Ampersand: The Scoop on D&D Insider
Christopher Adams
There's also a press release, but it says less than Bill Slavicsek says
here.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
Nockermensch
<mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080507a&authentic=true
>
> There's also a press release, but it says less than Bill Slavicsek says
> here.
And here is the main selling point of of 4E's business plan. I'm still
not sure if this idea will catch.
One worrisome thing is that the glut probably will be SEVERE in 4E.
With their main revenue stream still depending of keeping people
interested on FEATS, POWERS, PARAGON PATHS (4e version of feats,
spells, prestige classes!) only on a monthly basis, I worry that the
power inflaction that traditionally plagues D&D will happen faster
now. On the first months they'll certainly expand horizontally
(bringing back monks, druids, bards, psions, etc) but from a certain
point onwards, they'll have to start providing better things for the
existing classes, to keep people interested.
Finally, the digital game table sounds intriguing for people with
groups separated by distance and maybe I try it.
--
@ @ Nockermensch, still wondering who should order the pizza in a
digital table.
Blackheart
> On 7 maio, 22:36, "Christopher Adams"
>
> <mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> >http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080507a&authentic=true
>
> > There's also a press release, but it says less than Bill Slavicsek says
> > here.
>
> And here is the main selling point of of 4E's business plan. I'm still
> not sure if this idea will catch.
>
> One worrisome thing is that the glut probably will be SEVERE in 4E.
> With their main revenue stream still depending of keeping people
> interested on FEATS, POWERS, PARAGON PATHS (4e version of feats,
> spells, prestige classes!) only on a monthly basis, I worry that the
> power inflaction that traditionally plagues D&D will happen faster
> now. On the first months they'll certainly expand horizontally
> (bringing back monks, druids, bards, psions, etc) but from a certain
> point onwards, they'll have to start providing better things for the
> existing classes, to keep people interested.
I'm counting on it. especially since the "system broke down under the
weight of it's own splatbooks" was their big reason to start this
trainwreck.
Nockermensch
So, should we wait for 4.5E or what?
--
@ @ Nockermensch, D&D is risking to become like Windows - generally
unsafe to use before the Service Packs
Jefgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why wait? WOTC will eventually realize the train detrailed (but
fortunately wasnt carrying many passengers at the time) - after
suffering as many losing quarters as Hasbro allows; 1? 2? 4? -- and
let a revised leadership try casting a Raise Dead in hopes the gaming
community will be forgiving enough to welcome v5 back to the d20
gaming table; which we gladly will -IF- their quality improves to
match the ideas/etc generated by the brand-loyal third parties.
Blackheart
Nah.. I see 4E as the D&D equivalent of Windows Vista... completely
unnecessary and I'll stick to Windows XP (or 3.5 in this case).
Hong Ooi
> On 7 maio, 22:36, "Christopher Adams"
> <mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080507a&authentic=true
>>
>> There's also a press release, but it says less than Bill Slavicsek says
>> here.
>
> And here is the main selling point of of 4E's business plan. I'm still
> not sure if this idea will catch.
>
> One worrisome thing is that the glut probably will be SEVERE in 4E.
> With their main revenue stream still depending of keeping people
> interested on FEATS, POWERS, PARAGON PATHS (4e version of feats,
> spells, prestige classes!) only on a monthly basis, I worry that the
> power inflaction that traditionally plagues D&D will happen faster
> now. On the first months they'll certainly expand horizontally
> (bringing back monks, druids, bards, psions, etc) but from a certain
> point onwards, they'll have to start providing better things for the
> existing classes, to keep people interested.
Given that the next PHB isn't due until next year, you should probably
substitute "years" for "months".
Christopher Adams
>
> And here is the main selling point of of 4E's business plan. I'm still
> not sure if this idea will catch.
I'm pretty sure the better game is the *main* selling point. ;)
Nockermensch
<mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Nockermensch wrote:
>
> > And here is the main selling point of of 4E's business plan. I'm still
> > not sure if this idea will catch.
>
> I'm pretty sure the better game is the *main* selling point. ;)
I wish I was so sure. IIRC, their idea is to tap a bit of WoW
subscription model's success.
