who likes 3E has a horrible DM and can't play in REAL games, and anyone who thinks 4E might be good is an animu-watching teenager on crack, which is why my opinion of you is much better than my opinion of him, despite the fact that we don't often agree.

fendrin
2008-05-14, 04:58 PM
Indeed, but the point is really that previous editions offered different things from what D20 and 4e offer.


Certainly, which I think is the crux of the matter. What people want out of D&D differs from person to person and from gaming group to gaming group. This is exactly the reason why D20 fails to give me what I want (and why 4e will also likely fail). Of course, I am fully aware that what I want out of D&D and what the majority of fans want are quite different.

Out of curiosity, what is it that you want that AD&D gives and d20 (and presumably 4e) does not?

skeeter_dan
2008-05-14, 05:08 PM
No, every NPC should have a goal, a game never should.

Well, "never" is a bit sweeping, but special closed-ended campaigns are usually not as much fun as the open-ended game.


Strange: I've played in both types of games and enjoyed both about equally. Sometimes, after running around in a sandbox, you really feel like having an end goal in the game.

Lord of the Rings was certainly a "closed-ended campaign."

Matthew
2008-05-14, 05:14 PM
Out of curiosity, what is it that you want that AD&D gives and d20 (and presumably 4e) does not?

Well, that's a (lengthy) subject for another thread (and there are already many on the subject :smallsmile:). It might be better put that D20 gives me too much of what I don't want, but if I were to strip those aspects away I would be left with AD&D, in which case I might as well play AD&D. :smallwink:

skywalker
2008-05-14, 05:22 PM
Darn you! Darn you all! I was hoping to get some answers regarding how clerics played in this new edition. Now look what you've done to the thread! :smallannoyed:

Well, if you wanna go back to my original post, I wrote some about it there. I can tell you, further, that when I looked over the character sheets, the first thing I thought was, "man, I don't want to play the cleric." You've also got another person who talked about how fun everything was, but failed to mention the cleric, and said that the person playing the cleric was "an idiot." Personally, I wouldn't think that shines too positively on the cleric. We're fairly sure the half-elf portion of the cleric was screwed up, and not how half-elves work.

About the cleric itself, the preview character had one melee power, an encounter power, which you can read about here. (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t315/jt1044/Half-ElfClericofBahamut1.jpg) Otherwise, they were holy symbol powers. This cleric was not really built to mix it up in melee, and the buffs seem pretty lackluster, although they are first level. Personally, as an "adherent" of the OW4 school of healing strategy, the cleric doesn't fit with that strategy anymore, which is annoying. You don't heal people yourself. You simply grant them the ability to use their own healing surge(which is usually a standard action, or they may have already used theirs, and they're only allowed to activate their own once per encounter.)

Overall the cleric was the lamest of the characters. I wouldn't look forward to it.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 05:33 PM
I just talked to somebody who played a cleric in this thing. They said they did just fine and had fun; the buffs did help, and the healing was important.

Well, if you wanna go back to my original post, I wrote some about it there. I can tell you, further, that when I looked over the character sheets, the first thing I thought was, "man, I don't want to play the cleric." You've also got another person who talked about how fun everything was, but failed to mention the cleric, and said that the person playing the cleric was "an idiot." Personally, I wouldn't think that shines too positively on the cleric. We're fairly sure the half-elf portion of the cleric was screwed up, and not how half-elves work.
Yes--the half-elf, IIRC, should have an extra power. They get to pick an at-will power from another class as a bonus encounter power for themselves, it seems.


About the cleric itself, the preview character had one melee power, an encounter power, which you can read about here. (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t315/jt1044/Half-ElfClericofBahamut1.jpg) Otherwise, they were holy symbol powers. This cleric was not really built to mix it up in melee, and the buffs seem pretty lackluster, although they are first level. Personally, as an "adherent" of the OW4 school of healing strategy, the cleric doesn't fit with that strategy anymore, which is annoying.

You don't heal people yourself. You simply grant them the ability to use their own healing surge(which is usually a standard action, or they may have already used theirs, and they're only allowed to activate their own once per encounter.)

