PDA

View Full Version : Range in 4e?



Belial_the_Leveler
2008-05-22, 04:18 AM
From what we've seen so far, 4e has been steadily moving towards a quicker and more balanced gameplay-but away from realism (at least to the extent acceptable in fantasy). Minions with 1 hp regardless of level, the new rules on healing and death, magic threshold for monsters that arbitrarily prevents them from benefitting from items, increased HP and decreased damage so a 1st level fighter could survive being stabbed five times with a longsword for maximum damage, some rules working differently for monsters than PCs for no other reason than building a gap between PCs and NPCs (e.g. rules for death) and so on.

How range is handled is no different;

I know I can throw a 2-pound rock 100 feet and I don't have exceptional strength. That's 20 squares. However, the 4e giant which would be twice as tall as I am if it existed and several times stronger and would have an exceptional skill with rock-throwing to boot can only throw his rock 14 squares.

A well-made longbow could shoot up to 1000 feet-that's 200 squares. The longest range we've seen so far is 20 squares for some spells. Since spells no longer scale by level and since the wizard is artillery and thus expected to have the longest range, we most probably won't be seeing ranges even close to realistic.

The average range in 4e, as evident by warlock powers and some wizard spells is 10 squares. That's 50 feet. To give some perspective, that's three cars parked in a row. This means that average range combat will be at a distance a real life sprinter could cross in 2 seconds or less.


So yeah, mark one more blow against suspension of disbelief.

Attilargh
2008-05-22, 04:31 AM
With ranges even close to realistic, a sword-swinging warrior would be shafted if he ever pissed off an archer. Also, are you certain those are ranges instead of range increments?

Reinboom
2008-05-22, 04:33 AM
Closer to 4 cars parked in a row, unless you have a few lengthy cars.

And yes, range increments matter a lot.

Spiryt
2008-05-22, 04:40 AM
With ranges even close to realistic, a sword-swinging warrior would be shafted if he ever pissed off an archer. Also, are you certain those are ranges instead of range increments?

Can't see how. In 3.5 archers have good range - after taking far shot far greater than in ' reality ' - and I never ever heard that archers breaks the D&D.

If combat will take place on some ridiculously close distances, that's the first thing I'm homebrewing anyway.

Attilargh
2008-05-22, 04:43 AM
That's because in reality, people get hurt when hit by an arrow, not snicker at the piddly 1d8 damage.

...Which kinda undermines my original argument pretty badly, but anyway. :smalltongue:

Belial_the_Leveler
2008-05-22, 04:44 AM
Given that a real-life sprinter could clear 200 feet in a DnD round (40 squares) and DnD heroes are supposed to a) be better than RL humans, b) have magical speed boosters and c) have mounts, I don't see any problem with the ranges for the spells and arrows being 200 squares, especially if accuracy is substantially lowered due to range increments. Remember that RL longbowmen, while being able to shoot at least 10 times a minute at such ranges were repeatedly routed when charged despite an arrow being much more lethal in RL than in DnD.

To answer your question on range increments, it is ranges. I couldn't find mention of range increments anywhere in what rules have been revealed so far. Besides, spells didn't have range increments anyway.

Spiryt
2008-05-22, 04:49 AM
That's because in reality, people get hurt when hit by an arrow, not snicker at the piddly 1d8 damage.

...Which kinda undermines my original argument pretty badly, but anyway. :smalltongue:

Well in reality people get all their ribs broken and their breastbone split when hit with axe. Not suffer 1d12 + strenght damage. But it doesn't change the fact that hit point system while simple, can imitate dodges, scratches, shrugging off the blows quite well.

And using range weapons when you already can use meele weapons (after 4 seconds of moving) is pretty weird.

purepolarpanzer
2008-05-22, 06:48 AM
From what we've seen so far, 4e has been steadily moving towards a quicker and more balanced gameplay-but away from realism (at least to the extent acceptable in fantasy). Minions with 1 hp regardless of level, the new rules on healing and death, magic threshold for monsters that arbitrarily prevents them from benefitting from items, increased HP and decreased damage so a 1st level fighter could survive being stabbed five times with a longsword for maximum damage, some rules working differently for monsters than PCs for no other reason than building a gap between PCs and NPCs (e.g. rules for death) and so on.

