Question for the group: Are people actually playing 4th Ed. D&D or just posting to spite WOTC
spencershay
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
> the shelves.
3e was undoubtedly the best edition ever.
4e... appears to be a perfectly workable game, but it doesn't seem to
be D&D anymore.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Tetsubo
> Spencer Shay wrote:
>
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
>> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>> the shelves.
>
>
> 3e was undoubtedly the best edition ever.
>
> 4e... appears to be a perfectly workable game, but it doesn't seem
> to be D&D anymore.
>
>
I concur.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
Daily Booth: http://dailybooth.com/Tetsubo
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Jasin Zujovic
>>> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
>>> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>>> the shelves.
>>
>>
>> 3e was undoubtedly the best edition ever.
>>
>> 4e... appears to be a perfectly workable game, but it doesn't seem
>> to be D&D anymore.
>
> I concur.
This seems to me to be praising with faint damns.
If 4E is a better game than 3.5, why would you want to play 3.5 over 4E,
even if "it's not D&D"?
I do notice that Sea Wasp has say "workable" rather than "better than",
but in that case, the problem with 4E is simply that's it's merely
"workable" rather than "very good" like 3.5; simply not as good.
In discussions like these, "it's not D&D" never seems to be anything
more than a undefined unfalsifiable doublespeak for "I just don't like it".
--
Jasin
Justisaur
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Spencer Shay wrote:
>
> >> MIME-Version: 1.0
> >> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> >> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
> >> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
> >> the shelves.
>
> > 3e was undoubtedly the best edition ever.
>
> > 4e... appears to be a perfectly workable game, but it doesn't seem
> > to be D&D anymore.
>
> I concur.
>
I strongly disagree that's it's not D&D. And it's far more "workable"
than 3e.
- Justisaur
Justisaur
3e had some major improvements over 2e, mostly in the fixing of
incomprensible & contradictory rules. It however increased complexity
to an unreasonable and nearly unplayable amount. As 4e was about to
come out I had given up on 3e as being totally unplayable.
4e appears on the surface of just reading the rules to be a completely
different game, actually playing it, it feels very D&D to me, far more
so than 3e ever felt. Without a whole hell of a lot of useless and
pointless complexity bogging the game down into an exercise in
accounting, not just during character creation and updates but in play
as well. I feel as though a great weight has been lifted from my
shoulders playing 4e.
I suggest you put your attitude aside and give it a try under a DM who
enjoys it.
Now I won't say it hasn't any warts, and that I think they went to far
many cases and made reading powers boring and repetitive. But the
play by far makes up for that.
- Justisaur
J.O. Aho
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
broken newsreader?
> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
> the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
> start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
everything after AD&D 2 is just crap IMHO, just there to milk out more money
of reworked old products.
--
//Aho
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Tetsubo wrote:
>>>> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
>>>> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>>>> the shelves.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3e was undoubtedly the best edition ever.
>>>
>>> 4e... appears to be a perfectly workable game, but it doesn't
>>> seem to be D&D anymore.
>>
>> I concur.
>
> This seems to me to be praising with faint damns.
No.
>
> If 4E is a better game than 3.5, why would you want to play 3.5 over 4E,
> even if "it's not D&D"?
(A) because if I'm playing "D&D" I want to play that, not GURPS.
(B) because "Workable" does not mean "better". It means that the game
is playable as a game and does not apparently have any inherent fatal flaws.
The mechanics 4e appears to have in place are mostly nonsensical and
don't fit with my universes, and thus I'd have to beat the hell out of
it to make it work.
> In discussions like these, "it's not D&D" never seems to be anything
> more than a undefined unfalsifiable doublespeak for "I just don't like it".
It does not include many elements which were defining parts of D&D.
IMCGO, 3e went as far down the re-write path as you possibly could and
still HAVE anything reasonably called D&D, while fixing the major flaws
that D&D had incorporated in it from the beginning.
This was in fact one of the absolute crucial and primary areas of
discussion during the development of 3e: what can we change to improve
it AS A GAME while, at the same time, NOT removing that essential set of
somethings that make it "Dungeons and Dragons" rather than one of the
hundreds of follow-ons?
In the end, even some of the changes I wanted to do, while considered,
were rejected specifically for that "won't be D&D" reason, and after
reflection, I agreed with them. They'd work in my variant of D&D, my own
universe, but for the core rules to be issued, they'd be one more point
against the continuity of rules.
4e really does not appear to have an *evolutionary* relationship with
the prior editions. I can look at Original, Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e, and
see the logical progression of rules that led to the one becoming the
other. I can't see that with 4e at all. I can see some PIECES taken from
the prior editions, but the additions don't seem to me to be, for the
most part, logical developments, modifications, or streamlining, but
rather to be pieces taking from some OTHER game tradition -- in some
cases, MMO games -- bolted in to take the place of prior D&D components.
Like Frankenstein's Creature, 4e appears to have been chopped up and
reassembled from pieces which were D&D, and others that weren't, so the
final result isn't really D&D, nor is it any of the other things from
which it was assembled. 3e I could actually point to prior examples of
"evolutionary development" from D&D -- other old-style RPGs -- which had
contained many of the same concepts. The old Bard Games "Arcanum" and
"Talislanta" were perhaps the most obvious examples.
I can't see the same developmental path for 4e. Many of the ideas
appear to come from people departing in OTHER RPG directions, even from
some of the electronic "RPG" sources, which by necessity of technology
went along pathways that were in many ways directly contradictory to
expected game-development paths in FTF RPGing.
Tetsubo
For me to expand the definition of the term D&D to incorporate 4E I
would have to end up including GURPS, Earthdawn and Rifts. Games which
are not, by their very nature, D&D. Here lies the start of the 'edition
wars'. What fits *my* definition of D&D is going to be different from
*your* definition of D&D.
Heck, I might well be too generous with my statement above. As I can't
comfortably even cram 4E into the category of 'role-playing game'. It is
a game mind you. But not a model that I would ever play as a
role-playing game. More along the lines of an advanced board game with
collectable toy aspects. It just saddens me that people keep confusing
it with D&D.
Harold Groot
>Jasin
Shrug. I'm pretty much with Sea Wasp on this one. I've played some
4E. 4E is a workable FRPG, and if nothing better was available I'd
play it. Since 3.5E =is= available, however, and I find 3.5 much more
enjoyable than 4E, I play 3.5. When I get together with my old gaming
group (that stuck to 2E) I play 2E. Given a choice with a random
assortment of strangers between games of 1E/2E or 4E, I would choose
the 1E/2E game. But I would choose 4E over Rolemaster. Against
Fantasy Hero it's pretty much a toss-up. Since there's more unexplored
territory (and thus more potential) in 4E for me, I'd probably choose
4E over the original Basic D&D.
As to whether 4E "is D&D" or "is not D&D", well, I look on it as sort
of a 2nd cousin to D&D. It's not in a direct line of descent, but it
shares some common ancestry. To me the changes are sufficiently broad
that I consider it a separate game, but it's not a position I'd fight
hard for. I've got no real problem with "It =IS= D&D (it's just not
the best version)."
Will in New Haven
For me, for twenty-some years, it has been a statement that it is
probably better than D&D. I know this is an in-house discussion but
someone posted it to .misc and that's my opinion. I haven't GMd
anything called D&D for a long, long time. I have read through each
new edition, just to see what was going on. My friend Simon's very
occasional D&D session is still First Edition, heavily influenced by
D&D before it became Advanced. I enjoy that game and I don't think it
would be improved if he went to the second or fourth edition. It would
be a small improvement if he went to 3 or 3.5.
I think the addition of collectible _anything_ to an RPG is a
suspicious act and would turn me off of the publishers even if I
hadn't already stopped using their stuff.
--
Will in New Haven
David Trimboli
> For me to expand the definition of the term D&D to incorporate 4E I
> would have to end up including GURPS, Earthdawn and Rifts. Games
> which are not, by their very nature, D&D. Here lies the start of the
> 'edition wars'. What fits *my* definition of D&D is going to be
> different from *your* definition of D&D.
> It just saddens me that people keep confusing it with D&D.
I've been saddened by that for about nine years now.
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But 3e is not merely D&D, but D&D as it was meant to be, so if you've
had problems with that, it's you, not the game. 4e, by contrast, the
problem is the game.
Yiddishwriter
4E is garbage. There is little to differentiate between the
characters. There is little to differentiate between levels until you
can finally say, "Well, at 7th level you are a bit more powerful in a
significant way than 1st level". Magic does not exist. "Magic" is
just a longsword or arrow by a different name. Rituals are game time
and money wasters so the DM can say "See, I give you treasure" knowing
it can't be spent on anything but Rituals, and the only Rituals the
players have are what the DM in his Il Duce Almightiness deigns out of
the goodness of his heart to give them.
Gerald Katz
Tetsubo
Then we can be saddened together! Because I still think 3.5 is the best
version of the game.
Sheldon England
>
> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
> the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
> start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
>
we did when we played 3.5 and the other versions before it. Each version
is different.
To read other posters in the rgfd group, I am apparently not playing D&D
anymore ... but that's okay. As long as we are enjoying our adventures
in the dungeons and our battles against dragons, that's what matters to us.
- Sheldon
Tetsubo
But you could do that with literally hundreds of other fantasy or
generic systems. WotC didn't have to turn D&D into one of those other
systems. It worked quite well in 3.5 as a game allowing adventures in
dungeons and the slaying of dragons. There just wasn't any way to
increase the revenue stream for 3.5. Which is the suckiest reason under
the sun to discontinue a good system and replace it with a completely
different one.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> But you could do that with literally hundreds of other fantasy or
> generic systems. WotC didn't have to turn D&D into one of those other
> systems. It worked quite well in 3.5 as a game allowing adventures in
> dungeons and the slaying of dragons. There just wasn't any way to
> increase the revenue stream for 3.5.
Sure there was, but that would require them THINKING about how to do it
rather than just saying "Well, putting out a New Edition worked before,
let's do that AGAIN!"
Tetsubo
> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> But you could do that with literally hundreds of other fantasy or
>> generic systems. WotC didn't have to turn D&D into one of those other
>> systems. It worked quite well in 3.5 as a game allowing adventures in
>> dungeons and the slaying of dragons. There just wasn't any way to
>> increase the revenue stream for 3.5.
>
>
> Sure there was, but that would require them THINKING about how to do
> it rather than just saying "Well, putting out a New Edition worked
> before, let's do that AGAIN!"
>
>
Which is why I have been saying since the announcement that WotC is now
being completely controlled by marketers and suits. Now, using marketers
if you have a good product and want people to know about it is fine. But
when marketers begin to drive what products you make, down that path
lies 4E...
Baird Stafford
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> > Tetsubo wrote:
> >> But you could do that with literally hundreds of other fantasy or
> >> generic systems. WotC didn't have to turn D&D into one of those other
> >> systems. It worked quite well in 3.5 as a game allowing adventures in
> >> dungeons and the slaying of dragons. There just wasn't any way to
> >> increase the revenue stream for 3.5.
> > Sure there was, but that would require them THINKING about how to do
> > it rather than just saying "Well, putting out a New Edition worked
> > before, let's do that AGAIN!"
> Which is why I have been saying since the announcement that WotC is now
> being completely controlled by marketers and suits. Now, using marketers
> if you have a good product and want people to know about it is fine. But
> when marketers begin to drive what products you make, down that path
> lies 4E...
Or, in other contexts, the move of IBM from its traditional base in
hardware into consulting only....
Baird
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
Tetsubo
I wasn't aware of that. But that sounds equally as stupid.
Jim Davies
>I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
>recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
>start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
We read the PDFs and concluded that while there were some good ideas
in it and some laudable aims, it had changed too much from D&D as we
knew it, and had lost any grounding in reality. So we've stuck with
3.x and will probably go with PF.
One thing I disliked about 1e was that so many rules had no basis
whatsoever in reality and broke any idea of common sense. Things like
the 1-minute melee round, the bizarre saving throw categories, 3
rangers and so on. 4e is similar in that it again has surreal gamist
rules (daily powers, tiers, magic item limits, const saves, clerics
healing X by hitting Y, paladin marking).
I applaud the attempt to simplify the DM's work and get rid of the
endless fiddly arithmetic; I much prefer the 4e cosmology to the great
wheel; I like that fighters get nice stuff.
But I don't like the wrongheaded attempt to make every class work the
same way, the total absence of non-combat skills and powers, the sheer
artificiality of everything.