Overall the cleric was the lamest of the characters. I wouldn't look forward to it.
Er, characters can only activate their own healing surge once per round *on their own*--it's called the "second wind". The cleric's power overrides that. If it says they can spend a healing surge, they can spend a healing surge, second wind used or not.

Basically it seems the cleric suffered for his race (he didn't get the extra power, or even a WIS stat increase for the presumably WIS-based cleric: other races would've gotten him more WIS, or the dragonborn breath ability, or other useful things), and you were getting the healing rules wrong on top of that.
Besides which, they could've picked the lame powers. There's more powers than those at each level. I doubt all of them are WIS-based, too; the cleric's other option could be STR-based powers or CHA-based.

skywalker
2008-05-14, 05:45 PM
Er, characters can only activate their own healing surge once per round *on their own*--it's called the "second wind". The cleric's power overrides that. If it says they can spend a healing surge, they can spend a healing surge, second wind used or not. This is what I tried to explain. You just explained it a little better.


Basically it seems the cleric suffered for his race (he didn't get the extra power, or even a WIS stat increase for the presumably WIS-based cleric: other races would've gotten him more WIS, or the dragonborn breath ability, or other useful things), and you were getting the healing rules wrong on top of that.
Besides which, they could've picked the lame powers. There's more powers than those at each level. I doubt all of them are WIS-based, too; the cleric's other option could be STR-based powers or CHA-based. Well, no, I wasn't getting healing rules wrong. I will also respectfully disagree with you. I don't think it was so much a problem of the cleric, so much as a problem of how the system was designed with "clearly defined roles," among other problems. While originally, they said that clerics would never be penalized for healing, they are penalized for doing something else. I think, altho they were trying(or said they were trying) to not gimp casters and simply improve melee characters, they had to gimp casters to create more balance. Therefore, the cleric is less fun.

nagora
2008-05-14, 05:57 PM
nagora, I think the problem inherent in your arguments, and what nobody seems to be addressing, is that the rules do not in any way prohibit or discourage the DM from making up backstories for the NPCs and all of their gear. It merely gives guidelines for the amount of wealth the PCs should acquire and the rate that it should happen in the larger framework of the game (and it is a game).

This is true in theory but in practice all I see are screeds and screeds of "this is how you do an encounter" "This is how many encounters you do a day" "This is how much this orc should have on him" "this is how many encounters per level". It's like Animal Farm: sure we still have "All Animals are Equal" up there on the side of the barn but everything coming out of WotC is saying the opposite. It's a constant stream of "There is a formula for fun and here it is". And the result is so dreadfully monochrome. On another thread someone actually gave "Gauntlets of Dexterity in the hands of an orc" as something you couldn't build a plot twist on! I could do three weeks' DMing on what that sparked in my imagination - it was a great idea!

It seems to me that all these mountains of tables that directly address how the game is run are beating the imagination out of the DM and lowering the expectations of players to sub-basement levels.

It's such a shame when someone can say that a something as rich as AD&D used to be is reduced to "killing things and taking their stuff". I've done so much more with my 1ed characters - we never needed skill rolls or xp for talking to people or strange and unlikely combat options to develop interesting characters and situations. So why is it that so many 3ed players and 4ed advocates seem to think that after decades of adding those things on it's so terribly limited? I think the answer is that adding all the masses of rules and complexly interaction feats and options actually hampers playing the characters.

Certainly something is not working for people like Reel On if they feel so restricted in what they think can be done in the game. But more of what was wrong isn't going to make it better, surely?

kc0bbq
2008-05-14, 06:01 PM
You don't heal people yourself. You simply grant them the ability to use their own healing surge(which is usually a standard action, or they may have already used theirs, and they're only allowed to activate their own once per encounter.)This is not true. Cure Light Wounds heals the target as if they used a healing surge, and that's on the KoSF prerolled characters.

We don't even know what's available beyond that.

nagora
2008-05-14, 06:07 PM
This, I do get. And I have no qualms with it, and more luck to ya. And unlike nagora, you don't sneer about how everyone who likes 3E has a horrible DM and can't play in REAL games, and anyone who thinks 4E might be good is an animu-watching teenager on crack,

Actually, that last bit was me characterising Hasbro's attitude to its audience, not my opinion of the audience. I think you all deserve better.