Minions with 1hp is actually MORE realistic. It’s the PC’s who are freaks running around getting stabbed and not dying. Then again, the PC’s are special (as they should be), minions are meant to go down heroically (which they do). As far as comparing 4th to popular “realistic” (pffft) fantasy, this actually fits more than 3rd and well enough to please me- how many heros take 5 turns to whack an orc to death? Drizzt pretty much kills “minion” equivalent with a thought and a muscle spasm, Lord of the Rings characters take wounds and fight long battles, miraculously shrugging off the effects (Ala healing surges, since HP means more than health), and monsters are always different than heroes on things like HP and effectiveness (rules working differently). As far as magic threshold, death, and increased HP, these were done for balance (for some) and fun (for others). People were tired of magic item spamming, the pain in the arse of resurrection stuff, and dying from a kobold lucky strike at first. Sure, they are less “realistic”, but 4th is going for epic, heroic fantasy, as seen by the fact that fighters no longer just wave a metal sick ineffectively and wizards don’t seem to be apocalypse in a can any longer.

Mr. Friendly
2008-05-22, 07:27 AM
Minions with 1hp is actually MORE realistic. It’s the PC’s who are freaks running around getting stabbed and not dying. Then again, the PC’s are special (as they should be), minions are meant to go down heroically (which they do). As far as comparing 4th to popular “realistic” (pffft) fantasy, this actually fits more than 3rd and well enough to please me- how many heros take 5 turns to whack an orc to death? Drizzt pretty much kills “minion” equivalent with a thought and a muscle spasm, Lord of the Rings characters take wounds and fight long battles, miraculously shrugging off the effects (Ala healing surges, since HP means more than health), and monsters are always different than heroes on things like HP and effectiveness (rules working differently). As far as magic threshold, death, and increased HP, these were done for balance (for some) and fun (for others). People were tired of magic item spamming, the pain in the arse of resurrection stuff, and dying from a kobold lucky strike at first. Sure, they are less “realistic”, but 4th is going for epic, heroic fantasy, as seen by the fact that fighters no longer just wave a metal sick ineffectively and wizards don’t seem to be apocalypse in a can any longer.

THIS

I don't really understand why anyone cares about this whole Minions have 1hp thing. The joke we used to have from 3rd back through the beginning was that "minions" were One Hit - Die monsters. That is, it took one hit and they died. Now granted everyone took great pleasure in mocking the non-combat characters who couldn't take down a mook in one hit (ie Wizards out of spells and such); but really how stupid is it that Xorgenhocken the Elder, slayer of the Demon King of Glyptos, Destroyer of the Ancient Gate of Darkness and the Wizard who saved the world from destruction by stopping the resurrection of the dead god Doompants the Mighty, how stupid is it that he cannot hit some mook and kill it in one hit. Sure, as a wizard he has average or lower Strength, he has a staff. So he cannot just smack someone.

Which is really stupid. Virtually every description of Wizards and such ad high/epic levels (even in stories that don't necessarily involve D&D or levels) talk of them virtually crackling with arcane energy, so many years of of channeling the energy, it just infuses them. So I really have no issues with a 30th level Wizard smacking a (minion) over the head and killing him.

They are minions. Who freaking cares.

Also, I notice that in all the minion topics, I rarely see the true use of minions discussed - weapons of deception.

They are distractions and they are ablative armor. Most minions also have some fancy bonus that improve their race somehow, like Kobolds and their swarm tactics.

I always have (and if I start playing/running 4e I will use it there as well) used mooks as methods of wasting resources.

For example: I have an encounter with one 10th level kobold (whatever) and his 20 minions. If I have the leveled guy either illusion himself as his minions or he simply dresses identical... well that isn't my fault. :smallbiggrin:

The point is, that through excellent use of bluffing and deceit, minions are as useful, if not more useful, than a non-minion.