The 4e DMG is generally a very good book. It makes me want to play
D&D. Not to play 4e, but to play D&D.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Tetsubo
Pathfinder has got me pumped to play again. Still awaiting my dead tree
version however...
Will in New Haven
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Tetsubo wrote:
> > But you could do that with literally hundreds of other fantasy or
> > generic systems. WotC didn't have to turn D&D into one of those other
> > systems. It worked quite well in 3.5 as a game allowing adventures in
> > dungeons and the slaying of dragons. There just wasn't any way to
> > increase the revenue stream for 3.5.
>
> Sure there was, but that would require them THINKING about how to do it
> rather than just saying "Well, putting out a New Edition worked before,
> let's do that AGAIN!"
>
I had always thought that the major revenue stream was in the
adventures and game worlds. It would seem that turning out more such
products for an existing version of the game would be easier. Maybe
making the older game worlds and adventures obsolete is the point.
Mart van de Wege
Erm.
You do know that IBM was and is making other hardware than just PeeCees,
right?
They sold their PeeCee division off, but their POWER hardware and
mainframes still do a brisk business.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Tetsubo
Obsolescence. The tried and true revenue creator for the lazy and
uncreative.
Keith Davies
> Jim Davies wrote:
>
>> The 4e DMG is generally a very good book. It makes me want to play
>> D&D. Not to play 4e, but to play D&D.
>
> version however...
Same here. I ordered the Bestiary at the same time and said "minimize
shipping costs, send 'em together"... without realizing that the
Bestiary wasn't due out until October.
Dammit!
In the meantime, I've got the PDF. Printer unfriendly (*lots* of
graphics, everywhere) but I bet the book is lovely.
After Jasin pointed it out, I grabbed a copy of _Trailblazer_ from Bad
Axe Games. There is some rather nifty stuff in there, including some
sections describing the bases of their analyses (and some interesting
tables summarizing the world). I don't agree with everything I read and
I can't say it excited me as much as the stuff I saw in _Pathfinder_,
but it looks well-enough considered that I'm reluctant to say anything
strong about what didn't set well with me until I've had more time to
absorb it. You may want to look into _Trailblazer_.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Keith Davies
As I understand it, adventures and game worlds are perhaps the most
risky and least profitable areas to publish because the margins are so
close. This was part of what tanked TSR back in the day -- remember the
glut of settings and whatnot they churned out in the 90s?
If a setting can get popular enough to sustain a run of related books
(such as Forgotten Realms and Eberron did) you can do well with it, but
Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and so on were all niche enough that
they were abandoned after a very small number of supplements.
Didn't they also have one in a jungle? Jakandor, or something?
George
> Spencer Shay wrote:
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>> the shelves.
>
>
> 4e... appears to be a perfectly workable game, but it doesn't seem
> to be D&D anymore.
>
>
4e is actually a pen and paper version of World of Warcraft. Not being
facetious, that is literally what it is. It's kind of fascinating to
see, but not something I could ever play. There are elements that simply
could not be role-played (healing surges for one) and are purely a game
dynamic. It's also a great shame that they appear to have been
spectacularly unimaginative with the powers, when they are so integral
to the game.
tussock
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > adventures and game worlds. It would seem that turning out more such
> > products for an existing version of the game would be easier. Maybe
> > making the older game worlds and adventures obsolete is the point.
>
> As I understand it, adventures and game worlds are perhaps the most
> risky and least profitable areas to publish because the margins are so
> close.
Maybe, but it looks like they're damned keen to get a few out when
each new edition comes out. Everyone does, pretty much, a module or
five with the rules and a worldbook soon after (or before, with
Pathfinder/Golarion). Boxed sets are too tough to publish since the
80's went away (oh for the days of BADD), but books seem to do
alright.
> This was part of what tanked TSR back in the day -- remember the
> glut of settings and whatnot they churned out in the 90s?
Dancy said they failed because they didn't even bother to count
how many of each product actually sold. When they did a world, it was
just a string of products on a sheet, nothing was playtested, feedback
was not sought, and if outsold everything else by 100:1 it was shut
down when the sheet was clear anyway. That they mostly did worlds and
modules may not have had much to do with their failure.
> If a setting can get popular enough to sustain a run of related books
> (such as Forgotten Realms and Eberron did) you can do well with it, but
> Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and so on were all niche enough that
> they were abandoned after a very small number of supplements.
They just ran out the planned product line. The Darksun boxed set
set got a late revision because they forgot to change psionics over to
the 2.5 character build system, needed somewhere to put the new rules,
and still had a couple of Darksun products to run that they wanted to
fit with the new system.
> Didn't they also have one in a jungle? Jakandor, or something?
No doubt they had several jungle settings. I can think of three on
Toril.
--
tussock
Marek Dohojda
wrote:
>I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
>recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
>start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
I will take the shot at the answer to this.
4e doesn't "suck" per say. It is a fine game, with decent mechanics.
Personally I am not overly crazy about the "feel" of it. It has a feel
of an online game, and not pen and paper. Playing it feels like I am
playing WOW, which is a fine game too, but not around the table.
I wouldn't say the above is the main problem that I personally have with
4e. The main complaint that I have is that it simply isn't D&D. Or
rather it is, but by name only. The whole feel of the game is gone.
D&D has always been about resource management ( in terms of game
mechanics) as well as differences between classes.
I, personally, believe that all classes are roughly the same in 4e.
Playing a wizard just doesn't feel so different then playing a warrior.
There is nothing wrong with the game not being balanced, the classes
have different power based on their level. Traditionally, for instance,
warrior was much stronger then mage 1-7 levels , with mage being much
stronger then warrior at late levels (but how many games truly lasted
that long?). This gave D&D a certain aura an intangible that 4e
destroys.
That and other mechanics of 4e simply make it a completely different
system, that left its roots. As far as I am concerned Wizards released
a completely different game, and plastered "4e" on it.
Of course a lot of other people also are upset at the Wizards because of
the whole "greedy" thing. Personally I think that this is just SILLY,
Wizard of the Coast is a Business, there to make money nothing more, and
nothing less. To be upset at them for doing anything they can to make
money is just ...strange. You (as a consumer) have two choices, buy it
or not buy it. If enough chose option #2 then Wizard will either go
under or release D&D 5e that be just like 1/2/3 was in flavor, if more
choose option #1 then 4e will be D&D from now on. Time will tell, but I
have chosen #2. Although I will play 4e, given good group and good DM
(since fun wins over rules) but I won't run 4e and my world will stay
firmly in 3e.
Does that help answer some of your questions?
Vincenzo Beretta
> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
> the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
> start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
Many people compare the systems, but, for some reason, the *contents* are
seldom compared. D&D 3.5 was full of ideas, well written and a great
stimulus for creativity. True, sometimes a rule, a spell or a prestige class
was broken, but the narrative ideas behind them were so cool that I had no
problems in "fudge it" so to incorporate that element in my campaign (one
very good example: The Malconvoker, around whom I built a whole campaign).
4E's contents are atrocious. One only needs to read the Forgotten Realms
setting for 3.5 and for 4E face to face to spiral into clinical depression.
I'm working on my F/W 2009-2010 campaign, and it will be 3.5. Thanks good
for the strongness of the Euro vs. the Dollar: luckily, buying some missing
books for my collection before 3.5 disappears was cheap.
gleichman
crossed posted to advocacy the viewpoint I bring to a D&D question is
that of an 'outsider'.
I certainly view 4th Edition as D&D; it contains the most important
mechanically defining elements for me to do just that. Escalating Hit
Points, Armor Class, and D20 combat rolls, and a rather wild and
detached from reality approach to the fantasy genre. Those things
define the game for me, and those things are why I haven't played the
game (outside of a few individual cases) since AD&D.
On to this grounding, 4th addition adds what MMORPGs originally added
to D&D to make their current 'state of the art'. Moving the system
from one of almost pure resource management to one more of tactical
maneuver. However tactical maneuver is seriously damaged by D&Ds HP
system resulting in just a different type of resource management- one
that's more complex and likely not as interesting.
This change was intended to appeal to the newer players used to the
new concepts from computer gaming. I doubt the wisdom of such an
attempt, for the computer is easier to play than a PnP RPG- thus the
PnP RPG should ofter a different experience if it is to have it's own
customer base. But I could be wrong, even if it mirrors the MMORPG
experience 4th edition offers something no MMORPG can- GM and player
ownership of the world and rules.
No matter the success of WotC's decision on this direction, they have
certainly angered many older fans of the game.
However they have little in the way of competition as there are no
solid fantasy rpg designs on the market. So they still own it for
better or worse.
Parvati V
> I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
> recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity
> hit the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking
> to start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
>
Interesting choice of words of yours, for one who does not look to start
a flame or a war. ;)
Anyway, back to topic. I do play 4E; used to DM two groups until the
August break, now I will be carrying on only one of them though (partly
because of my heavy work schedule, and I have to say I couldn't have
/dreamt/ of DM'ing two weekly groups with 3.X).
I'm loving it so far, but then again in time I had grown to think of 3.X
more or less along the same lines you posted for 4E.
Parvati V
--
"What is brain? Pai don't have such thing" - Pai, 3x3 eyes
tempest_...@yahoo.com
>I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
>recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
>start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
Reasons why 4th edition SUCKS!
1: (to quote what someone said) -"It has a feel of an online game, and
not pen and paper. Playing it feels like I am playing WOW". Personally
I hate (and I rarely use that word) WoW for its ability to ruin lives,
relationships, and friendships. And yes, people are that lame to be
offended by what happens on a online game. A pen and paper game should
NOT feel like a online game, there is no character development, nor any
true interactivity.
2: The lack of Non-com (non combat)skills and abilities, I don't know
about you, but whenever I play/GM non-com game play takes up more then
60% of the game play, in 4th editions the lack of those skills hurts
true game play.
3: 4th edition characters are cookie-cutter characters, their all the
same, and offer no flexibility in character generation.
4: 4th editions is TO easy. I had a friend describe the differences of
the editions to me and i thought it made perfect since. " 4th editions
is what you play with the wife and kids, 3-3.5 is what you play with
your friends. 2nd edition is what you play with your best friends, and
1st edition is what you play with your favorite uncle."
Having played 4th edition 3 times now (I like to know what I dislike,
to make sure I have a valid reason for not liking it), and every time,
its been the same thing over and over again, GM: "Oh you've been hit,
take 10 points damage." ME: "So that means I'm bloodied right?" GM:
"No, your not bloodied until half your HP." ME: "The book says bloodied
is when your bleeding, so if I take damage, I'm bleeding, so if I take
10 points 'damage' I'm bleeding from that sword slashing me, right?"
GM: "Nope" ME: "Wait ... what?"
It bothers me that our society has become so weak that it thinks 3-3.5
is to hard, when it was made to make the older editions simpler and
easier to understand.
tempest_of_souls
wrote:
>I've read through the books and I find the game unplayable and barely
>recognizeable as D&D. I thought 3.x Ed was bad until this atrocity hit
>the shelves. Now 3.x Ed looks like a classic to me. Not looking to
>start a flame or versions war, I'm just curious.
Reasons why 4th edition SUCKS!
1: (to quote what Merek said) -"It has a feel of an online game, and not
tussock
> Reasons why 4th edition SUCKS!
<snip>
'S crap like that makes me want to like 4e. Then, you know, I
remember that 4e is the edition where they gave up basing the rules
around what what /should/ happen, and replaced all that sense with
+1/2 level, 2[W], shift 3 squares, encounter, and you're a Wizard so
we'll call it "solid fog".
Heroisation, indeed.
--
tussock
Rick Pikul
> 'S crap like that makes me want to like 4e. Then, you know, I
> remember that 4e is the edition where they gave up basing the rules
> around what what /should/ happen, and replaced all that sense with
> +1/2 level, 2[W], shift 3 squares, encounter, and you're a Wizard so
> we'll call it "solid fog".
>
> Heroisation, indeed.
Naaah: It's backwards Heroisation. In Hero you work from description to
rules, 4ed D&D works from rules to description.
>
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Torben Ægidius Mogensen
> Naaah: It's backwards Heroisation. In Hero you work from description to
> rules, 4ed D&D works from rules to description.
Actually, I have always felt that D&D (any edition) was full of rules
where the explanation in terms of real-world happenings was rather
strained and seemed tacked on to justify a rule that has no real-world
explanation.