As to the DMing part, the DM's job is to be the world - be the model of social interation or the physics engine along with lots of other things. If the DM simply is a puppet master for a conveyor belt of pre-determined events that unroll like clockwork when the PCs are there and freeze the moment they leave the room, then I apologise to no one for saying that that is a bad DM. But that's the style WotC seem to be encouraging all the time.

Matthew
2008-05-14, 06:10 PM
I think the answer is that adding all the masses of rules and complexly interaction feats and options actually hampers playing the characters.

I agree with this, but I wonder if it comes from too radical a direction for this thread? I think the premise could make for a really interesting article, and I am trying to think of anything I have read that directly addresses this point. I have a feeling it is the sort of thing that turns up on indie design blogs. :smallwink:

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 06:14 PM
Actually, that last bit was me characterising Hasbro's attitude to its audience, not my opinion of the audience. I think you all deserve better.
It sure seems like it's your opinion. You say that sort of thing a lot.


As to the DMing part, the DM's job is to be the world - be the model of social interation or the physics engine along with lots of other things. If the DM simply is a puppet master for a conveyor belt of pre-determined events that unroll like clockwork when the PCs are there and freeze the moment they leave the room, then I apologise to no one for saying that that is a bad DM. But that's the style WotC seem to be encouraging all the time.
Only you seem to be getting that out of what WotC is saying. Nobody's suggesting the world freezes while the PCs are gone. No one's suggesting the DM predetermines every event.

You also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of any gaming style other than "sandbox in which the DM is simply the designer and physics/social engine of the world".

For example, let's say that a bunch of orcs have a prisoner they're going to kill soon. If the PCs, unaware of that, spend an extra hour on something and then get to the orcs, under your model the prisoner would be dead.
It's perfectly fine DMing to have a prisoner who'll be killed "soon", where "soon" is soon after the PCs get there. The DM should not be limited to only tracking events in the world... and even in your model, he isn't, since he designs the events anyway.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-14, 06:15 PM
If the DM simply is a puppet master for a conveyor belt of pre-determined events that unroll like clockwork when the PCs are there and freeze the moment they leave the room, then I apologise to no one for saying that that is a bad DM. But that's the style WotC seem to be encouraging all the time.

So all those DMs who buy the pregenerated adventures are bad DMs? Good to know... Since I loved Red Hand of Doom... but because you say its so, it must have been terribly run.

And that sets me up for failure, since I will be running all 6 of the hardcover adventures announced for 4e.

kc0bbq
2008-05-14, 06:16 PM
If the DM simply is a puppet master for a conveyor belt of pre-determined events that unroll like clockwork when the PCs are there and freeze the moment they leave the room, then I apologise to no one for saying that that is a bad DM. I would counter that a DM running a world with a limitless supply of DMPCs going around accomplishing everything whether the PCs are there or not is the bad DM.

Yahzi
2008-05-14, 08:30 PM
The genius of the original D&D was the idea that certain characters can be freed from "the story" and write their own destiny. Once you start scrapping things like reasons for monsters to have treasure, or reasons why you encountered this group of bandits here or what happens when the characters aren't around because they're "flippant details" - which is WotC's consistant drive - then far from getting a good story you'll find that all you get is a list if encounters that don't mean squat to anybody.
That's what I've been trying to say for weeks now. I just couldn't frame it quite so clearly.

The above is exactly why "per encounter" powers disturb where "per day" encounters don't. I know how many times a day a priest can case Remove Disease, and I can adjust my world to reflect that.

fendrin
2008-05-14, 08:49 PM
The above is exactly why "per encounter" powers disturb where "per day" encounters don't. I know how many times a day a priest can case Remove Disease, and I can adjust my world to reflect that.

So just reframe 'per encounter' as 'per 5 minutes'. Most encounters won't be more than 5 minutes of game-time anyway.

Why do so many people feel that DM creativity is restricted to world-building?