Reinboom
2008-05-22, 07:36 AM
Friendly, that put this in to my head:

Gandorf, the kind: (having finally attempted to settle down after slaying the greater demi-god Demodogbreath)
"Oh, get out of my vegetable patch, young Liddo Halfbit!"
*light taps on the head with staff*
*Liddo dies*
"..well.. damn."



No idea why.

But yes, I agree on the epic standard fantasy showcase. I'm not in the set up of "well, 3E and 4E are different. I think I will play them both. They emulate different things better than the other, so, why not? Then, maybe after, I can get my friends in to a game of Deadlands or Scion"

Actually... I now want to put Scion's setting on top of 4e's mechanics. I bet it could work rather well. You have the same "PCs are super special" ideas, and nobody complains about that game.

--
Closer to topic:
Range, yeah, I still think it's a bit awkward here. I do still hope you are referring to increments.

Indon
2008-05-22, 07:44 AM
I feel this is of interest, since one of the big reasons I like 4E is because it treats tactical ranged combat so much better than 3.x.

Yes, the ranges are likely to be jacked up. Damage is wacky as always with projectile weapons vs. melee. I don't even know if there are rules for cover. But the biggest change to increase viability was, in fact, the change in range.

Why? Because I simply couldn't play melee ranges and ranged ranges on the same scale - too much of a difference. If I wanted a firefight, melee characters would be trivialized (which is realistic - nobody fights with swords nowadays - but I do still want melee to compete). And if I wanted melee, nobody would ever fire outside of their first range increment (except for throwing weapon users, poor guys).

So, yes, it's a pretty big drop in realism. But it's a really big boost in viability. Now I can actually keep track of things like cover (which I will houserule if necessary) on a tactical scale.

KillianHawkeye
2008-05-22, 07:52 AM
I think the real issue here is that almost no one has any 200+ inch length battle mats to play on, so ranges of that magnitude never really come into play during most battles. It doesn't seem strange to me that WotC is keeping things on the mat this way. It also seems more balanced to stop the archer from being able to utterly dominate melee opponents simply by starting far away from them.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 08:11 AM
So, yes, it's a pretty big drop in realism. But it's a really big boost in viability. Now I can actually keep track of things like cover (which I will houserule if necessary) on a tactical scale.

I agree, in the game where people treat horses like motorcycles and the like, this is just another rule where it should be remembered that you're not simulating reality but playing a game.

Indon
2008-05-22, 08:25 AM
I agree, in the game where people treat horses like motorcycles and the like, this is just another rule where it should be remembered that you're not simulating reality but playing a game.

What does this have to do with Eberron?

Really, it's not about 'remembering you're playing a game'. You really don't want to remember that; instead, you want the game aspects to be subtle.

When you don't shoot very far with your gun, that's subtle (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic).

When you have trouble modeling combat because your table isn't big enough to track the scale required, that's not.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-22, 08:26 AM
Does a range of 20 for magic missile mean the missile can only be shot 20 squares, or does it mean it can be shot 20 squares before it starts losing accuracy.

Morty
2008-05-22, 09:09 AM
Minions with 1hp is actually MORE realistic. It’s the PC’s who are freaks running around getting stabbed and not dying. Then again, the PC’s are special (as they should be), minions are meant to go down heroically (which they do).

Uh huh. This would be true if all non-elite monsters were 1HP minions. However, they aren't. Soldiers or Brutes can have almost as much HP as PCs of the same level does or perhaps even more.

Rutee
2008-05-22, 09:22 AM
Uh huh. This would be true if all non-elite monsters were 1HP minions. However, they aren't. Soldiers or Brutes can have almost as much HP as PCs of the same level does or perhaps even more.

That would still make them the freaks, the unusual, in terms of what's easier to find /in setting/.

You're also inventing a false dichotomy. It must either be beneath the PCs' notice individually, or individually be a difficult fight for the party.

Morty
2008-05-22, 09:27 AM
That would still make them the freaks, the unusual, in terms of what's easier to find /in setting/.