Escalating HP with levels is the classical example of this: It makes no
sense that a more skilled character can withstand many times as much
damage as an unskilled character. Sure, if you have bigger muscles, you
can "soak up" a bit more, but ten times as much? No. So it was explained
that HP represents not only ability to withstand damage but also to
deflect and otherwise avoid it. But why then is healing measured in HP?
Are more skilled persons more difficult to heal? Poison, damage from
falling and such are also measured in HP, so are more skilled persons
able to witstand ten times as much poison and falling from ten times the
altitude etc? Sure, there have been repairs made such as healing spells
that heal a percentage of full HP and so on, but these do not change the
fact that the original system is flawed in principle.
Armour class is another such flawed concept, though not quite as bad as
HP.
Torben
omnicrondelicious
I'm totally OK if people don't like 4th ed, but I think it should be for
the right reasons, and not FUD. For the record, I've played every
edition.
>Reasons why 4th edition SUCKS!
> 1: (to quote what someone said) -"It has a feel of an online game, and
>not pen and paper. Playing it feels like I am playing WOW".Personally
>I hate (and I rarely use that word) WoW for its ability to ruin lives,
>relationships, and friendships. And yes, people are that lame to be
>offended by what happens on a online game. A pen and paper game should
>NOT feel like a online game, there is no character development, nor any
>true interactivity.
Agree.
> 2: The lack of Non-com (non combat)skills and abilities, I don't know
>about you, but whenever I play/GM non-com game play takes up more then
>60% of the game play, in 4th editions the lack of those skills hurts
>true game play.
Disagree. Previous editions of D&D were also very light on non-combat
mechanics, and non-com often played prominent roles. Splats for 2nd ed
introduced a lot more non-com mechanics, and 3/3.5 had a lot too. But
1st ed and pre-splat 2nd were about as light on non-com mechanics as
4th. (And I suspect 4th ed splats will introduce many non-com elements.)
My games can run very heavy towards non-com, and I've never had issues
with non-com in any of those editions. In some ways it was nice that in
3.5 there would be a feat or some other mechanic for almost every
non-com skill, but do you really need those mechanics? 20 years of
experience with many different systems says "No".
> 3: 4th edition characters are cookie-cutter characters, their all the
>same, and offer no flexibility in character generation.
Agree. Of course the same could be said for 1st & 2nd eds. (Well, at
least until 2nd ed "character kits" and other splats came out.)
> 4: 4th editions is TO easy. I had a friend describe the differences
>of the editions to me and i thought it made perfect since. " 4th
>editions is what you play with the wife and kids, 3-3.5 is what you
>play with your friends. 2nd edition is what you play with your best
>friends, and 1st edition is what you play with your favorite uncle."
>
> Having played 4th edition 3 times now (I like to know what I dislike,
>to make sure I have a valid reason for not liking it), and every time,
>its been the same thing over and over again, GM: "Oh you've been hit,
>take 10 points damage." ME: "So that means I'm bloodied right?" GM:
>"No, your not bloodied until half your HP." ME: "The book says
>bloodied is when your bleeding, so if I take damage, I'm bleeding, so
>if I take 10 points 'damage' I'm bleeding from that sword slashing me,
>right?"
>GM: "Nope" ME: "Wait ... what?"
???? Not sure how it's too easy. It's the DM's job to make it just
right. I guess compared to the famously murderous Gygaxian-style
adventures it might be considered too easy, but frankly I was never too
fond of the absurd degrees of paranoia and caution that style of
adventure engendered.
Damage = Bleeding. Disagree. RTFM. Page 293: "Hit points (hp) measure
your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into
glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points
represent more than physical endurance. They represent you character's
skill, luck, and resolve..." Basically, damage is an abstraction of
injury and morale. Which is basically what HP has been in every edition,
so I don't get the problem here.
I'm with the people who say it's a different take on D&D and that most
of the complaints aren't really about whether it sucks (against some
sort of magical abstract RPG standard), it's just different and you may
or may not like those differences. I like it, despite a couple areas I
really don't like. I'm happy if people don't like it as a matter of
personal preference, but accuracy in criticisms is important.
.b
gleichman
> I'm happy if people don't like it as a matter of
> personal preference, but accuracy in criticisms is important.
For myself, I don't mind if people like something- but accuracy in
claims vs. others is important.
tempest_of_so's wants non-combat skills- the fact that you think they
are unimportant has no impact upon tempest_of_so's needs at all.
He also has a disconnect with the mental image of Hit Points (i.e. you
roll To Hit, you roll Damage- but no real damage is done). The fact
that you accept the book's rationalization of this has no bearing on
the fact that he does not.
There was no FUD here, his claims about the elements of the game and
his statements of his reactions to those elements are accurate.
Thus you had no cause put yourself upon a higher pedestal, in so doing
you've damaged your own cred.
Matthew Miller
> Reasons why 4th edition SUCKS!
> 1: (to quote what someone said) -"It has a feel of an online game, and
> not pen and paper. Playing it feels like I am playing WOW". Personally
> I hate (and I rarely use that word) WoW for its ability to ruin lives,
> relationships, and friendships. And yes, people are that lame to be
> offended by what happens on a online game. A pen and paper game should
> NOT feel like a online game, there is no character development, nor any
> true interactivity.
Strawman. In actual play, it feels like a pen and paper game to me. There's
plenty of character development and true interactivity -- if not, the DM is
doing it wrong.
> 2: The lack of Non-com (non combat)skills and abilities, I don't know
> about you, but whenever I play/GM non-com game play takes up more then
> 60% of the game play, in 4th editions the lack of those skills hurts
> true game play.
It's a decent point, but it's also true for other editions of D&D to within
the same order of magnitude. The 4E designers clearly thought about this,
but the result (at least in the first pass) came out all wrong (skill
challenges). In our games, we've done just fine with specific application of
skills like Nature and Thievery out of combat -- and with role-playing based
decision-making. Many of the utility powers also have non-combat
applications (as do many class features, for that matter).
That said, if your game need stronger mechanics here, I do think that, since
the official rules are so broad, an expansion could be fit in easily.
> 3: 4th edition characters are cookie-cutter characters, their all the
> same, and offer no flexibility in character generation.
It can feel this way if you're just using the Player's Handbook. But
actually, that's kind of the case with 3E too. If you are using the full
complement of published rules to date (even just using books, let alone
DDI), this statement is quite untrue.
> 4: 4th editions is TO easy. I had a friend describe the differences of
> the editions to me and i thought it made perfect since. " 4th editions
> is what you play with the wife and kids, 3-3.5 is what you play with
> your friends. 2nd edition is what you play with your best friends, and
> 1st edition is what you play with your favorite uncle."
*Shrug*. It's as easy as you make it.
> Having played 4th edition 3 times now (I like to know what I dislike,
> to make sure I have a valid reason for not liking it), and every time,
> its been the same thing over and over again, GM: "Oh you've been hit,
> take 10 points damage." ME: "So that means I'm bloodied right?" GM:
> "No, your not bloodied until half your HP." ME: "The book says bloodied
> is when your bleeding, so if I take damage, I'm bleeding, so if I take
> 10 points 'damage' I'm bleeding from that sword slashing me, right?"
> GM: "Nope" ME: "Wait ... what?"
That seems like a silly argument over terminology, combined with a willfull
misunderstanding of the hit points abstraction (which is the same in older
editions too).
--
Matthew Miller
Will in New Haven
wrote:
The fix I found decades ago, which meant I wasn't playing any form of
D&D anymore, was to have more experienced combatants become harder to
_hit_ as they moved up levels. When we play campaigns without levels,
experience can be used to buy the ability to avoid being hit. This is
supposed to be all the little dodging and flinching and blocking one
does in combat and also the luck that a successful adventurer must
have had going for her. There are also options to dodge and parry but
those take up your chance to do other things. "Target class" you
always have if you are awake and facing an enemy.
Armour doesn't make you harder to hit; it is neutral to bad in that
respect, depending on how it affects your ability to move. But it does
protect you to varying degrees.
Many years after I had implemented those rules in my games and some
other people I knew were playing these rules, I found out that Arneson
and some of the other Castles & Crusades people had played by similar
rules to those back before they codified D&D.
One of my favorite moments was when some of my characters realized
that their armor would not help them against a huge opponent; it would
just slow them down. Since they had time, they took _off_ their
armor.
tussock
> "Rick Pikul" writes:
> > Naaah: It's backwards Heroisation. In Hero you work from description to
> > rules, 4ed D&D works from rules to description.
>
> Actually,
Such a fun word.
> I have always felt that D&D (any edition) was full of rules where the
> explanation in terms of real-world happenings was rather strained
> and seemed tacked on to justify a rule that has no real-world
> explanation.
Real *what*? Dave Arneson started with Chainmail rules: a fantasy
battles game with two levels, hero and superhero, respectively the
equivalent of four and eight common footsoldiers, and if they lost a
combat roll they died. What got built on to that over time used that
basic premise, that the characters were heroically tough and dangerous
in the face of fantastic threats, and tried to extend it in a sensible
fashion.
> Escalating HP with levels is the classical example of this: It makes no
> sense that a more skilled character can [...].
They're not "more skilled characters", that's GURPS talk, in DnD
they're *heroes* and *superheroes*. Batman and Superman, by the time
they're level 4 and 8. Given that's what they /started out/
modelling, /before/ they had HP, it seems that HP is a pretty good
rule to represent it, having found the all or nothing rule for combat
sucked a bit in single-character play.
> Armour class is another such flawed concept, though not quite as bad
> as HP.
<shrug> People in armour /are/ harder to hurt. In DnD, there's a
roll to hurt, but "hits" was the prevalent gaming term in 1974, so
that's what we got as a label.
--
tussock
Keith Davies
Except that Hero tends to work from 'desired form' back through
implementation. That is, if I want a lightning bolt, I think about how
I want it to look and work (line of ouch, armor doesn't work so well
against it), look at my options and point allowances, then come up with
'4d6 energy blast, armor piercing' (or '4d6 EB, area of effect (line)',
giving up armor piercing). Or something else.
I don't remember starting from mechanics and giving a name, apart from
in a very general sense[1]. I find Hero's too much of a bitch to work
with -- it's very flexible, so doesn't give me a lot of guidance as to
what to build. I need to know where to go before I start, or I spend a
lot of time doodling on the page.
Incidentally, this is one place where D&D's class- and level-based
system helps. Start putting it together, it gives you a lot of what you
need to get by. You can pick a set of abilities (class) as a bundle and
work up. You can do the same thing in Hero, if you plan ahead and build
the packages and whatnot, but that just shifts the work.
[1] A friend summed up the guidelines for a supers game she was in, and
I've generalized it.
1. Have a way to get to the action.
2. Have a way to take part in the action.
3. Have a way to survive the action.
Her version had 'fight' in place of 'action', but I'm generalizing
to cover non-combat scenarios... the big badass fighter might not be
a lot of help in a political campaign.
So, regardless of what kind of character I build in Hero (or any
other system), I try to meet the above guidelines. These don't need
to be combat-based; in a political campaign I just need a reason for
each character to be able to take part (be a member at court or work
for someone at court), a way to be effective, and a way to keep them
alive (which may be "a reason they shouldn't be killed out of hand
when they become inconvenient")
Tetsubo
> [1] A friend summed up the guidelines for a supers game she was in, and
> I've generalized it.
>
> 1. Have a way to get to the action.
> 2. Have a way to take part in the action.
> 3. Have a way to survive the action.
Frankly not a bad design model for any role-playing game really. It's a
model I've used for supers games for 20+ years.
>
> Her version had 'fight' in place of 'action', but I'm generalizing
> to cover non-combat scenarios... the big badass fighter might not be
> a lot of help in a political campaign.
>
> So, regardless of what kind of character I build in Hero (or any
> other system), I try to meet the above guidelines. These don't need
> to be combat-based; in a political campaign I just need a reason for
> each character to be able to take part (be a member at court or work
> for someone at court), a way to be effective, and a way to keep them
> alive (which may be "a reason they shouldn't be killed out of hand
> when they become inconvenient")
>
> Keith
I have a good friend that jumped onto the 4E bandwagon as soon as the
books were released. He read them and announced, "This *is* D&D. A few
details are different, but the core of the game is the same." I
disagreed with him but for the sake of friendship I just let it drop.
Then he actually played 4E.
After two months of a 4E campaign, he sold his books on Amazon and
said, "This game is nothing but a tabletop version of World of Warcraft,
the MMO. It *isn't* a role-playing game."