--
@ @ Nockermensch, not an economist.
Tetsubo
A bit? I think you are underestimating them.
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
BLUP
Hong Ooi
> Nockermensch wrote:
>
>> On 15 maio, 02:55, "Christopher Adams"
>> <mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Nockermensch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And here is the main selling point of of 4E's business plan. I'm still
>>>> not sure if this idea will catch.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the better game is the *main* selling point. ;)
>>
>>
>> I wish I was so sure. IIRC, their idea is to tap a bit of WoW
>> subscription model's success.
>>
>> --
>> @ @ Nockermensch, not an economist.
>
> A bit? I think you are underestimating them.
>
I, for one, never misunderestimate WotC. Why, even now, Tetsubo is
planning to subscribe to DDI but never use it.
Tetsubo
That would be a falsehood. DDI is quite possibly the most distasteful
aspect of 4E. If you can single out one particular part of this heaping
pile of suck.
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Nockermensch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15 maio, 02:55, "Christopher Adams"
>>>> <mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nockermensch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And here is the main selling point of of 4E's business plan. I'm
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> not sure if this idea will catch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure the better game is the *main* selling point. ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wish I was so sure. IIRC, their idea is to tap a bit of WoW
>>>> subscription model's success.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> @ @ Nockermensch, not an economist.
>>>
>>>
>>> A bit? I think you are underestimating them.
>>>
>>
>> I, for one, never misunderestimate WotC. Why, even now, Tetsubo is
>> planning to subscribe to DDI but never use it.
>>
>
> That would be a falsehood. DDI is quite possibly the most
> distasteful aspect of 4E. If you can single out one particular part of
> this heaping pile of suck.
So, you are indeed never going to use it?
Tetsubo
DDI? No.
As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far everything
in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure there are any
ideas worth stealing.
I'm still on the look-out for good deals on the 3.5 books I don't have.
And seeing as Wiz-bro is making a lot of those books unsellable in the
very near future, the market should shortly be flooded. I've even
budgeted the money for the books already.
Hong Ooi
So you ARE going to use it?
>
> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure there
> are any ideas worth stealing.
Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
Tetsubo
I have no intention of ever using DDI. Clear enough?
>
>>
>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure
>> there are any ideas worth stealing.
>
>
> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no role-playing
aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures games, I think I'll
pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in 3.X at all.
I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
Hong Ooi
But you ARE going to subscribe, right?
>
>>
>>>
>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure
>>> there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>
>>
>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>
> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures games,
> I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in 3.X at all.
Give it 3 months.
>
> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I do not
fight it.
Tetsubo
No. How long do you want to play this game? I wouldn't accept a
subscription if YOU paid for it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure
>>>> there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>>
>>
>> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
>> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures
>> games, I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in 3.X at
>> all.
>
>
> Give it 3 months.
For what? I like role-playing games. Which rules out 4E.
>
>>
>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>
>
> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I do not
> fight it.
Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of 3.5. But I am
also a fan of many other games. Some of which weren't published by
Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
Hong Ooi
Yes, you say that NOW.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure
>>>>> there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
>>> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures
>>> games, I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in 3.X at
>>> all.
>>
>>
>> Give it 3 months.
>
> For what? I like role-playing games. Which rules out 4E.
It's all part of the inevitable progression.
I'll read the news, but I won't buy the books
I'll buy the books, but I won't play the game
I'll play one session, but I won't play in a campaign
I'll play in a campaign, but I won't roleplay
You are now up to stage 2.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>>
>>
>> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I do
>> not fight it.
>
> Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of 3.5. But I
> am also a fan of many other games. Some of which weren't published by
> Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
Pish tosh. I happen to be many people's bitches. Most prominently Mike
Mearls.
Tetsubo
Hong, I don't pay for online content. Period. I don't buy PDFs. I don't
have *any* pay subscriptions to any online magazines. I am a grognard.
Wiz-bro can take their DDI and shove it up their backside sideways.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>>>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure
>>>>>> there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
>>>> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures
>>>> games, I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in 3.X
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Give it 3 months.