CommodoreFluffy
2008-05-14, 08:51 PM
I'm just going to wait until there are plenty of supplements, but I will buy the core rulebooks and stuff, and get used to the rules beforehand, but there simply isn't enough material right now for my campaign's style of play.

Rutee
2008-05-14, 08:51 PM
That's the actual timing on Per Encounter powers, FYI, so none of that "OH EM EFF GEE OBERONNI FALLACY" deal.

Farmer42
2008-05-14, 08:56 PM
I'm just going to wait until there are plenty of supplements, but I will buy the core rulebooks and stuff, and get used to the rules beforehand, but there simply isn't enough material right now for my campaign's style of play.

What exactly do do you mean by not enough material?

CommodoreFluffy
2008-05-14, 08:59 PM
...Supplements, extra rulebooks, loopholes...(you weren't supposed to see that)
basically just other rules, because there is bound to be things which are left unaccounted for, having supplements adds so much more flavor to the game.

Jayabalard
2008-05-14, 10:15 PM
It's not like the world you make motivates the PCs, or anything. Like they react to events that you decide happen. It's not like you can predict whether or not they'll want to join an evil cult. You can introduce elements to try and motivate them along a particular path and you can make guesses as to how they will react... but what they actually wind up doing should be their choice.


O, rly? Arguing using memes generally does not do much to support your argument or make you look intelligent.


But let's be honest, here. The game is called Dungeons and Dragons. The combat rules are gone over far more extensively than any other kind. The spell lists? Mostly for combat. Class features? Combat. The Fighter, one of the four basic kinds of characters, gets next to no skills other than killing people and taking their stuff. 1st and 2nd ed both were designed under the assumption that combat was what you actually needed rules for. Non-combat situations were resolved through roleplaying and dm fiat (meaning that ultimately the DM improvised) since it's really not necessary to have hard and fast rules for any of that stuff.


2E sure as heck didn't give you XP for talking to people... it gave you XP for killing things. And for the stuff you took from them.

And as I recall, the xp you got from killing things in 1st ed were nothing when compared to the XP gains due to treasure and storyline rewards; I can't speak for 2nd ed, since I never converted over to it.

Jerthanis
2008-05-14, 11:42 PM
It's such a shame when someone can say that a something as rich as AD&D used to be is reduced to "killing things and taking their stuff". I've done so much more with my 1ed characters -

And I've done so much more with my 3rd edition characters, and will do so much more with my 4th edition characters. I fail to see where you get this idea that 3rd or 4th edition is any more focused on killing things and taking their stuff than 1st or 2nd were. Really, that's the kind of game I remember from when I played 2nd edition, and the only aspect of D&D that I think hinges desperately on some form of "taking their stuff" has been solidly being moved away from in both 3rd and (apparently) 4th edition. I'm referring to magic items being half your character, mechanically. Not being able to craft them yourself, necessitating the aforementioned "kill/take" strategy contributes as well. (It's extremely difficult to get to-hit increases in 2nd edition, and for anyone who isn't a Fighter, your +2 Mace is probably reducing your THACO from 17 to 15)

You can say AD&D has a rich and beautiful storytelling tradition, and that 3e and 4e are desecrating it, but it seems to me like you're just talking about how awesome your DMs have been. I look at my old 2nd ed ruleset and just think to myself, "Jee, there are so many rules here getting in the way of the kind of awesome RP experience I'm looking for... and none really supporting it."

Of course, I may not be the greatest model of what changes are appealing to D&D's core fanbase, since D&D isn't really a favorite system of mine. You might not call me a member of the core fanbase, so the fact that I like the direction the game is going might mean it really is going in the wrong direction.

So my DM might be running KotS for our group, but I kind of want to kick off D&D 4th with a Tiefling Fighter whose personality I've been kicking around in my head for a while... I've got the Tiefling stats thanks to that photo someone shared on these boards, but I'd need the Dwarf stats so I know which stats to lower from the example character. Anyone have any idea? +2 strength, +2 Con maybe?