I forgave him. :)
I will not argue that 4E is a *game*. Possibly even an enjoyable one if
it fits your definition of enjoyable. It fails to fit my definition of
enjoyable. But I do not considered it a role-playing game and I
definitely do not consider it D&D.
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. I could use a chuckle.
Sheldon England
>
> Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.
WoW does not have a GM, thus the only role-playing is of the same nature
as if one were to role-play in Pong. Only if you play 4E without a GM is
your friend's comment valid. Having a GM allows people to role-play ...
which makes 4E a role-playing game.
What do you think "role-playing" means?
What do you think makes something a "game"?
I suspect we are using the same words to mean different things. Words
mean specific things or they are just sounds or squiggles on paper or
pixels.
- Sheldon
Tetsubo
Thank you for playing.
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> [1] A friend summed up the guidelines for a supers game she was in, and
>> I've generalized it.
>>
>> 1. Have a way to get to the action.
>> 2. Have a way to take part in the action.
>> 3. Have a way to survive the action.
>
> Frankly not a bad design model for any role-playing game really. It's a
> model I've used for supers games for 20+ years.
I do the same, and while I'm pretty sure I had it internally, this was
perhaps the best formulation I'd seen of it. Easy to understand, easy
to remember, and easy to apply. My addition was to change 'the fight'
to 'the action', to allow for other types of scenarios.
Parvati V
> After two months of a 4E campaign, he sold his books on Amazon and
> said, "This game is nothing but a tabletop version of World of Warcraft,
> the MMO. It *isn't* a role-playing game."
I think 4E would do as bad a job of remaking WoW on pen&paper as
previous editions of D&D.
1) you need a living GM to make the experience interesting (WoW is /fun/
without);
2) you can't handle more than a handful of players at the same time;
3) the rules start to unfold at epic levels, while WoW provides a
consistent environment up to level 80 and "80+" (80 in epics);
4) PvP is not supported at all. In WoW some classes are at a
disadvantage against some others but player's skill can still bring it
off. In D&D some *will* bite the dust.
5) the d20 is much more random than WoW RNG. Not just because it is a
real die against a simulation of randomness (dice can be awkward
themselves) but because /the system/ points towards 50%/50%
success/failure, while WoW uses a completely different assumption.
George
> They're not "more skilled characters", that's GURPS talk, in DnD
> they're *heroes* and *superheroes*. Batman and Superman, by the time
> they're level 4 and 8. Given that's what they /started out/
> modelling, /before/ they had HP, it seems that HP is a pretty good
> rule to represent it, having found the all or nothing rule for combat
> sucked a bit in single-character play.
Hit points are excellent mechanics for superheroes - characters who can
absorb mountains of punishment. However It's not very convincing to say
that your standard fantasy characters are equivalent to superheroes -
the majority are still quite mortal. Saying that a 4th level half elf
ranger is a fantasy version of batman doesn't really work.
The whole hit point thing for fantasy characters falls down on so many
levels. If it also represents ability to dodge/avoid harm, then why can
a "superhero" dodge fewer blows from a lumbering ogre (which does more
damage) than say a lizard man (must faster and more nimble, yet less
damage per hit)?
> <shrug> People in armour /are/ harder to hurt.
This would only be true in a very limited scope of interpretation -
human-level combatants with regular weapons and armour. In other words
not at all applicable to superheroes. Would batman be harder to hit or
somehow tougher while wearing armour? Ridiculous, of course he wouldn't,
which is why he doesn't. Only a goon or henchman would wear armour, and
they'd almost certainly be dispatched in a single blow regardless.
In a game with fantasy level, or especially superhero level scope of
action, armour making people harder to hit is a totally inappropriate
mechanic. D&D is internally inconsistent, not to mention inconsistent
with it's the genre to include such a rule. It's something you'd expect
in historical battle simulation rules. But in those rules you then
wouldn't have the hit point mechanic.
Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour? Would
Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these characters are
"superheroes". I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the
D&D rules.
Parvati V
> WoW does not have a GM, thus the only role-playing is of the same
> nature as if one were to role-play in Pong.
I think the word role-playing is used to convey too many different meanings.
You can role-play in WoW, and the game supports that better than Pong,
if by that you mean "play a role". You can create and develop a
personality and a backstory for your character, and mantain that with
other players.
WoW does not offer that extra bit that a GM offers in a pen&paper game,
that is making (possibly meaningful) choices of the goals you want to
pursue and the means you employ to do so.
Assuming the GM does indeed offer you that choice and does not railroad
you; official adventures published for /both/ older editions and 4E are
often lacking in this regard.
But I would call that storytelling (or story-making if you prefer), not
role-playing as in playing a role.
Parvati V
> Reasons why 4th edition SUCKS! 1: (to quote what someone said) -"It
> has a feel of an online game, and not pen and paper. Playing it
> feels like I am playing WOW".
Do YOU feel like that however? I don't, and I'm a WoW player. Quite
far from being a fact.
> 2: The lack of Non-com (non combat)skills and abilities, I don't know
> about you, but whenever I play/GM non-com game play takes up more
> then 60% of the game play, in 4th editions the lack of those skills
> hurts true game play.
I don't miss the ugly, bulky and unrealistic crafting rules of 3.X; but
on the other hand I think there's more tools than before. Skill
challenges, namely, and a clear and easy rule to give XP for non-com.
> 3: 4th edition characters are cookie-cutter characters, their all the
> same, and offer no flexibility in character generation.
The same can be said of 3rd edition characters. Those with suboptimal
builds failed at pretty much everything their DM threw on them, unless
of course they happened to roll the magical 20.
4E does not forbid making suboptimal characters. It's just more
transparent so you see what you're doing.
> 4: 4th editions is TO easy.
And about time too!
We WANT wife and kids to enjoy the game, as they could have with BECMI
or such editions. We want new blood in, and not just the old crones
getting older and dropping out due to work, or wife and kids they cannot
bring to the game.
> ME: "The book says bloodied is when your bleeding, so if I take
> damage, I'm bleeding
The book does not say that, ever ;)
If you want to take technical words literally, why don't you bow to your
(Dungeon) /Master/?
> It bothers me that our society has become so weak that it thinks
> 3-3.5 is to hard, when it was made to make the older editions simpler
> and easier to understand.
AD&D2 rules were less organized and omogeneous (at least, the bulk that
grew after years), but it was much simpler and easier to play than 3E.
Of BECMI you can say anything (it lacked loads of stuff, sure!), but not
that it was any more complex or hard to understand than ANY AD&D.
And immediately fun, without any paperwork.
Even 4E has not returned to that immediateness of fun yet.
Parvati V
> Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour? Would
> Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these characters are
> "superheroes". I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by
> the D&D rules.
To be fair, I know of no fantasy world that is modeled well by any kind
of RPG rules but narrativist.
The "Will and Word" magic System in Belgariad?
Not to mention the fact that good fantasy worlds are not consistent
worlds but for the scope and intent of the author and their characters.
At best they are incomplete. At worst, you cannot even begin to define
laws for them.
This is why D&D fantasy is a sub-genre in itself (and "spawned" the
D&D-like fantasy as well, although I have to say that _rarely_ you can
find any good works in there).
tussock
> tussock wrote:
> > They're not "more skilled characters", that's GURPS talk, in DnD
> > they're *heroes* and *superheroes*. Batman and Superman, by the time
> > they're level 4 and 8. Given that's what they /started out/
> > modelling, /before/ they had HP, it seems that HP is a pretty good
> > rule to represent it, having found the all or nothing rule for combat
> > sucked a bit in single-character play.
>
> Hit points are excellent mechanics for superheroes - characters who can
> absorb mountains of punishment. However It's not very convincing to say
> that your standard fantasy characters are equivalent to superheroes -
> the majority are still quite mortal. Saying that a 4th level half elf
> ranger is a fantasy version of batman doesn't really work.
You're almost there. If you want your characters to be less than
batman, stop advancing them at 2nd or 3rd level. You've heard of E6?
It stops advancement when characters are heroes, before they become
superheroes. See, DnD, up around 16th level, you're a very long way
from being anything like ordinary mortals.
> The whole hit point thing for fantasy characters falls down on so many
> levels. If it also represents ability to dodge/avoid harm, then why can
> a "superhero" dodge fewer blows from a lumbering ogre (which does more
> damage) than say a lizard man (must faster and more nimble, yet less
> damage per hit)?
Are you aware, that when a professional boxer is hit in the head
by an opponent, he mitigates the stresses of impact with muscle
tension, movement, and stance, causing the blow to land in a way that
it does little or no harm? That any boxer could knock another out
immediately if his opponent just closed his eyes and stood still for a
second?
See, it's not about getting a near-miss, it's about turning and
stepping as the monstrous blow lands, leaving a deep bruise and a
momentary gasp for air rather than a collapsed chest full of broken
ribs and perforated organs. At least, it is for those characters who
fit with the quick and nimble tropes, the Wizard maybe has "spells"
that do it for him, the Cleric a literal blessing of their God, the
Fighter making the Ogre take quick, weak thrusts that his armour can
help soak up. See, they are whatever they need to be, whatever suits
at the time, all that matters is your mojo will save you, because
you're Batman, the 4th level Ranger.
> > <shrug> People in armour /are/ harder to hurt.
>
> Would batman be harder to hit or somehow tougher while wearing
> armour? Ridiculous, of course he wouldn't, which is why he doesn't.
Batman does wear armour, what movies have you been watching? It's
all hardened bull-proof and shit, and his car can bounce HMG fire like
a tank. Maybe you're thinking of camp comedy 60's batman, but ever
since they gave the bad guys weapons, they gave batman armour.
> Only a goon or henchman would wear armour, and they'd almost
> certainly be dispatched in a single blow regardless.
Traditionally, the goons /don't/ wear armour, in the old days they
didn't even use weapons.
> In a game with fantasy level, or especially superhero level scope of
> action, armour making people harder to hit is a totally inappropriate
> mechanic.
Harder to hurt, and why not? Because of camp 60's comedy TV? Heard
of Iron Man?
> D&D is internally inconsistent, not to mention inconsistent
> with it's the genre to include such a rule.
DnD is it's own genre. Superheroes with magical armour and a
talking sword taking on tentacled horrors, the undead both ancient and
spreading, enormous flying dragons, endless hordes of evil humanoid
scum, and every other monster ever imagined, helped along by a frail
but deadly old wizard, a pious miracle-worker, and a roguish sneak of
a man who knows how to get them where they need to be.
> Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour?
> Would Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these
> characters are "superheroes".
Eh? Conan's a sneak thief, doesn't really fight people face-to-
face if he can avoid it, at least early on (see also, Fafhrd and the
Grey Mouser), while in the movie they just wanted to show off Arnold's
chest. Legolas is a supernaturally mobile and swift-handed archer.
Neither would wear heavy armour modelled in DnD, though some
lightweight magical armour would indeed help them. I seem to recall
all such characters happily using armour when it was appropriate for
them to do so in the fiction.
> I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the D&D rules.
I think you'll find it wasn't trying to model any particular
fantasy world, just grab the interesting bits out of some of them to
make into a thing of it's own.
--
tussock
George
You wrote:
> You're almost there. If you want your characters to be less than
> batman, stop advancing them at 2nd or 3rd level. You've heard of E6?
> It stops advancement when characters are heroes, before they become
> superheroes. See, DnD, up around 16th level, you're a very long way
> from being anything like ordinary mortals.
True. And superheroes are fine. Superheroic fantasy is fine. Having some
rules that support them (hit points) and others that are decidedly
un-superheroic (need to wear armour otherwise easy to hit) is poor design.
And the strange thing is, it would be so _easy_ to make it more
internally consistent. Say - each level of experience gives you +2 AC.
Just because you're harder to hit and know how to dodge more, etc. You
could even add actual rules for dodging and parrying, which just about
every other RPG actually has.
> Are you aware, that when a professional boxer is hit in the head
> by an opponent, he mitigates the stresses of impact with muscle
> tension, movement, and stance, causing the blow to land in a way that
> it does little or no harm? That any boxer could knock another out
> immediately if his opponent just closed his eyes and stood still for a
> second?
Are you aware of the inconsistency in your own argument? Originally a
poster made a point about hit points being unrealistic. You then made
the counter-point that they are not _meant_ to be realistic, they are
meant to model superheroic fantasy.