In Monsters & More PDF human guard is a 1st level Soldier. And city guards are hardly "freaks". Same goes for common orcish or hobgoblin soldiers or raiders. There are also human berserkers or bandits.


You're also inventing a false dichotomy. It must either be beneath the PCs' notice individually, or individually be a difficult fight for the party.

I'm doing what now? I don't see how pointing out that minions aren't realistic -I don't think they're supposed to be- creates any dichtomy.

Rutee
2008-05-22, 09:32 AM
In Monsters & More PDF human guard is a 1st level Soldier. And city guards are hardly "freaks". Same goes for common orcish or hobgoblin soldiers or raiders. There are also human berserkers or bandits.
Eh. I'd handle 'em as minions, since they're faceless and human-like.




I'm doing what now? I don't see how pointing out that minions aren't realistic -I don't think they're supposed to be- creates any dichtomy.

Oh no, it was your argument. "If the freaks are supposed to be the ones in HP, why is there a level of monster between Elite and Minion?"

Indon
2008-05-22, 09:33 AM
Uh huh. This would be true if all non-elite monsters were 1HP minions. However, they aren't. Soldiers or Brutes can have almost as much HP as PCs of the same level does or perhaps even more.

You know, there's a minion thread.

That said, it seems there's a pretty simple houserule to resolve this: Create minions that take two or three hits (regardless of damage) to kill. Rebalance their XP appropriately to maintain 5-6 hits/kill ratio. Maybe boost damage a bit. Now you've filled the gap between 'complete fodder' and 'formidable opponent'.

Starsinger
2008-05-22, 09:35 AM
Being a minion is not some magical disease you get which exists in the game world. You don't say "I'm a minion" in character any more than you say "I'm level 17."! A minion is a monster that's there in the encounter because it makes sense that it would be there. For example when you fight the Goblin Shaman and the band of goblin warriors at level 7. You're done with Goblins. Their 1d6 HD is nothing compared to what you can do, but they're not worth experience. So you have a bunch of level 7 goblin minions. Conceptually they are the same goblin warriors that a level 1 person would fight. Except these have a chance to hit you, and hurt you, and are worth your time. So there's the goblin shaman and his group of minions.

It's an abstraction. Which admittedly seems to be the concept that heads won't wrap around.

Thinker
2008-05-22, 09:37 AM
I know I can throw a 2-pound rock 100 feet and I don't have exceptional strength. That's 20 squares. However, the 4e giant which would be twice as tall as I am if it existed and several times stronger and would have an exceptional skill with rock-throwing to boot can only throw his rock 14 squares.


Could you, a human with no exceptional strength, throw a 2-pound rock 100 feet and accurately hit a man-sized/shaped target? Do you know if this is merely a range-increment for the giant, rather than the maximum range?

Morty
2008-05-22, 09:39 AM
Eh. I'd handle 'em as minions, since they're faceless and human-like.

Good for you. However, that's not a default option. By the rules, they're Soldiers, Brutes and Skrimishers.


Oh no, it was your argument. "If the freaks are supposed to be the ones in HP, why is there a level of monster between Elite and Minion?"

Right. And since there's a level between Elite and Minion, called Normal, it means Minions have got only one HP for dramatic, not realistic purposes. Dramatic purposes that are quite alien to me, but that aside...


You know, there's a minion thread.

It's not me who started it, but I can't go pass obviouslt false statements.

Spiryt
2008-05-22, 09:41 AM
Could you, a human with no exceptional strength, throw a 2-pound rock 100 feet and accurately hit a man-sized/shaped target? Do you know if this is merely a range-increment for the giant, rather than the maximum range?

And, more importantly, what damage does the giant's rock? I mean, it probably weights much more than 2 pounds.

Thinker
2008-05-22, 09:47 AM
Uh huh. This would be true if all non-elite monsters were 1HP minions. However, they aren't. Soldiers or Brutes can have almost as much HP as PCs of the same level does or perhaps even more.