CommodoreFluffy
2008-05-14, 11:57 PM
It matters not what the rules imply, for you may use the rules however you see fit. So what if the rules were made for "killing things and taking their stuff" you can still use the base rules and alter them to your image. You can do anything with the game, no matter which rule set you are using, some just appeal to one group more than the others.

Abardam
2008-05-15, 12:05 AM
but I'd need the Dwarf stats so I know which stats to lower from the example character. Anyone have any idea? +2 strength, +2 Con maybe?I'm reasonably sure they get +2 Con, +2 Wis.

xirr2000
2008-05-15, 01:20 AM
...what?
First-level characters no longer die in one hit. That's a great starting point. That can't fail to make the low levels more enjoyable for anyone who isn't a fan of "well, the orc rolled a 20. I'll get me coat a new sheet" and of all of your modifiers being absolutely dwarfed by what you roll.
Does that mean they somehow have nowhere to go?
First-level characters are more powerful than 3E first-level characters, because being first level in 3E (or 2E, or etc) sucked, except for a handful of gamers who were all about that. "I know! We can start as commoners and gain our first class level later!"

Reel, you're my new hero :) Wish I'd wrote this out first, testify brutha!!!

xirr2000
2008-05-15, 02:04 AM
I'm reasonably sure they get +2 Con, +2 Wis.

Ya, near as I can tell most races get a bonus to two stats, one physical and the other mental. Think the Half-elf may be an exception as they get to choose one themselves but not 100% on that.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-15, 02:15 AM
Ya, near as I can tell most races get a bonus to two stats, one physical and the other mental. Think the Half-elf may be an exception as they get to choose one themselves but not 100% on that.

Tielfings get +2 INT, +2 CHA, but AFAIK everyone else gets one physical and one mental (or just one, like humans). Half-elves get... +2 DEX, +2 CHA, I think.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-15, 02:55 AM
If there was no overarching plot that the DM makes happen, every game would come down to someone doing something stupid, killing someone and then chaos would ensue.

A game needs a goal.

Oh, you poor dear. I feel sorry for you.

Fortunately not all of us have players who are socially dysfunctional.

Fitz
2008-05-15, 04:41 AM
OK a little late (i'm catching up)
but at early levels the jump rules are not that bad for representation apart from the variability of the d20: the world record for the running long jump is just over 29 feet. (they may be some confusion between feet and meters)
so for the athletes achieving that they need at least +11 modifier (since they would get 29 or so feet regularly but not more) even with max ranks and 15 strength they would be level 3 experts with skill focus.
so the numbers are not totally ridiculous (though strength isn't all that is needed for jump, the synergies don't work for athletes, and at higher levels it breaks down quickly) but take out the variability of the d20 and the numbers might make more sense.
in regards to 4E , good to hear the view of those who have played the pre-release, i am not very keen yet, but will get the 3 core book and give it a chance.
Fitz

SamTheCleric
2008-05-15, 07:47 AM
Oh, you poor dear. I feel sorry for you.

Fortunately not all of us have players who are socially dysfunctional.

Maybe not socially dysfunctional, but definitely pretentious.

Tyger
2008-05-15, 08:39 AM
Oh, you poor dear. I feel sorry for you.

Fortunately not all of us have players who are socially dysfunctional.

There is nothing "socially dysfunctional" about wanting to have a goal in mind. Even if its one that the players come up with completely on their own, its still a goal. Hell, the "quest" model is a staple of the fantasy genre. There is always some horrible threat, some fabulous treasure, some beautiful maiden... that's the reason we play these games.

Trog
2008-05-15, 09:58 AM
I don't think it was so much a problem of the cleric, so much as a problem of how the system was designed with "clearly defined roles," among other problems. While originally, they said that clerics would never be penalized for healing, they are penalized for doing something else. I think, altho they were trying(or said they were trying) to not gimp casters and simply improve melee characters, they had to gimp casters to create more balance. Therefore, the cleric is less fun.
Can you elaborate on this? :smallconfused: How are they penalized? Less fun than what? 3.x clerics? The other classes? *is curious and would like to see the thread back on track... if that's even possible at this point*

skywalker
2008-05-15, 03:56 PM
Can you elaborate on this? :smallconfused: How are they penalized? Less fun than what? 3.x clerics? The other classes? *is curious and would like to see the thread back on track... if that's even possible at this point*
Well, in my opinion, the cleric, for instance, only has one melee power, and it's an encounter power. Which means for the cleric to get into melee, they simply revert to the "rolling a d20" that was supposedly much less fun than "I use cleave *rolls a d20.*"