And now you are supporting the concept of hits points based on....what
you believe a professional boxer is trained to do.
You were on the right track before - hits points are meant to model
superheroes. Any appeal to realism as a supporting argument for hit
points is simply not going to work.
> See, it's not about getting a near-miss, it's about turning and
> stepping as the monstrous blow lands, leaving a deep bruise and a
> momentary gasp for air rather than a collapsed chest full of broken
> ribs and perforated organs. At least, it is for those characters who
> fit with the quick and nimble tropes, the Wizard maybe has "spells"
> that do it for him, the Cleric a literal blessing of their God, the
> Fighter making the Ogre take quick, weak thrusts that his armour can
> help soak up. See, they are whatever they need to be, whatever suits
> at the time, all that matters is your mojo will save you, because
> you're Batman, the 4th level Ranger.
Yes, I get the whole D&D hit points are abstract ability to survive
concept. Which still does not address the point whatsoever that you can
"soak up" far fewer swings from ogre than you could from a lizard man.
Or heck even why a two handed sword is harder to dodge than say, arrows.
There are so many better ways to achieve the same result, without the
glaring inconsistencies and flaws, as pointed out before with regards to
things like damage from falls, poison, and the effects of healing.
> Batman does wear armour, what movies have you been watching?
Comics. Lots and lots of comics. They were around before the movies :)
Batman doesn't wear armour in the comics.
> It's
> all hardened bull-proof and shit, and his car can bounce HMG fire like
> a tank. Maybe you're thinking of camp comedy 60's batman, but ever
> since they gave the bad guys weapons, they gave batman armour.
In the comics the bad guys have always had weapons and batman never
needed armour to face them.
> Traditionally, the goons /don't/ wear armour, in the old days they
> didn't even use weapons.
Ok, we were talking about batman. Now you're talking about "the old
days" - are you perchance talking about historical medieval conditions
where the common peasant conscripts aren't likely to have armour? Well
that is true enough. Not much relevance to superheroic fantasy however.
> Harder to hurt, and why not? Because of camp 60's comedy TV? Heard
> of Iron Man?
Yeah, comics again. Iron man is another type of superhero altogether -
the power armour guy. Without the armour he's not a superhero at all. I
think hit points would be a great model for iron man and other superheroes.
> DnD is it's own genre.
Agreed.
> Superheroes with magical armour and a
> talking sword taking on tentacled horrors, the undead both ancient and
> spreading, enormous flying dragons, endless hordes of evil humanoid
> scum, and every other monster ever imagined, helped along by a frail
> but deadly old wizard, a pious miracle-worker, and a roguish sneak of
> a man who knows how to get them where they need to be.
They sound like pretty good fantasy elements to me.
> Eh? Conan's a sneak thief, doesn't really fight people face-to-
> face if he can avoid it,
Eh? Please tell me you've actually read the Conan novels. Conan is the
single greatest fighter on the face of the planet, who remains utterly
unvanquished and conquers all. I don't think he ever lost a fight.
> at least early on (see also, Fafhrd and the
> Grey Mouser), while in the movie they just wanted to show off Arnold's
> chest.
Ah, movies again.
> Legolas is a supernaturally mobile and swift-handed archer.
Actually in the LOTR universe he's just an Elf. When I say "just" an Elf
- the original Tolkien concept of an elf was as you say a supernaturally
mobile and swift-handed archer. He wasn't even a particularly powerful
elf compared to many others around.
> Neither would wear heavy armour modelled in DnD, though some
> lightweight magical armour would indeed help them. I seem to recall
> all such characters happily using armour when it was appropriate for
> them to do so in the fiction.
True! Even in the case of Conan, he did actually don armour when he was
going into a battle, as in a real battle with armies. But that was
precisely because in such a battle you _can't_ avoid getting hit, so you
need to be able to take some hits. On his own he's far more dangerous
without the armour, because between his incredible agility and masterful
sword work you won't be able to touch him. Armour would just slow him down.
In D&D you'd simply have a Conan character wear armour all the time. No
reason not to.
>> I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the D&D rules.
>
> I think you'll find it wasn't trying to model any particular
> fantasy world, just grab the interesting bits out of some of them to
> make into a thing of it's own.
I agree, that's exactly what it was trying to do, which is why you end
up with a hodge podge of rules that don't gel. Hit points for
superheroes. Yet requirement for armour reminiscent of a historical
simulation. Bits and pieces from all over.
Keith Davies
Absolutely. He often used as much armor as he could get. As a captain
of soldiers (I forget which city) he typically wore chainmail, as king
of Aquilonia he wore the heaviest armor they had.
He often didn't have access to significant armor, but if it was
available he would use it, and it gave him greater staying power in
combat.
Keith Davies
>
> Eh? Please tell me you've actually read the Conan novels. Conan is the
> single greatest fighter on the face of the planet, who remains utterly
> unvanquished and conquers all. I don't think he ever lost a fight.
Then you haven't read the books. He regularly gets his ass handed to
him, at least temporarily. How else would there be all the 'break out
of prison' and 'Conan-caused slave riots'?
Now, a lot of the time it may have been drugs (alcohol, if he did it to
himself, or lotus dust), magic (more often than he'd like), or a *group*
of opponents pounding on him, but as I recall he did from time to time
run into someone who was at least as good. It was even uncommon that he
met someone more skilled, who ended up losing because of Conan's
unrelenting savagery.
Yiddishwriter
3E Unearthed Arcana offers a system of AC being determined by class
and level. It also has a system for treating armor as DR. It is
intended for them to be separate alternatives to the standard rules,
but it does give mention of using both at the same time which I find
to be the better option if one is unhappy with RAW.
Gerald Katz
Will in New Haven
I thought they were _intended_ to be used together. Maybe that is
because I had been using the concepts together for over a decade at
that time. What I didn't realize was that Arneson, et al, had used
those concepts in some of their gaming sessions before original D&D
was released. I did think the way it was done in Unearthed Arcana made
it possible to convert an AD&D campaign and still keep the magic rules
etc. That had been my original intention but my changes had led to an
entirely different game.
Baird Stafford
George <bl...@blah.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour? Would
> Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these characters are
> "superheroes". I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the
> D&D rules.
The Barbarian in 1E Unearthed Arcana was built around Robert E. Howard's
version of Conan - not Arnold Schwarzenegger's - and then emasculated in
2E, which wanted more "realistic" barbarians, apparently.
Baird
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
Tetsubo
> In article <4aae1128$0$6096$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> George <bl...@blah.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour? Would
>>Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these characters are
>>"superheroes". I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the
>>D&D rules.
>
>
> The Barbarian in 1E Unearthed Arcana was built around Robert E. Howard's
> version of Conan - not Arnold Schwarzenegger's - and then emasculated in
> 2E, which wanted more "realistic" barbarians, apparently.
>
> Baird
>
It's always bothered me that 3E uses the term 'barbarian'. The class
should be properly called 'berserker'. Barbarian is a derogatory term
used to make fun of the uncivilized folk that live 'over there'. Nobody
calls *themselves* a barbarian.
Will in New Haven
> > George <b...@blah.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour? Would
> >>Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these characters are
> >>"superheroes". I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the
> >>D&D rules.
>
> > The Barbarian in 1E Unearthed Arcana was built around Robert E. Howard's
> > version of Conan - not Arnold Schwarzenegger's - and then emasculated in
> > 2E, which wanted more "realistic" barbarians, apparently.
>
> > Baird
>
> It's always bothered me that 3E uses the term 'barbarian'. The class
> should be properly called 'berserker'. Barbarian is a derogatory term
> used to make fun of the uncivilized folk that live 'over there'. Nobody
> calls *themselves* a barbarian.
True. But "berserker" is only appropriate for someone from a limited
geographical and cultural area while one might to run the character
type in a different area or in an invented world. I didn't think
barbarian needed to be a special class anyway. And Conan was not a
berserker.
Baird Stafford
Parvati V <parvat...@email.it> wrote:
<snip>
> But I would call that storytelling (or story-making if you prefer), not
> role-playing as in playing a role.
I am not entirely certain what you mean. For me, D&D is, essentially,
the process of creating what, were it written down, would be a
collaborative fantasy novel. The DM provides the broad outline - the
world and its villains, competing heros and just plain folks - but the
players, role-playing their characters, populate the thing and drive the
plot. In other words, what I think of storytelling in D&D won't *work*
without the role-playing.
Keith Davies
Should 'bard' and 'druid' be similarly limited?
> I didn't think barbarian needed to be a special class anyway. And
> Conan was not a berserker.
How do you figure? He was noted for -- indeed, defined by -- his
savagery and singular focus in combat. It's not unreasonable that he
just had really high ability scores (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, *and*
Cha[1]), but it's also not unreasonable that he could crank even those
up a little higher.
[1] no one ever argues against Str and Con, but he was also described as
moving with 'pantherish' speed and grace, he knew a little bit about
damn near everything, his senses were almost preternatural, and his
physical presence and force of personality were huge.
George
> Then you haven't read the books.
I have. Lots of them. All the ones written by Robert E Howard, and L
Sprague DeCamp, plus a bundle of other ones. Easily 20 novels worth. Now
it is possible that later authors have taken some additional liberties
with Conan and I haven't read those. But as he was written by his
creator, he was the greatest fighter in the world.
> He regularly gets his ass handed to
> him, at least temporarily.
Never once was he bested in combat by any single opponent. Most of the
time he carves his way through multiple opponents. Survives every single
battle he enters (obviously). Regularly gets his ass handed to him is
simply not accurate at all. Perhaps you haven't read the same books I have.
> How else would there be all the 'break out
> of prison' and 'Conan-caused slave riots'?
There was usually a woman involved :)
> Now, a lot of the time it may have been drugs (alcohol, if he did it to
> himself, or lotus dust), magic (more often than he'd like), or a *group*
> of opponents pounding on him,
Now that is true - those are the only types of circumstances which could
result in a temporary "defeat" for Conan.
> but as I recall he did from time to time
> run into someone who was at least as good. It was even uncommon that he
> met someone more skilled, who ended up losing because of Conan's
> unrelenting savagery.
True enough. Especially the bit about how the opponent "ended up losing" :)
George
context of how such a character may be portrayed in a fantasy role
playing game, where the typical scenario for a party of adventurers is
not a mighty pitched battle between large armies.
You might even say that a requirement for armour in such situations is
more of a "realistic" concept. It makes perfect sense to me.
But in his role as a "dungeon adventurer" he had no need of armour, in
fact it would have slowed him down, and/or made him less stealthy, but
it's absence did not make him less than a deadly warrior.
Put in D&D terms, I believe the rules would far better serve to emulate
superheroic fantasy by having ways to increase AC without armour (aside
from DEX bonus). Or even better, make the target number to hit someone
not based on armour at all.
George
> 3E Unearthed Arcana offers a system of AC being determined by class
> and level. It also has a system for treating armor as DR. It is
> intended for them to be separate alternatives to the standard rules,
> but it does give mention of using both at the same time which I find
> to be the better option if one is unhappy with RAW.
Ah good. I would use those rules.
Also note that interestingly enough, 4E actually had some good ideas
related to this. Notably the Fortitude and Reflex were used as target
numbers for some abilities. So AC was no longer the default "to hit"
someone, meaning that armour wasn't the only benchmark of strike
difficulty any more.
George
> In article <4aae1128$0$6096$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> George <bl...@blah.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour? Would
>> Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these characters are
>> "superheroes". I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the
>> D&D rules.
>
> The Barbarian in 1E Unearthed Arcana was built around Robert E. Howard's
> version of Conan - not Arnold Schwarzenegger's - and then emasculated in
> 2E, which wanted more "realistic" barbarians, apparently.
>
> Baird
>
Yes that's true. The original 1E barbarian was forbidden to wear heavy
armour at all IIRC! But he had D12 hit dice :)
Matthew Miller
> It's always bothered me that 3E uses the term 'barbarian'. The class
> should be properly called 'berserker'. Barbarian is a derogatory term
> used to make fun of the uncivilized folk that live 'over there'. Nobody
> calls *themselves* a barbarian.
D&D classes have always (and by "always", I mean "at least since 3E") mixed
up function and flavor. I kinda like the D20 Modern approach -- your classes
are functional, like "fast hero", "tough hero", etc., and then your
_vocation_ and background are separate choices. I think it's a good idea --
but it's not really D&D.
--
Matthew Miller
Matthew Miller
> And the strange thing is, it would be so _easy_ to make it more
> internally consistent. Say - each level of experience gives you +2 AC.