>>
>>
>> For what? I like role-playing games. Which rules out 4E.
>
>
> It's all part of the inevitable progression.
>
> I'll read the news, but I won't buy the books
> I'll buy the books, but I won't play the game
> I'll play one session, but I won't play in a campaign
> I'll play in a campaign, but I won't roleplay
>
> You are now up to stage 2.
I would hazard that I am more likely to play FATAL or World f Synnibarr
then I am of ever playing 4E. You're annoying me enough that I am now
starting to consider not even buying the core books. Maybe a nice game
of Spawn of Fashan...
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I do
>>> not fight it.
>>
>>
>> Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of 3.5. But
>> I am also a fan of many other games. Some of which weren't published
>> by Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
>
>
> Pish tosh. I happen to be many people's bitches. Most prominently Mike
> Mearls.
I hope all of your shots are up to date. And that you wear protection.
Hong Ooi
Give it 3 months.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>>>>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not sure
>>>>>>> there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
>>>>> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures
>>>>> games, I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in 3.X
>>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Give it 3 months.
>>>
>>>
>>> For what? I like role-playing games. Which rules out 4E.
>>
>>
>> It's all part of the inevitable progression.
>>
>> I'll read the news, but I won't buy the books
>> I'll buy the books, but I won't play the game
>> I'll play one session, but I won't play in a campaign
>> I'll play in a campaign, but I won't roleplay
>>
>> You are now up to stage 2.
>
> I would hazard that I am more likely to play FATAL or World f
> Synnibarr then I am of ever playing 4E. You're annoying me enough that I
> am now starting to consider not even buying the core books. Maybe a nice
> game of Spawn of Fashan...
Yes, you say that NOW.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I do
>>>> not fight it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of 3.5.
>>> But I am also a fan of many other games. Some of which weren't
>>> published by Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
>>
>>
>> Pish tosh. I happen to be many people's bitches. Most prominently Mike
>> Mearls.
>
> I hope all of your shots are up to date. And that you wear protection.
Indeed. The worst danger is a bitch who doesn't know they're a bitch.
Tetsubo
So, if I make it to September without subscribing to the DDI what is my
prize? You might as well ship it to me now.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>>>>>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
>>>>>> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures
>>>>>> games, I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in 3.X
>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it 3 months.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For what? I like role-playing games. Which rules out 4E.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's all part of the inevitable progression.
>>>
>>> I'll read the news, but I won't buy the books
>>> I'll buy the books, but I won't play the game
>>> I'll play one session, but I won't play in a campaign
>>> I'll play in a campaign, but I won't roleplay
>>>
>>> You are now up to stage 2.
>>
>>
>> I would hazard that I am more likely to play FATAL or World f
>> Synnibarr then I am of ever playing 4E. You're annoying me enough that
>> I am now starting to consider not even buying the core books. Maybe a
>> nice game of Spawn of Fashan...
>
>
> Yes, you say that NOW.
You want to start creating Spawn of Fashan characters then?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I do
>>>>> not fight it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of 3.5.
>>>> But I am also a fan of many other games. Some of which weren't
>>>> published by Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pish tosh. I happen to be many people's bitches. Most prominently
>>> Mike Mearls.
>>
>>
>> I hope all of your shots are up to date. And that you wear
>> protection.
>
>
> Indeed. The worst danger is a bitch who doesn't know they're a bitch.
Far worse is the bitch that doesn't realize their "bitch-hood" is
self-imposed and ultimately pointless. You are your own enslaver. Set
yourself free.
You know, we haven't been talking about RPGs, right?
Hong Ooi
You'll come round eventually. If not in 3 months, then in 6 months.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>>>>>>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not
>>>>>>>>> sure there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
>>>>>>> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into miniatures
>>>>>>> games, I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any miniatures in
>>>>>>> 3.X at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Give it 3 months.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For what? I like role-playing games. Which rules out 4E.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's all part of the inevitable progression.