I can say right now, definably, the 4.0 cleric was less fun than a 3.5 cleric. A first level 3.5 cleric was using enlarge person, bless, etc. to change battles. The 4.0 cleric is giving allies a +2 bonus for one attack, or giving HP. Essentially, the sense I got from the preview character was "healbot." There was nothing to encourage other activities, and in my opinion, clerics were discouraged from other activities.

Along with that, the cleric wasn't that useful in helping someone heal. Because you don't "cast cure light wounds," you allow them to use a healing surge without taking an action, and then add a d6 onto that. While numerically, you are giving back the same number of HP as CLW, in practice you are not. CLW, at CL1, gives a minimum of 2HP, and a maximum of 9HP. If a fighter uses healing surge(or the cleric does it for him, effectively) he gets 7+d6 HP back. Now, that seems like a lot more, you can get a max of 13 and a minimum of 8, however, the fighter now has a lot more HP. Whereas in 3.5(with a 16 CON) a fighter got somewhere between 2/13 and almost 3/4 of his HP back, now the fighter gets somewhere between 1/4 and less than half of his HP back.

I'm sure someone will come along to jump on me about how there is a smaller range there, which obviously makes it better automatically, and it's really better because there's no chance of getting a two, but at the table it's a lot easier to justify a d8 for a possible 3/4 of HP than it is to justify 7+d6 for maybe half. Finally, "healing surges" are nice, and you should in theory never run out of them, but if you do, there is no way for a cleric to heal you. They can't heal *you* themselves*(IE they have no spell/power that simply grants permanent HP)*, they only spend your surges for you. :smallannoyed:

Finally, the cleric also had the least fun of anyone at the table, and was judged by me(a fairly good judge of this sort of thing) to be the least fun before this thing even started. If you're curious, the rogue had the most fun. Everyone loves backstab.

EDIT: *'ed text has been edited in for clarity, thank you. More info, you heal completely each night(or every time you take "an extended rest." I'm not sure whether this was an actual rule, or just stated, but the rules did say "an extended rest occurs once per day." Not sure how you guys wanna disect that one.)

kc0bbq
2008-05-15, 04:07 PM
Because you don't "cast cure light wounds," One more time...

Cure Light Wounds is on the quickstart character, and it heals without anyone using a surge.

Cure Light Wounds Cleric Utility 2
You utter a simple prayer and gain the power to instantly heal wounds, and your touch momentarily suffuses you or a wounded creature with a dim silver light.
Daily * Divine, Healing
Standard Action Melee touch
Target: You or one creature
Effect: The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge.

tyckspoon
2008-05-15, 04:24 PM
I can say right now, definably, the 4.0 cleric was less fun than a 3.5 cleric. A first level 3.5 cleric was using enlarge person, bless, etc. to change battles. The 4.0 cleric is giving allies a +2 bonus for one attack, or giving HP. Essentially, the sense I got from the preview character was "healbot." There was nothing to encourage other activities, and in my opinion, clerics were discouraged from other activities.


This is a necessary sacrifice that leads to a general improvement in the game, IMO. Clerics (and druids and wizards and all the other full casters) of 3.5 had an overly-large range of choices and impact on the game. Reducing those choices can reduce the fun you may have with one, but it also makes them work much better with the rest of the game.

That said the preview character does seem to be made to fit more into a traditional healbot/caster style, with both at-will powers being ranged and his class archetype/path choice (assuming I'm right about which bit of the sheet it is) going to improving his healing effects. We don't know yet what the other first-level powers might be or what the cleric's other archetypal choice(s) will do.. it'd be more accurate to say that you found this particular version of the 4E cleric less fun. We can't honestly make a comment on the entire class yet.