> Just because you're harder to hit and know how to dodge more, etc. You
> could even add actual rules for dodging and parrying, which just about
> every other RPG actually has.
So, uh, in 4E, every two levels gives you +1 to AC. Just sayin'.
--
Matthew Miller
George
> See, it's not about getting a near-miss, it's about turning and
> stepping as the monstrous blow lands, leaving a deep bruise and a
> momentary gasp for air rather than a collapsed chest full of broken
> ribs and perforated organs. At least, it is for those characters who
> fit with the quick and nimble tropes, the Wizard maybe has "spells"
> that do it for him, the Cleric a literal blessing of their God, the
> Fighter making the Ogre take quick, weak thrusts that his armour can
> help soak up. See, they are whatever they need to be, whatever suits
> at the time, all that matters is your mojo will save you, because
> you're Batman, the 4th level Ranger.
"Fegeleft charged into battle against his arch-foe and swung his blade
in a murderous arc. The sword struck Butross squarely across the chest,
or so he thought, until Butross turned at the last moment altering the
blow into a painful but not lethal graze. Butross immediately replied
with a lunge, spearing his sword deep into Fegeleft's leg, or at least
it would have been deep but for Fegeleft twisting partially aside at the
last moment, suffering a minor stab instead. Fegeleft again went on the
offensive, hacking down at Butross' head, intent on cleaving his enemy's
skull. He grinned savagely as he felt the impact, expecting Butross to
fall but again Butross had thwarted him by moving his head slightly to
the side, the sword bouncing off the helmet and crunching into the
shoulder instead, a bloody but not decisive wound. Butross replied with
a disembowelling slash across Fegeleft's belly, which he survived
miraculously by stepping back at the last moment, but not quickly enough
to avoid a shallow cut to the abdomen. Fegeleft roared and hammered his
blade down upon his opponent's outstretched arm, severing the limb. Or
rather it would have if Butross had not pulled aside just momentarily
before to turn the wound into a merely a shallow slash rather than an
amputation."
"There was a momentary lull in the battle and both combatants eyed each
other warily. Fegeleft recalled what his old teacher - sword master Woo
Ping - had taught him all those years ago - 'Never move aside from a
blow completely my son, that is a waste of energy. Better to move just a
little so that you avoid death, but so the pain of the injury will keeps
you on your toes. Also ensure that you use your blade to deflect a
killing blow only just enough so that again you will be struck and your
blood will flow. This will release some of your anger and allow you to
calmly face your enemies.' Wise council indeed Fegeleft mused as he
prepared to engage with Butross for what would undoubtedly be another 10
minutes of painful but inconclusive battle. At least he knew his
companion Magrith the Priest would be able to heal him afterwards.
Although, the priest had never been able to explain why he was able to
completely restore some men with a single blessing, while Fegeleft
himself required up to a dozen of the same, despite being no more
seriously injured than the others."
decalod85
And if you buy the books, you get a free bowl of soup!
George
True! I had forgotten that. I've had something of a read-through of a
friend's copy of 4E. I think that rule is a step in the right direction.
It's just a pity there is no variation of the armour class bonus based
on _what_ you are. So a 10th level fighter (wearing no armour) is still
no more difficult to hit in combat than a 10th level mage (also wearing
no armour). Which is pretty much in the face of common sense, not to
mention any fantasy genre convention I can think of.
Keith Davies
> You wrote:
Please fix your quoting rules. Not everyone is 'You', and it makes it
really hard to follow who you're responding to.
>> So, uh, in 4E, every two levels gives you +1 to AC. Just sayin'.
>
> True! I had forgotten that. I've had something of a read-through of a
> friend's copy of 4E. I think that rule is a step in the right direction.
>
> It's just a pity there is no variation of the armour class bonus based
> on _what_ you are. So a 10th level fighter (wearing no armour) is still
> no more difficult to hit in combat than a 10th level mage (also wearing
> no armour). Which is pretty much in the face of common sense, not to
> mention any fantasy genre convention I can think of.
FWIW, my tiered advancement system may give +1/2 HD AC bonus (as 4e
does), but you can take additional abilities that let you build on that.
Mind you, this means not spending the ability slots on other things.
So, fighter who can roll with the punches? Takes one of the AC-bumping
abilities (and probably Toughness). Wizard, who gets it in the mouth?
He didn't. Poor wizard, hard to cast spells wiffout teef.
George
> Please fix your quoting rules. Not everyone is 'You', and it makes it
> really hard to follow who you're responding to.
Apologies. Not intending to make it hard to follow. Unfortunately
Thunderbird appears to have no options for quoting other than turning it
on or off! I shall do it manually.
> FWIW, my tiered advancement system may give +1/2 HD AC bonus (as 4e
> does), but you can take additional abilities that let you build on that.
> Mind you, this means not spending the ability slots on other things.
> So, fighter who can roll with the punches? Takes one of the AC-bumping
> abilities (and probably Toughness). Wizard, who gets it in the mouth?
> He didn't. Poor wizard, hard to cast spells wiffout teef.
I think we're basically on the same page, in that we want something
other than just armour to determine how hard someone is to hit. 4E has
addressed this to an extent by effectively saying the more experienced
you are, the harder you are to hit.
I'd still say the most important component in determining difficulty to
hit someone is skill. In any fantasy genre. And that is still entirely
unaccounted for in D&D.
And I've realised there's a downside to what I thought was quite an
elegant rule - the one that says to use either INT or DEX for for
reflex/AC. A warrior's DEX is quite likely to be lower than a mage's INT
- which means a 10th level mage without armour and using no magic could
actually be harder to hit in combat than a 10th level warrior without
armour.
Keith Davies
> Keith wrote:
>
>> Please fix your quoting rules. Not everyone is 'You', and it makes it
>> really hard to follow who you're responding to.
>
> Apologies. Not intending to make it hard to follow. Unfortunately
> Thunderbird appears to have no options for quoting other than turning it
> on or off! I shall do it manually.
Hmm. This surprises me somewhat.
>> FWIW, my tiered advancement system may give +1/2 HD AC bonus (as 4e
>> does), but you can take additional abilities that let you build on
>> that. Mind you, this means not spending the ability slots on other
>> things. So, fighter who can roll with the punches? Takes one of the
>> AC-bumping abilities (and probably Toughness). Wizard, who gets it
>> in the mouth? He didn't. Poor wizard, hard to cast spells wiffout
>> teef.
>
> I think we're basically on the same page, in that we want something
> other than just armour to determine how hard someone is to hit. 4E has
> addressed this to an extent by effectively saying the more experienced
> you are, the harder you are to hit.
Pretty much, I'd like to reduce dependence on equipment. Right now
unless you have high Dex you pretty much need to tank up if you want
decent AC (and the high Dex crowd gets treated pretty damn decently;
I've posted on this before).
Some combination of UA options might be in line. The analysis below is
based on assumptions relating to my Tiered Advancement scheme, so don't
worry if they don't entirely fit RAW expectations. The premise is
probably comparable, but the numbers will probably be off.
1. Defense bonus (base bonus + martial training bonus?), does not stack
with armor bonus. At low levels it's still worth wearing armor
because it'll help protect you from getting hit at all, but after
about 8th level (i.e. when you're past 'Heroic') a martial character
could be good enough he can dispense with the full plate... though
I'd like to see other benefits from armor anyway, so it'd still be
attractive. Conan doesn't much need armor because it doesn't really
prevent him from getting hurt most of the time.
Base bonus is HD/2, martial training can provide a similar amount.
This means you can start with up to +2 defense bonus (want armor!) at
first level and get up to +20 defense bonus (don't care about armor!)
at twentieth level.
This may be a little rich, especially since Dex still goes on here,
and possibly the Dodge bonus below. You can get up to +15 to an
ability score (at twentieth level) depending on the abilities you
take; combine this with base Dex of 18 and you're looking at a
possible AC of 51, naked (10 + HD/2 + 10 (martial training) + 33/2 +
5 (dodge)). This cost him four of his Legendary tier abilities (out
of six -- Legendary Martial Training, Improved Legendary Martial
Training, Legendary Dodge, Legendary Dexterity).
Mind you, the 20th-level opponent may well have an attack bonus that
can cope with this. +20 from HD+training, +16 from ability score
(hits on 15+), possibly +5 more from Weapon Focus (which he probably
has, if he's a martial character)... hits on +10 or better. This too
cost him four of his Legendary tier abilities (Legendary Martial
Training, Improved Legendary Martial Training, Legendary Weapon Focus
(with half the bumps being spent on attack bonus, the other half on
other weapon effects), Legendary Ability Score (Str or Dex)).
(I'm deliberately ignoring enhancement bonuses; I don't usually allow
them IMC, so they really don't apply.)
2. Armor provides defense bonus (doesn't stack with above) equal to the
armor bonus. It also provides damage conversion (up to $armorbonus
damage gets reduced to nonlethal damage, a like amount of nonlethal
damage would be ignored entirely). You can still beat the guy down,
but it's more likely to leave him unconscious than dead. I expect
that criticals ignore this, for both lethal and nonlethal damage.
Conan still likes armor because sometimes his opponents get lucky and
this keeps him from hurting as much when he does get hit.
If you want something simpler, have the armor provide DR instead. I
think I like how the damage conversion works -- a fight doesn't last
any less long (unless you're getting hit by a lot of nonlethal
attacks), but a certain amount of damage can be recovered just by
taking a breather.
Hrm. HD/hour. I might want to step that up a little, if a breather
can recover it.
Incidentally, I ignore 'max dex bonus to AC' from armor, and have for
a long time. I think it overly rewards the light armor crowd.
There's a reason heavy armor was so popular for so long IRL, and
having someone who can pay less, carry less weight, and still have a
comparable chance of being hit (and much, much less when facing a
touch attack!)... and it costs less gold?
3. Dodge ability, gives +1 dodge bonus per tier to AC that stacks with
defense bonus. I try to avoid stacking abilities (makes life easier,
especially when quickly building characters), so this provides some
significant gain.
I'd need to run some numbers to see how these fit together. The UA
rules on this matter treat shields as always giving AC benefits, I'm
inclined to treat shields as specialized weapons that are really good at
blocking attacks (consider something like TWF, but the offhand is used
to block -- negate -- inbound attacks).
I also want to consider how this interacts with my hit point rules. A
20th-level character, baseline, has hit points in the 70-80 range
(Con + 3*HD). This can be bought up with Toughness (increases the
multiplier by +1 per tier; a character with Master Toughness would have
3*HD more hit points). If Toughness can only be taken once, this can
lead to +100 hit points at 20th level with Legendary Toughness.
> I'd still say the most important component in determining difficulty
> to hit someone is skill. In any fantasy genre. And that is still
> entirely unaccounted for in D&D.
Not just in fantasy, it's fairly accurate in reality. D&D RAW handles
this in part with increasing hit points.
> And I've realised there's a downside to what I thought was quite an
> elegant rule - the one that says to use either INT or DEX for for
> reflex/AC. A warrior's DEX is quite likely to be lower than a mage's
> INT - which means a 10th level mage without armour and using no magic
> could actually be harder to hit in combat than a 10th level warrior
> without armour.
Indeed, this would be so, and may be considered a failure.
IMC, Dex is for AC. I've long allowed (for a feat) using Int for Reflex
saves[1], but AC was still Dex-based.
[1] From one of the Discworld books, there were two types of alchemists
who survived long. The first had excellent reflexes and could get
behind cover when something went wrong, the other recognized that
something was *about to go wrong* and found cover.
George
> George <bl...@blah.com> wrote:
>> Keith wrote:
>>
>>> Please fix your quoting rules. Not everyone is 'You', and it makes it
>>> really hard to follow who you're responding to.
>> Apologies. Not intending to make it hard to follow. Unfortunately
>> Thunderbird appears to have no options for quoting other than turning it
>> on or off! I shall do it manually.
>
> Hmm. This surprises me somewhat.
It disappoints me greatly! But I assure you there are no further
options. I'm using version 2.0.0.23, the latest available. I even tried
installing an extension for Thunderbird to allow editing of quotation
fields, but it was only compatible with old versions.
> Pretty much, I'd like to reduce dependence on equipment. Right now
> unless you have high Dex you pretty much need to tank up if you want
> decent AC (and the high Dex crowd gets treated pretty damn decently;
> I've posted on this before).
