PDA

View Full Version : 4e Questions



RandomPlayer
2008-07-04, 04:46 PM
Feel free to ask stupid questions about 4e here! I know I have some.

1. When you roll to hit with a power, do you add the relevant ability or the modifier? It's always been the modifier and not the score that matters, but I'm confused here... Why? Well, when you roll to hit (I'll use the Fighter level 1 At-will exploit Cleave for example), it says "Strength vs. AC." If my fighter has a 16 STR, is his to-hit is 3 (+ any other modifiers, like proficiency) or is it 16 +any other modifiers? The only reason this confuses me is because it doesn't specify that it's the modifier; whereas in damage it says "1[W] +STR modifier damage

2. Similarly... check out the Fighter first page, and specifically hit points. Hit Points at 1st level is 15 + Constitution score rather than + modifier. So if that same fighter of mine has a 14 CON, he has 29 hit points at level 1, right? (And 11 healing surges, because that's modifier?)

3. Saving throws and defenses... I'm pretty sure I know the difference between these, but just to clarify... Reflex, Fort, and Will are now different versions of AC, whereas saving throws are usually just unmodified DC 10 d20 rolls?

4. On page 283 of the PHB, under the Diagonal Movement heading, it says that diagonal movement is equal to normal movement. Does that mean that if you move diagonally, you can move faster than if you move straight on a normal grid map, since each diagonal is worth 1 square?

5. Under the same heading, it says "you can move diagonally past most creatures, since they don't completely fill their squares." Does that mean you can move through enemy hexes? Could someone explain this to me?

6. Obviously, there are some things in 3.5 that I prefer over the new rules of 4e, even though overall I prefer 4e. This was just one thing that I thought was blindingly obvious in its wrongness... perhaps someone could explain why I'm wrong, but... Fighters can't wear plate; paladins can. Paladins get 10 + CON modifier healing surges/day; Fighters get 9+. Paladins get 4 skills; Fighters get 3. Paladins get +1 to Fort, Ref, and Will; Fighters get just +2 Fort. Fighters don't get bonus feats like in 3.5; paladins don't have a debilitating (and often annoying) alignment restriction anymore. Even the one thing that fighters get as a class feature that's pretty nice, marking your target - paladins get that too in one of their prayers! Plus of course, while fighters may get a few bonuses here and there, including martial ranged weapon proficiency whereas paladins don't, paladins have a whole plethora of spells, including healing. So can someone tell me how a fighter is even worse playing anymore if a paladin can do everything they can do and more?

I'm sure I'll have more later... these are just the ones that have been bugging me recently.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-07-04, 04:54 PM
Feel free to ask stupid questions about 4e here! I know I have some.

1. When you roll to hit with a power, do you add the relevant ability or the modifier? It's always been the modifier and not the score that matters, but I'm confused here... Why? Well, when you roll to hit (I'll use the Fighter level 1 At-will exploit Cleave for example), it says "Strength vs. AC." If my fighter has a 16 STR, is his to-hit is 3 (+ any other modifiers, like proficiency) or is it 16 +any other modifiers? The only reason this confuses me is because it doesn't specify that it's the modifier; whereas in damage it says "1[W] +STR modifier damage

Modifier, I'm very sure. I rolled up a wizard earlier and didn't have any defenses above...eh...14? Now, I'm sure the smart people here could get that higher, but still, that means a fighter with any kind of STR is hitting constantly. Wizards are meant to be squishy, but not that squishy.



2. Similarly... check out the Fighter first page, and specifically hit points. Hit Points at 1st level is 15 + Constitution score rather than + modifier. So if that same fighter of mine has a 14 CON, he has 29 hit points at level 1, right? (And 11 healing surges, because that's modifier?)

Yeah, that says "score". It's specifically the CON score.



3. Saving throws and defenses... I'm pretty sure I know the difference between these, but just to clarify... Reflex, Fort, and Will are now different versions of AC, whereas saving throws are usually just unmodified DC 10 d20 rolls?

Yes.



4. On page 283 of the PHB, under the Diagonal Movement heading, it says that diagonal movement is equal to normal movement. Does that mean that if you move diagonally, you can move faster than if you move straight on a normal grid map, since each diagonal is worth 1 square?

I believe so, but I haven't read that section. I definitely remember a friend talking about how five diagonal squares = five squares moved normally, and we wondered how Pythagorus would take the news.



5. Under the same heading, it says "you can move diagonally past most creatures, since they don't completely fill their squares." Does that mean you can move through enemy hexes? Could someone explain this to me?

Hexes? No idea.



6. Obviously, there are some things in 3.5 that I prefer over the new rules of 4e, even though overall I prefer 4e. This was just one thing that I thought was blindingly obvious in its wrongness... perhaps someone could explain why I'm wrong, but... Fighters can't wear plate; paladins can. Paladins get 10 + CON modifier healing surges/day; Fighters get 9+. Paladins get 4 skills; Fighters get 3. Paladins get +1 to Fort, Ref, and Will; Fighters get just +2 Fort. Fighters don't get bonus feats like in 3.5; paladins don't have a debilitating (and often annoying) alignment restriction anymore. Even the one thing that fighters get as a class feature that's pretty nice, marking your target - paladins get that too in one of their prayers! Plus of course, while fighters may get a few bonuses here and there, including martial ranged weapon proficiency whereas paladins don't, paladins have a whole plethora of spells, including healing. So can someone tell me how a fighter is even worse playing anymore if a paladin can do everything they can do and more?.