Say you want to have a big battle scene and you didn't want to just handwave the NPC interactions and say "this side is winning, these troops died." Have Army A's 100 soldiers be level 5 minions; Army B's 80 soldiers are also level 5 minions. Army B also has 20 elite troops who are level 7 soldiers. The PC party is level 6 and is aiding Army A. Any interaction between the minions each other will result in death, like in a real battle. The elite soldiers will be able to handle the regular soldiers far more easily, which is why perhaps the party is helping Army A.

Why do the minions need to have as much HP as the party? That is unrealistic. The party is playing heroes, not run-of-the-mill-people (RotMP). If they were RotMP they would die easily, as that is what is realistic. In case you didn't notice, most people cannot take a sword-chop to the throat.

Tougher challenges are represented by normal monsters, not minions. At level 3 those Bugbear Brutes were a challenge to the party, trading blows and with more HP than any single party-member. Now the brutes that escaped the PC slaughter have found a new master, but the PCs are level 8 now. The brutes aren't particularly tougher, but you still need them to be relevant to the fight: voila, minions!

EvilElitest
2008-05-22, 09:53 AM
THIS

I don't really understand why anyone cares about this whole Minions have 1hp thing.

1) Well as there is a thread (which seems determined to not show my post, so i'll have to rewrite them again) where all of those critics are mentions, i have to wonder why you don't. However the general gist is that it is unrealistic, inconsistent, video like, and plays like crapy movies like 300
2) Personally i supsect you don't understand any critics of 4E, but i'll stop complaining there

The joke we used to have from 3rd back through the beginning was that "minions" were One Hit - Die monsters. That is, it took one hit and they died. Now granted everyone took great pleasure in mocking the non-combat characters who couldn't take down a mook in one hit (ie Wizards out of spells and such); but really how stupid is it that Xorgenhocken the Elder, slayer of the Demon King of Glyptos, Destroyer of the Ancient Gate of Darkness and the Wizard who saved the world from destruction by stopping the resurrection of the dead god Doompants the Mighty, how stupid is it that he cannot hit some mook and kill it in one hit. Sure, as a wizard he has average or lower Strength, he has a staff. So he cannot just smack someone.

Which is really stupid. Virtually every description of Wizards and such ad high/epic levels (even in stories that don't necessarily involve D&D or levels) talk of them virtually crackling with arcane energy, so many years of of channeling the energy, it just infuses them. So I really have no issues with a 30th level Wizard smacking a (minion) over the head and killing him.

They are minions. Who freaking cares.
If you have low level people who act as fodder, fine. What ever, i don't care. If you have weak monsters fine. However creatures who's sole purpose is fodder then we have inconsistency among other things, like general bad game play



That would still make them the freaks, the unusual, in terms of what's easier to find /in setting/.

You're also inventing a false dichotomy. It must either be beneath the PCs' notice individually, or individually be a difficult fight for the party.
well the world apparently revolves around the PCs, so.......


Eh. I'd handle 'em as minions, since they're faceless and human-like
Exactly, 4E encourages a simplistic game style, with enemies literally being made to act as faceless fodder



Say you want to have a big battle scene and you didn't want to just handwave the NPC interactions and say "this side is winning, these troops died." Have Army A's 100 soldiers be level 5 minions; Army B's 80 soldiers are also level 5 minions. Army B also has 20 elite troops who are level 7 soldiers. The PC party is level 6 and is aiding Army A. Any interaction between the minions each other will result in death, like in a real battle. The elite soldiers will be able to handle the regular soldiers far more easily, which is why perhaps the party is helping Army A.

That should be the exception, not the default. You can do the same with low level warriors without breaking consistency



Why do the minions need to have as much HP as the party? That is unrealistic. The party is playing heroes, not run-of-the-mill-people (RotMP). If they were RotMP they would die easily, as that is what is realistic. In case you didn't notice, most people cannot take a sword-chop to the throat.
No its unrealistic. PCs don't get powers just because they are played by real people, they get their powers from their class and race/feats. Weaker people also have classes, these just tend to be inferiors because the PCs are above adverage


from
EE

Artemician
2008-05-22, 10:00 AM
Stuff

You can stat out regular NPCs whenever you like. It's just that most of the time it's not needed and it saves time for the DM to use generic 'mook' monsters to stat certain monsters.