The Dex bonus to D&D AC implies very strongly, if not outright supports
the notion that speed and agility make you harder to hit. Which is fine
of course. But given that premise it's all the more strange there is no
combat skill/dodging component.
> Some combination of UA options might be in line. The analysis below is
> based on assumptions relating to my Tiered Advancement scheme, so don't
> worry if they don't entirely fit RAW expectations. The premise is
> probably comparable, but the numbers will probably be off.
> [custom rules snipped]
Excellent. We're not basically on the same page, we are entirely on the
same page. I would very much enjoy playing in your campaign! Your rules:
1) Make sense.
2) Are logical.
3) Support the genre very well.
4) Do not require any quirky or nonsensical abstractions to interpret
combat.
I love that the defense bonus does not stack with armour. This is a
fabulous genre rule! It explains perfectly why peons wear armour while
Conan, or other heroes can easily do without. You also have some non-AC
additional benefits of armour which can still make it mildly attractive,
but never essential for the hero.
> This may be a little rich, especially since Dex still goes on here,
> and possibly the Dodge bonus below.
Not at all. This is my idea of an excellent set of rules to cater for
fantasy heroes.
> If you want something simpler, have the armor provide DR instead. I
> think I like how the damage conversion works -- a fight doesn't last
> any less long (unless you're getting hit by a lot of nonlethal
> attacks), but a certain amount of damage can be recovered just by
> taking a breather.
I like DR. It doesn't have to be big numbers. Even a base of 1 for
leather, 2 for chain and 3 for plate is fine for me.
> Incidentally, I ignore 'max dex bonus to AC' from armor, and have for
> a long time.
Yes! I hate that rule. Armour reduces your mobility sure, but to
penalise only the dextrous people while the average person suffers no
penalty? Bad rule. And the side effect as you've noted of making rogues
in leather have the same armour class as fighters in plate.
>> And I've realised there's a downside to what I thought was quite an
>> elegant rule - the one that says to use either INT or DEX for for
>> reflex/AC. A warrior's DEX is quite likely to be lower than a mage's
>> INT - which means a 10th level mage without armour and using no magic
>> could actually be harder to hit in combat than a 10th level warrior
>> without armour.
>
> Indeed, this would be so, and may be considered a failure.
>
> IMC, Dex is for AC. I've long allowed (for a feat) using Int for Reflex
> saves[1], but AC was still Dex-based.
>
> [1] From one of the Discworld books, there were two types of alchemists
> who survived long. The first had excellent reflexes and could get
> behind cover when something went wrong, the other recognized that
> something was *about to go wrong* and found cover.
I do appreciate this notion of INT contributing to a reflex save by
virtue of your character being able to perceive dangers before they are
imminent and taking steps to avoid it, rather than simply waiting for
the last moment but making an agile dodge due to great reflexes. That's
why I felt it was an elegant concept.
However, the danger lies in mixing reflexes with an abstract ability to
perceive danger and take precautions. I prefer to leave the latter to
role-playing, e.g. the player of a mage deciding to take cover before
the arrows start flying.
I would agree completely with removing INT from the AC bonus equation.
I'd argue that at the moment the sword is swinging at you, only reflexes
can help. If you were really intelligent you might have been _over
there_ instead, where the orc can't swing his sword at you in the first
place.
tussock
> tussock wrote:
> > [...] See, they are whatever they need to be, whatever suits at the
> > time, all that matters is your mojo will save you, because you're
> > Batman, the 4th level Ranger.
Here, I fixed your post.
> "Fegeleft charged into battle against his arch-foe and swung his blade
> in a murderous arc, the sword clashing hard against Butross's
> breastplate as he lunged inside the killing reach, catching Fegeleft's leg
> in return. Both stood clear a moment to regain their balance before laying
> in with full fury, barely feeling their first wounds, Fegeleft hacked down at
> Butross' head, glancing the helm and crunching weakly into the shoulder,
> opening a small wound. Butross, staggered, drove Fegeleft off with a slash
> across his belly, hale enough to gut a normal warrior, but all too slow to
> cleanly catch this savage foe, who deftly opened another wound in his
> sword arm as he withdrew again."
>
> "There was a momentary lull in the battle and both combatants eyed each
> other warily. Fegeleft recalled what his old teacher - sword master Woo
> Ping - had taught him all those years ago - 'You go into a knife fight, you
> gunna get cut, and you gunna bleed, motherfucker.' Wise council indeed
> Fegeleft mused as he prepared to engage with the dauntless Butross for
> what would be a full minute or more of blinding speed and courage to be
> sung of through the sages, if only a Bard were here to see it."
>
> "At least he knew his companion Magrith the Priest would be able to
> provide the healing of the gods afterwards, though while the gods allow
> Magrith to restore a dozen common soldiers to health, Butross could kill
> a full score such men in a minute, and the gods always looked poorly on
> those who faced such foes."
--
tussock
George
> Here, I fixed your post.
>
>> "Fegeleft charged into battle against his arch-foe and swung his blade
>> in a murderous arc, the sword clashing hard against Butross's
>> breastplate as he lunged inside the killing reach, catching Fegeleft's leg
>> in return. Both stood clear a moment to regain their balance before laying
>> in with full fury, barely feeling their first wounds, Fegeleft hacked down at
>> Butross' head, glancing the helm and crunching weakly into the shoulder,
>> opening a small wound. Butross, staggered, drove Fegeleft off with a slash
>> across his belly, hale enough to gut a normal warrior, but all too slow to
>> cleanly catch this savage foe, who deftly opened another wound in his
>> sword arm as he withdrew again."
>>
>> "There was a momentary lull in the battle and both combatants eyed each
>> other warily. Fegeleft recalled what his old teacher - sword master Woo
>> Ping - had taught him all those years ago - 'You go into a knife fight, you
>> gunna get cut, and you gunna bleed, motherfucker.' Wise council indeed
>> Fegeleft mused as he prepared to engage with the dauntless Butross for
>> what would be a full minute or more of blinding speed and courage to be
>> sung of through the sages, if only a Bard were here to see it."
>>
>> "At least he knew his companion Magrith the Priest would be able to
>> provide the healing of the gods afterwards, though while the gods allow
>> Magrith to restore a dozen common soldiers to health, Butross could kill
>> a full score such men in a minute, and the gods always looked poorly on
>> those who faced such foes."
>
Nicely fixed :) I see you are indeed confirming that:
1) No blow is ever dodged cleanly, in any combat, under any
circumstances, by any combatant, even if they are superheroic warriors.
2) Ditto for parries - simply cannot occur.
3) The gods limit permanently the effectiveness of healing upon all heroes.
The problem I have with the above three notions is that:
1) They are crap.
2) They don't make sense.
3) They aren't consistent with any fantasy genre.
and most of all,
4) There are so many ways to avoid such silliness without any additional
complexity. (Ref: practically any other RPG other than D&D).
--
George
Kaos
wrote:
>Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> After two months of a 4E campaign, he sold his books on Amazon and
>> said, "This game is nothing but a tabletop version of World of Warcraft,
>> the MMO. It *isn't* a role-playing game."
>
>I think 4E would do as bad a job of remaking WoW on pen&paper as
>previous editions of D&D.
>1) you need a living GM to make the experience interesting (WoW is /fun/
>without);
Disagree vehemently, but with the caveat that YMMV. I found WoW to be
about as much fun as running a paper shredder.
George
>> Here, I fixed your post.
Heh,
I must admit this is kinda fun. In the spirit of high fantasy, let's do
another one for you to "fix" :)
"Jormungar the Fire Giant frowned. He was still perplexed by the recent
battle with troops sent by the local to oust him from his cavern,
declaring he was trespassing on royal ground! As if Jormungar needed to
concern himself with the petty affairs of these insects. It wasn't the
first time those puny little humans had attempted to take him down, and
it won't be the last time, that was not what was bothering him. No it
was the curious observation he had made in the middle of the skirmish.
He had noted how the ones dressed in metal they called "chainmail" were
actually harder to strike than the ones without. It's not that they were
any faster, in fact it was the opposite, the metal appeared to weigh the
weakling humans down somewhat and make them slower. And the troops
wearing the chainmail were no better trained than the others, he had
seen they were all much of a muchness compared to each other.
Jormungar examined Firebrand, his mighty two handed sword, forged a
thousand years ago by the titans and handed down through the generations
until Jormungar himself earned the right to wield it. Eldritch flame
crackled along it's edge. The blade was almost as long as Jormungar
himself, nearly 20 feet, easily triple the size of the pathetic humans
he swung it against, and made from some unearthly metal that had never
tarnished or gained so much as the slightest scratch from all the years
of use.
Jormungar thought back yet again to the battle. He had sensed no magical
enchantments upon these men or their pitiful armour. Even after
examining the corpses he had confirmed the metal contained no magic, it
was simply made from miniscule rings of ordinary metal. The idea that
Firebrand would be turned aside by such, even a fraction, was utterly
preposterous. Jormungar could chop down great oak trees in a single
sweep of this fearsome weapon! It was almost as if some invisible force
pushed his blade aside from the wearers of the armour on occasion,
causing him to miss. Because when he didn't miss, it was the same result
regardless of what the insignificant humans were wearing - instant
death. So what was making him miss more often?
Perhaps the armour was....what was the word.....magnetic? His shaman had
counciled him on some esoteric ways. Jumungar was brutish in some ways,
but far from the dimwitted ogre the humans imagined him to be. But no,
upon further examination, the armour, once taken from the mutilated
remains of the hapless soldiers had no magnetic properties at all, and
did not repel Firebrand no matter how he experimented.
Jormungar surged to his feet, still perplexed by this seemingly
inexplicable phenomenon. Striding down the corridors of his labyrinthine
cavern home, he sought the slave pens, a new experiment forming in his
mind. He would force his human slaves to don similar armour captured
from other raids against humans. They were simply peasants, with no
martial training whatsoever, and having never even donned armour before
they would certainly not know of any secret techniques by which they
could twist and turn and somehow avoid blows from Firebrand while
wearing it, even though he simply could fathom how such a technique
could hope to be achieved in the first place.
A few minutes later, the aftermath of the grisly experiment left
Jormungar in no doubt - something was wrong. The peasants were less than
pathetic, having fallen to his blade like grain to the scythe. And yet,
Jormungar had been impressively scientific about it, even getting his
Shaman to make a tally on parchment. The result: the first group of 20
peasants that he forced to wear the chainmail were 30% less likely to be
struck by Firebrand than the second group of 20 that wore nothing at all.
Could the gods be intervening? The armour had not even been blessed, he
was certain. And why would they favour a man not based on his piety or
great deeds, but simply due to whether he bothered to wear a suit of
armour? He had never heard of such, in any legend or lore, and he was
more well versed than most in such things, having lived for 400 years
and even associated with titans.
Jormungar sighed. It just made no sense, none whatsoever. But than
again, there were many things in the world that made little sense.
Jormungar called his Shaman to him once more. Some of the puny peasants
had fought back, and although they could do little more than make
pinpricks, indeed it would have taken 10 times the blows to topple him,
the Shaman would be chanting over him for hours in order to heal these
seemingly minor wounds."
:)
--
George
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Keith wrote:
>
>> Please fix your quoting rules. Not everyone is 'You', and it makes it
>> really hard to follow who you're responding to.
>
> Apologies. Not intending to make it hard to follow. Unfortunately
> Thunderbird appears to have no options for quoting other than turning it
> on or off! I shall do it manually.
I use Thunderbird, and it's doing the quoting you see above, so somehow
you've got something set wrong.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
George
> I use Thunderbird, and it's doing the quoting you see above, so
> somehow you've got something set wrong.
Please tell me how! I've looked over the settings that many times,
thinking the same thing, that there must be a way. Can't find it!
P.S. Ryk Spoor, aka Sea Wasp! I remember you from my uni days....15
years ago!! How are ya? :)
--
George
George
> Please tell me how! I've looked over the settings that many times,
> thinking the same thing, that there must be a way. Can't find it!
Found it. I decided on a third attempt to investigate, this time
apparently coming up with the appropriate keywords for google to get
something useful. Just on the one in a million chance someone else is
having problems with thunderbird quoting (also I hate reading posts
where someone says they fixed something but not _how_) this is what I got:
http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/tips#beh_replyheader
- Select Tools menu.
- Select Options.
- Select Advanced (top right icon).
- Click "Config editor" button.