I'm not sure, but I think a fighter will pretty heavily out-damage a paladin.

marjan
2008-07-04, 04:57 PM
1.You add ability modifier, not ability to your roll.

2. Yes, you add CON score.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. That means the next paths are possible.

POO
CPO
OOP

P - your path, C - creature, O - empty square.

6. Fighters have easier time marking enemies, do slightly more damage, are less MAD and are better at crowd control. Scale Specialization is one of the best armor specialization feats. Fighters are better at "tanking" multiple enemies, while Paladins are better at Tanking single enemy.

Questions like your first five can go here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83321).

RandomPlayer
2008-07-04, 05:03 PM
1.You add ability modifier, not ability to your roll.

2. Yes, you add CON score.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. That means the next paths are possible.

POO
CPO
OOP

P - your path, C - creature, O - empty square.

6. Fighters have easier time marking enemies, do slightly more damage, are less MAD and are better at crowd control. Scale Specialization is one of the best armor specialization feats. Fighters are better at "tanking" multiple enemies, while Paladins are better at Tanking single enemy.

Questions like your first five can go here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83321).

Thanks. (And that's what I get for not checking the stickies...)

4. ...Why did they get rid of the 5-10-5-10 rule for diagonal movement? (Although now it would be 1-2-1-2) It worked fine, I thought. Now there's an inherent flaw in movement...

5. Ahh, I see. That makes much more sense. I did see a feat that let smaller creatures (like Halflings) move through enemy squares (not hexes, sorry) or something? So it confused me. Thanks for the clarification.

6. I see... I guess I won't be able to really rate 4e against 3.5 until I play all the classes to paragon tier... thanks.


I'll use the stickied thread after this post.

wodan46
2008-07-04, 06:38 PM
You should go to the stickied thread as suggested, but first I'd like to say that I've thought that the 4E Fighter was significantly better than the 4E Paladin.

The Fighter's Combat Superiority, when combined with his Mark, makes him very "sticky". Those opportunity attacks deal more damage than the Paladin Mark if they land (which is now very likely), and when they are landed, the enemy stops in his tracks, and can't move further. Toss in Fighter Weapon Talent, and you will have a guy who gets +1 to all attacks, another +Wis Mod to opportunity attacks, and has a [W] that hits for more damage than any other character. As a result, the Fighter can often outdamage Strikers in an encounter because of the sheer power of multi [W] encounter and daily powers. The Paladin gets... a couple heals a day. Note also that the Paladin has to choose between Str(some attacks), Cha(other attacks and Mark), and Wis(Lay on Hands and secondary effects), and still need Con for toughness themselves, while Fighters have just Str(all attacks), with other stats being much less important, Wis helping Combat Superiority and Con for toughness as well.

KillianHawkeye
2008-07-04, 08:18 PM
4. ...Why did they get rid of the 5-10-5-10 rule for diagonal movement? (Although now it would be 1-2-1-2) It worked fine, I thought. Now there's an inherent flaw in movement...

This is not truly a flaw in the movement rules. The distances have simply been further abstracted. Notice that area effects are now always square shaped. Basically 4e defines a "square" as having the same diagonal distance as the horizontal and vertical distances. This results in the 4e square AoE being equivalent to a radius burst in 3X.

If you have trouble with abstract geometry, then I suggest just trying not to think about it too much. :smallbiggrin:

mikeejimbo
2008-07-04, 11:50 PM
If you have trouble with abstract geometry, then I suggest just trying not to think about it too much. :smallbiggrin:

This gives me a brilliant idea!

A Call of Cthulhu RPG that utilizes a non-Euclidean battlegrid!

chiasaur11
2008-07-05, 01:13 AM
This gives me a brilliant idea!

A Call of Cthulhu RPG that utilizes a non-Euclidean battlegrid!

Hmm...
On one hand: Awesome.
On the other, you'll want a good shrink to get your players back to sanity, once the campaign is over of course.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-05, 09:43 AM
4. ...Why did they get rid of the 5-10-5-10 rule for diagonal movement? (Although now it would be 1-2-1-2) It worked fine, I thought. Now there's an inherent flaw in movement...


I think they got rid of it because you're not actually moving on a square grid, so applying "diagonal movement" rules was what you might call "misplaced realism". It's accurately modeling your character doing something that they are not actually doing, if you see what I mean.

When you run from one corner of a 10 foot by 10 foot room to another, you aren't literally running from corner to corner, you're just trying to get from one side of the room to the other. It shouldn't make that much difference.

Gwain
2008-07-05, 12:31 PM
I think they got rid of it because you're not actually moving on a square grid, so applying "diagonal movement" rules was what you might call "misplaced realism". It's accurately modeling your character doing something that they are not actually doing, if you see what I mean.