>>>>
>>>> I'll read the news, but I won't buy the books
>>>> I'll buy the books, but I won't play the game
>>>> I'll play one session, but I won't play in a campaign
>>>> I'll play in a campaign, but I won't roleplay
>>>>
>>>> You are now up to stage 2.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would hazard that I am more likely to play FATAL or World f
>>> Synnibarr then I am of ever playing 4E. You're annoying me enough
>>> that I am now starting to consider not even buying the core books.
>>> Maybe a nice game of Spawn of Fashan...
>>
>>
>> Yes, you say that NOW.
>
> You want to start creating Spawn of Fashan characters then?
Your nose wants to talk to you. Says it has nothing against your face,
so pls don't cut it off kthx.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I
>>>>>> do not fight it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of 3.5.
>>>>> But I am also a fan of many other games. Some of which weren't
>>>>> published by Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pish tosh. I happen to be many people's bitches. Most prominently
>>>> Mike Mearls.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope all of your shots are up to date. And that you wear
>>> protection.
>>
>>
>> Indeed. The worst danger is a bitch who doesn't know they're a bitch.
>
> Far worse is the bitch that doesn't realize their "bitch-hood" is
> self-imposed and ultimately pointless. You are your own enslaver. Set
> yourself free.
See, you wouldn't have this problem if you stopped thinking too hard
about being WotC's bitch.
>
> You know, we haven't been talking about RPGs, right?
If you insist. Tell me why you're buying 4E.
Tetsubo
Who's back pedaling now? Listen, the whole concept of paying for
digital content (beyond my ISP) is alien to me. It holds no interest for
me. If I can't get it for free (and it interests me) I don't want it.
Hence why I was so bummed when they stopped publishing Dragon and Dungeon.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for the three core books, I may steal ideas. But so far
>>>>>>>>>> everything in 4E has been a festering pile of feces. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> sure there are any ideas worth stealing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Next step: playing the game, but not roleplaying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, 4E looks like a tactical miniatures game that has no
>>>>>>>> role-playing aspects built into it. Since I'm not into
>>>>>>>> miniatures games, I think I'll pass. Heck, I never used any
>>>>>>>> miniatures in 3.X at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Give it 3 months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For what? I like role-playing games. Which rules out 4E.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all part of the inevitable progression.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll read the news, but I won't buy the books
>>>>> I'll buy the books, but I won't play the game
>>>>> I'll play one session, but I won't play in a campaign
>>>>> I'll play in a campaign, but I won't roleplay
>>>>>
>>>>> You are now up to stage 2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would hazard that I am more likely to play FATAL or World f
>>>> Synnibarr then I am of ever playing 4E. You're annoying me enough
>>>> that I am now starting to consider not even buying the core books.
>>>> Maybe a nice game of Spawn of Fashan...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you say that NOW.
>>
>>
>> You want to start creating Spawn of Fashan characters then?
>
>
> Your nose wants to talk to you. Says it has nothing against your face,
> so pls don't cut it off kthx.
My nose and I have a wonderful relationship, thank you kindly. But even
my nose knows that I won't be playing 4E.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I
>>>>>>> do not fight it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of 3.5.
>>>>>> But I am also a fan of many other games. Some of which weren't
>>>>>> published by Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pish tosh. I happen to be many people's bitches. Most prominently
>>>>> Mike Mearls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope all of your shots are up to date. And that you wear
>>>> protection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. The worst danger is a bitch who doesn't know they're a bitch.
>>
>>
>> Far worse is the bitch that doesn't realize their "bitch-hood" is
>> self-imposed and ultimately pointless. You are your own enslaver. Set
>> yourself free.
>
>
> See, you wouldn't have this problem if you stopped thinking too hard
> about being WotC's bitch.
Seeing as that thought process took less than a second I don't think
so. Of course for YOU, that might just be thinking too hard.
>
>>
>> You know, we haven't been talking about RPGs, right?
>
>
> If you insist.
I do.
Tell me why you're buying 4E.
I collect RPGs. I've been doing it since 1978. I have some 60+ linear
feet of shelf space dedicated to them. I own hundreds of RPG books that
I have read once and never touched again. I am placing 4E in the same
category as all the other Bad Role-playing Games I own. Like World of
Synnibarr, Spawn of Fashan, ReichStar, Senzar, etc.