EvilElitest
2008-05-22, 10:06 AM
You can stat out regular NPCs whenever you like. It's just that most of the time it's not needed and it saves time for the DM to use generic 'mook' monsters to stat certain monsters.

The thing is, using Mook monsters is in and of itself, a bad mechinic, promoting this video/action movie ideal, along with inconsistency and lack of verisimilitude, and PC entitlement If a DM wants to save time, just make one stat block and copy it for all of the guys
from
EE

Artemician
2008-05-22, 10:11 AM
The thing is, using Mook monsters is in and of itself, a bad mechinic, promoting this video/action movie ideal, along with inconsistency and lack of verisimilitude, and PC entitlement If a DM wants to save time, just make one stat block and copy it for all of the guys.

Isn't that what the Mook mechanic fundementally is? You're using the same statblock for a bunch of monsters. It's just an extremely weak statblock designed to reflect the weakness of the monster.

Roog
2008-05-22, 10:11 AM
No its unrealistic. PCs don't get powers just because they are played by real people, they get their powers from their class and race/feats. Weaker people also have classes, these just tend to be inferiors because the PCs are above adverage

So of all the characters in the world why are the characters played by the players the ones who have those powers?

Powers may corelate with PCness, but that does not distinguish PCness => Powers from Powers => PCness. Cause does not determine effect within the game world in the absolute way it does in the real world, since all in game effects need RL causes.

The logic that "PCs don't get powers just because they are played by real people, they get their powers from their class and race/feats" is not the absolute logic of cause and effect, it is instead logic that can be used to influence choice in the RL; it is not binding. The real cause for PCs to have their powers must be found in the real world.

Morty
2008-05-22, 10:14 AM
Say you want to have a big battle scene and you didn't want to just handwave the NPC interactions and say "this side is winning, these troops died." Have Army A's 100 soldiers be level 5 minions; Army B's 80 soldiers are also level 5 minions. Army B also has 20 elite troops who are level 7 soldiers. The PC party is level 6 and is aiding Army A. Any interaction between the minions each other will result in death, like in a real battle. The elite soldiers will be able to handle the regular soldiers far more easily, which is why perhaps the party is helping Army A.

Why do the minions need to have as much HP as the party? That is unrealistic. The party is playing heroes, not run-of-the-mill-people (RotMP). If they were RotMP they would die easily, as that is what is realistic. In case you didn't notice, most people cannot take a sword-chop to the throat.

Tougher challenges are represented by normal monsters, not minions. At level 3 those Bugbear Brutes were a challenge to the party, trading blows and with more HP than any single party-member. Now the brutes that escaped the PC slaughter have found a new master, but the PCs are level 8 now. The brutes aren't particularly tougher, but you still need them to be relevant to the fight: voila, minions!

Yeah, yeah, I know why people like to use minions -I, however, won't use them except in few cases- but they are unrealistic. Which is not criticism, and D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. But it's a fact.

Rockphed
2008-05-22, 10:22 AM
Could you, a human with no exceptional strength, throw a 2-pound rock 100 feet and accurately hit a man-sized/shaped target? Do you know if this is merely a range-increment for the giant, rather than the maximum range?

In other words, can you throw a rock that weighs 6 times as much as a baseball from second base and hit somebody standing 10 feet beyond first base accurately?

Thinker
2008-05-22, 10:32 AM
In other words, can you throw a rock that weighs 6 times as much as a baseball from second base and hit somebody standing 10 feet beyond first base accurately?

Yes, I am asking if you, with unremarkable training can do that. How about at 200 feet (presumably another range increment)? And so on. The ones that do it on a regular basis practice long and hard and are generally far stronger than your average person.

Indon
2008-05-22, 10:33 AM
In other words, can you throw a rock that weighs 6 times as much as a baseball from second base and hit somebody standing 10 feet beyond first base accurately?

I dunno, is it jagged (and thus improvised, probably with an associated penalty), or smoothed (and thus reasonably accurate)?