When you run from one corner of a 10 foot by 10 foot room to another, you aren't literally running from corner to corner, you're just trying to get from one side of the room to the other. It shouldn't make that much difference.

Or, more easily, it helps DMs and Players alike not to misjudge the actual movement of anyone.

"I charge with my greataxe, splitting that vile goblin's head in two"
"ok move"
"1, 2 err.. 4, 5"
"no no it was 1,3,4,6"
"but i have only 5 moves left, let me try another way..."
*5 minutes of counting*
"screw that, i attack the darkness"

:P

Kurald Galain
2008-07-05, 12:40 PM
"1, 2 err.. 4, 5"
"no no it was 1,3,4,6"

So why again isn't WOTC simply using a hex grid?

Wanna bet that sixth edition will involve hexes?

TheOOB
2008-07-05, 12:42 PM
It's just easier to count diagonal movement as one square, especially if you are dealing with people who never studied the Pythagorean theorem. Yes that means you move faster diagonally then you do vertically and horizontally, but you know what, your foes do to so it doesn't really matter.

Gwain
2008-07-05, 12:50 PM
So why again isn't WOTC simply using a hex grid?

Wanna bet that sixth edition will involve hexes?

sure it would be easier...

...or they could use a squared grid and ignore diagonal movement, as they did.

(not counting that an Hex Grid could lay some confuzion with line of sight when two targets are far away and you need to pinpoint LOS easily)

Charlie Kemek
2008-07-05, 01:06 PM
So why again isn't WOTC simply using a hex grid?


because of this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0176.html)

SCPRedMage
2008-07-05, 02:22 PM
Or, more easily, it helps DMs and Players alike not to misjudge the actual movement of anyone.

"I charge with my greataxe, splitting that vile goblin's head in two"
"ok move"
"1, 2 err.. 4, 5"
"no no it was 1,3,4,6"
"but i have only 5 moves left, let me try another way..."
*5 minutes of counting*
"screw that, i attack the darkness"

:P
Close, but I'm betting the real reason was more of a speed of play issue (which your example illustrates perfectly...)

Remember, one of the main things WotC was saying about 4e up to launch is that its supposed to speed up combat. Naturally, any rule that would unnecessarily slow combat would be liable to get the axe. WotC probably figured the 5-10-5-10 diagonal movement slowed things down more than it was worth.

RandomPlayer
2008-07-05, 04:59 PM
Yes that means you move faster diagonally then you do vertically and horizontally, but you know what, your foes do to so it doesn't really matter.

Of course it does. When you're calculating long distance movement (out of combat, like when you're going from Village A to Dungeon A that's 25 miles away), you could just move diagonally and get there faster. Not that most people would try to exploit that. It would be exploited accidentally.

And since when has the 1-2-1-2 ever caused confusion? I think it's pretty easy to count 1,3,4,6, and doing that is well-worth having movement, oh I don't know, make logical sense. If you were to equate 4e's movement system to the real world, you'd move faster while going in certain directions, while you'd move more slowly going in others. Makes no sense.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-05, 05:24 PM
Of course it does. When you're calculating long distance movement (out of combat, like when you're going from Village A to Dungeon A that's 25 miles away), you could just move diagonally and get there faster. Not that most people would try to exploit that. It would be exploited accidentally.

Long distance movement isn't on a battlegrid. 25 miles is 25 miles.

The rules for movement in combat don't literally define the geometry of the gameworld. 4E isn't set in some nutso world where Pythagoras' theorem doesn't apply, any more than 3.X was set in a world where the square root of two was literally 1.5 (or in fact, fluctuated between 1 and 0 on alternate measurements).

RandomPlayer
2008-07-05, 05:45 PM
The rules for movement in combat don't literally define the geometry of the gameworld.

That doesn't change the fact that, in combat, you can move farther by, say, turning 45 degrees and moving instead of walking straight.

(And yeah, my example was bad. You don't use it for long-distance movement. But again, it's still something that can be exploited by mistake, even in combat.)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-07-05, 05:56 PM
And since when has the 1-2-1-2 ever caused confusion? I think it's pretty easy to count 1,3,4,6, and doing that is well-worth having movement, oh I don't know, make logical sense.

When you couple it with difficult terrain and/or aerial/underwater movement it can get a little cumbersome.


If you were to equate 4e's movement system to the real world, you'd move faster while going in certain directions, while you'd move more slowly going in others. Makes no sense.

When making a game there is often a trade off between "realism" and fast and easy play. The design team's cost benefit analysis turned out in favor of the fast and easy in this case. It is a fairly balanced decision, since it works the same for everyone, but it is also something that is fairly easy to house rule otherwise.

Kurald Galain
2008-07-05, 06:17 PM
...or they could use a squared grid and ignore diagonal movement, as they did.

Yes. The point of ignoring diagonal movement is that it makes it easier to walk around somebody. Normally, if you move from C1 to C5, this would be blocked by someone at C3; however, it is equally easy to move C1 to A3, then A3 to C5, hence avoiding the problem.