- A window pops up that shows all the possible configuration settings
for thunderbird, contained in the user.js file. This screen allows you
to edit them without directly editing that file.
- Type in "mailnews" into the filter textbox.
- There's a bundle of options that begin with "mailnews.reply_header".
Reset all of those to default by right clicking on them and choosing
"reset" from the popup menu. You can tell which ones have been modified
from their default values because they are bolded.
- Close the window.
- Ok the options screen.
Fixed!
--
George
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 3:53 pm, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Baird Stafford wrote:
> >> > In article <4aae1128$0$6096$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> >> > George <b...@blah.com> wrote:
>
> >> > <snip>
>
> >> >>Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour? Would
> >> >>Legolas? It would be fair to say that both of these characters are
> >> >>"superheroes". I know of no fantasy world that is modelled well by the
> >> >>D&D rules.
>
> >> > The Barbarian in 1E Unearthed Arcana was built around Robert E. Howard's
> >> > version of Conan - not Arnold Schwarzenegger's - and then emasculated in
> >> > 2E, which wanted more "realistic" barbarians, apparently.
>
> >> > Baird
>
> >> It's always bothered me that 3E uses the term 'barbarian'. The class
> >> should be properly called 'berserker'. Barbarian is a derogatory term
> >> used to make fun of the uncivilized folk that live 'over there'. Nobody
> >> calls *themselves* a barbarian.
>
> > True. But "berserker" is only appropriate for someone from a limited
> > geographical and cultural area while one might to run the character
> > type in a different area or in an invented world.
>
> Should 'bard' and 'druid' be similarly limited?
If you are making your won campaing-environment, and I have never done
anything else, you can certainly get both in. If you aren't, it would
depend on the milieu, although something like a bard might be possible
anywhen.
>
> > I didn't think barbarian needed to be a special class anyway. And
> > Conan was not a berserker.
>
> How do you figure? He was noted for -- indeed, defined by -- his
> savagery and singular focus in combat. It's not unreasonable that he
> just had really high ability scores (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, *and*
> Cha[1]), but it's also not unreasonable that he could crank even those
> up a little higher.
Berserkergang was quite vividly described and included things Conan
does not do. Also, he retains control of his tactical faculties much
better than berserkers were supposed to. And he doesn't wear the bear-
sking, at least not all the time.
>
> [1] no one ever argues against Str and Con, but he was also described as
> moving with 'pantherish' speed and grace, he knew a little bit about
> damn near everything, his senses were almost preternatural, and his
> physical presence and force of personality were huge.
Berserkers were often, if not usually, despised by ordinary men.
Feared even more but clearly disliked and avoided if possible.
Will in New Haven
> True. I even made this point myself. I was referring to Conan in the
> context of how such a character may be portrayed in a fantasy role
> playing game, where the typical scenario for a party of adventurers is
> not a mighty pitched battle between large armies.
>
> You might even say that a requirement for armour in such situations is
> more of a "realistic" concept. It makes perfect sense to me.
>
> But in his role as a "dungeon adventurer" he had no need of armour, in
> fact it would have slowed him down, and/or made him less stealthy, but
> it's absence did not make him less than a deadly warrior.
>
> Put in D&D terms, I believe the rules would far better serve to emulate
> superheroic fantasy by having ways to increase AC without armour (aside
> from DEX bonus). Or even better, make the target number to hit someone
> not based on armour at all.
I've done that and run games with it for decades. It isn't difficult.
It models what Gygax said were the reasons for increased HP by making
experienced combatants more skillful and "luckier."
It could possibly be done and still have it be D&D, although I didn't
do that.
--
Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> You wrote:
> > George <b...@blah.com> wrote:
> >> Would Conan be a more dangerous opponent if he wore armour?
>
> > Absolutely. He often used as much armor as he could get. As a captain
> > of soldiers (I forget which city) he typically wore chainmail, as king
> > of Aquilonia he wore the heaviest armor they had.
>
> > He often didn't have access to significant armor, but if it was
> > available he would use it, and it gave him greater staying power in
> > combat.
>
> > Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> I use Thunderbird, and it's doing the quoting you see above, so
>> somehow you've got something set wrong.
>
> Please tell me how! I've looked over the settings that many times,
> thinking the same thing, that there must be a way. Can't find it!
>
Wish I could help, but I didn't have to adjust a thing.
Unless... you don't have it set up somehow as a MAIL account rather
than a NEWSGROUP account, do you? Because the "you" quote would make
sense in that context...
> P.S. Ryk Spoor, aka Sea Wasp! I remember you from my uni days....15
> years ago!! How are ya? :)
Older, published, married, kids.
Will in New Haven
You got _older_ Now that's an error. The rest, fine.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Older is simply a function of passing time. Even immortals get older. I
didn't say I *AGED*.
Will in New Haven
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 3:42 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> George wrote:
> >>> Sea Wasp wrote:
> >>>> I use Thunderbird, and it's doing the quoting you see above, so
> >>>> somehow you've got something set wrong.
> >>> Please tell me how! I've looked over the settings that many times,
> >>> thinking the same thing, that there must be a way. Can't find it!
> >> Wish I could help, but I didn't have to adjust a thing.
>
> >> Unless... you don't have it set up somehow as a MAIL account rather
> >> than a NEWSGROUP account, do you? Because the "you" quote would make
> >> sense in that context...
>
> >>> P.S. Ryk Spoor, aka Sea Wasp! I remember you from my uni days....15
> >>> years ago!! How are ya? :)
> >> Older, published, married, kids.
>
> > You got _older_ Now that's an error. The rest, fine.
>
> Older is simply a function of passing time. Even immortals get older. I
> didn't say I *AGED*.
>
is inevitable.
Tetsubo
Oddly, at age 45 I am in better shape than I ever was in the past. Even
though I am now a diabetic with high blood pressure and on numerous
meds. A good diet and daily exercise will do that... plus dropping
thirty pounds in the last year.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
Daily Booth: http://dailybooth.com/Tetsubo
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Will in New Haven
<no longer speaking to Tetsubo>
Good going man.
Yiddishwriter
But everyone also gets +1 to hit so it's practically meaningless.
However, the fault really lies in the nature of the game, regardless
of version. You need AC to be significant to enjoy the fun of enemies
missing you, the fun of the risk of missing when you attack, as well
as basic survivability. However, it can't be too good because if
someone on any side of the DM screen is absolutely invincible, there's
no point to playing.
Also, gaining levels should mean something. Something that was tough
at low level should be very easy at high level. My group enjoyed that
in a recent game. At around 6th level we faced distrachans. They
were very tough for us, but we did eventually win. At 14th level we
faced the same number of distrachans, and it was a cakewalk. It was
nice having an easy combat for its own sake as a breather from what we
have been facing, but the fact that it was a combat that used to be
difficult for us made it all the better.
Gerald Katz
Matthew Miller
> It's just a pity there is no variation of the armour class bonus based
> on _what_ you are. So a 10th level fighter (wearing no armour) is still
> no more difficult to hit in combat than a 10th level mage (also wearing
> no armour). Which is pretty much in the face of common sense, not to
> mention any fantasy genre convention I can think of.
Some of this is covered in 4E by utility powers. For example, Defensive
Stance:
Dropping into a cautious stance, you maneuver around your opponent’s
attacks to get into position.
Daily Martial, Stance
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the stance ends, you are slowed and gain a +2 power bonus to
AC. Whenever an enemy misses you with a melee attack, you can shift 1
square as an immediate reaction. You can end this stance as a free action.
--
Matthew Miller
Keith Davies
> On Sep 14, 9:57�pm, Matthew Miller <mattdm-use...@mattdm.org> wrote:
>> George <b...@blah.com> wrote:
>> > And the strange thing is, it would be so _easy_ to make it more
>> > internally consistent. Say - each level of experience gives you +2 AC.
>> > Just because you're harder to hit and know how to dodge more, etc. You
>> > could even add actual rules for dodging and parrying, which just about
>> > every other RPG actually has.
>>
>> So, uh, in 4E, every two levels gives you +1 to AC. Just sayin'.
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Miller
>
> But everyone also gets +1 to hit so it's practically meaningless.
In 3e also everyone gets +1 to hit every other level (at least; a lot of
characters do better). 4e's the first edition of D&D I'm aware of that
gives explicit AC benefits to leveling that aren't derived from having
better gear.
> However, the fault really lies in the nature of the game, regardless
> of version. You need AC to be significant to enjoy the fun of enemies
> missing you, the fun of the risk of missing when you attack, as well
> as basic survivability. However, it can't be too good because if
> someone on any side of the DM screen is absolutely invincible, there's
> no point to playing.
Agreed.
> Also, gaining levels should mean something. Something that was tough
> at low level should be very easy at high level. My group enjoyed that
> in a recent game. At around 6th level we faced distrachans. They
> were very tough for us, but we did eventually win. At 14th level we
> faced the same number of distrachans, and it was a cakewalk. It was
> nice having an easy combat for its own sake as a breather from what we
> have been facing, but the fact that it was a combat that used to be
> difficult for us made it all the better.
I try to introduce that sort of thing from time to time, just to provide
a 'hey, you're badass now' moment. Without that, you can feel like
you're really not getting anywhere because fights tend to be as hard as
usual. You're better, but fighting harder things, so it's harder to
see the improvement.
Yeah, there's the intellectual knowledge that you're fighting bigger
things, but it feels good to one-shot something that almost TPKed you
some time earlier.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Yiddishwriter <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 9:57 pm, Matthew Miller <mattdm-use...@mattdm.org> wrote:
>>> George <b...@blah.com> wrote:
>>>> And the strange thing is, it would be so _easy_ to make it more
>>>> internally consistent. Say - each level of experience gives you +2 AC.
>>>> Just because you're harder to hit and know how to dodge more, etc. You
>>>> could even add actual rules for dodging and parrying, which just about
>>>> every other RPG actually has.
>>> So, uh, in 4E, every two levels gives you +1 to AC. Just sayin'.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthew Miller
>> But everyone also gets +1 to hit so it's practically meaningless.
>
> In 3e also everyone gets +1 to hit every other level (at least; a lot of
> characters do better).
Er, mages one every three, at most.
Clerics one every two, I think. Fighting types are 1 for 1.
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Yiddishwriter <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 14, 9:57 pm, Matthew Miller <mattdm-use...@mattdm.org> wrote:
>>>> George <b...@blah.com> wrote:
>>>>> And the strange thing is, it would be so _easy_ to make it more
>>>>> internally consistent. Say - each level of experience gives you +2 AC.
>>>>> Just because you're harder to hit and know how to dodge more, etc. You
>>>>> could even add actual rules for dodging and parrying, which just about
>>>>> every other RPG actually has.
>>>> So, uh, in 4E, every two levels gives you +1 to AC. Just sayin'.
>>>
>>
>> In 3e also everyone gets +1 to hit every other level (at least; a lot of
>> characters do better).
>
> Er, mages one every three, at most.
3.x Wiz20 has BAB +10. Progression is +1/2.
2e Wizard 20 has THAC0 14 (equivalent 3e progression is about +1/3).
1e, can't be arsed to find the DMG1e.
> Clerics one every two, I think. Fighting types are 1 for 1.
3.x Clr20 has BAB +15. Progression is +3/4.
2e Priest 20 has THAC0 8 (equivalent 3e progression would be +2/3).
1e, can't be arsed to find the DMG1e.
George
> Some of this is covered in 4E by utility powers. For example, Defensive
> Stance:
>
> attacks to get into position.
>
> Daily Martial, Stance
> Minor Action Personal
>
> Effect: Until the stance ends, you are slowed and gain a +2 power bonus to
> AC. Whenever an enemy misses you with a melee attack, you can shift 1
> square as an immediate reaction. You can end this stance as a free action.
My god could they be any stingier! That's a daily ability? One might
have thought, dare I say, that a trained warrior could drop into a
defensive stance, oh I don't know, whenever the hell he felt like it!
--
George
Rick Pikul
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Daily Martial, Stance
>> Minor Action Personal
>>
>> Effect: Until the stance ends, you are slowed and gain a +2 power bonus to
>> AC. Whenever an enemy misses you with a melee attack, you can shift 1
>> square as an immediate reaction. You can end this stance as a free action.
>
> My god could they be any stingier! That's a daily ability? One might
> have thought, dare I say, that a trained warrior could drop into a
> defensive stance, oh I don't know, whenever the hell he felt like it!
There is a reason why some describe 4ed as having made all classes
sorcerers.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)