Why have you drunk the Wiz-bro koolaid?
Hong Ooi
Yes, that's what you say NOW.
Yes, because you'll be playing Spawn of Fashan instead. Truly, the worst
danger is a bitch who doesn't know they're a bitch.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought you played RPGs Hong, what happened?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why, I, like you, am WotC's bitch. The only difference is that I
>>>>>>>> do not fight it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlike you apparently, I am no one's bitch. I am a fan of
>>>>>>> 3.5. But I am also a fan of many other games. Some of which
>>>>>>> weren't published by Wiz-bro. Expand your horizons a bit my boy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pish tosh. I happen to be many people's bitches. Most prominently
>>>>>> Mike Mearls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope all of your shots are up to date. And that you wear
>>>>> protection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. The worst danger is a bitch who doesn't know they're a bitch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Far worse is the bitch that doesn't realize their "bitch-hood" is
>>> self-imposed and ultimately pointless. You are your own enslaver. Set
>>> yourself free.
>>
>>
>> See, you wouldn't have this problem if you stopped thinking too hard
>> about being WotC's bitch.
>
> Seeing as that thought process took less than a second I don't think
> so. Of course for YOU, that might just be thinking too hard.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You know, we haven't been talking about RPGs, right?
>>
>>
>> If you insist.
>
> I do.
>
> Tell me why you're buying 4E.
Because I want to.
>
> I collect RPGs. I've been doing it since 1978. I have some 60+
> linear feet of shelf space dedicated to them. I own hundreds of RPG
> books that I have read once and never touched again. I am placing 4E in
> the same category as all the other Bad Role-playing Games I own. Like
> World of Synnibarr, Spawn of Fashan, ReichStar, Senzar, etc.
>
> Why have you drunk the Wiz-bro koolaid?
Of course, you'll note that I'm not the one contemplating making up
Spawn of Fashan characters. Consider drinking some kool-aid, if only for
your own good.
Tetsubo
I think you've finally done it. I think you've convinced me to not buy
the 4E core books. No one has ever done that before, convinced me to not
buy a RPG book after I decided I should. Congratulations Hong.
Hong Ooi
I am merely saving you from yourself. This is the first step to a larger
world out there, one that you can experience fully now that you have
moved beyond being fired as a customer.
... no backsliding and buying the 4E books on the sly, okay?
Tetsubo
*places hand on heart*
I promise.
Now, what do I have to do to get you to put down the Wiz-bro koolaid
and join me?
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you'll note that I'm not the one contemplating making up
>>>> Spawn of Fashan characters. Consider drinking some kool-aid, if only
>>>> for your own good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you've finally done it. I think you've convinced me to
>>> not buy the 4E core books.
>>
>>
>> I am merely saving you from yourself. This is the first step to a
>> larger world out there, one that you can experience fully now that you
>> have moved beyond being fired as a customer.
>>
>> ... no backsliding and buying the 4E books on the sly, okay?
>>
>
> *places hand on heart*
>
> I promise.
>
> Now, what do I have to do to get you to put down the Wiz-bro koolaid
> and join me?
>
I'm actually quite happy drinking the koolaid. You'll note it saved me
from being fired as a customer!
Sea Wasp
> I'm actually quite happy drinking the koolaid. You'll note it saved me
> from being fired as a customer!
>
No, you chose not to fire THEM as a supplier.
You have this sad idea that THEIR viewpoint matters. It's about ME.
(or in your case YOU, but you get the idea). Me, me, me, me, me.
"Me too."
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>
>> I'm actually quite happy drinking the koolaid. You'll note it saved me
>> from being fired as a customer!
>>
>
> No, you chose not to fire THEM as a supplier.
>
> You have this sad idea that THEIR viewpoint matters. It's about ME.
> (or in your case YOU, but you get the idea). Me, me, me, me, me.
Correct. I COULD have fired them as a supplier, but I CHOSE not to.
Tetsubo
That is my point. How could you choose to stay with the festering pile
of crap that is 4E?
You play D&D. 4E isn't D&D. If you don't want to play D&D, there are
better options. Ones you probably already own.
Replying via Google Groups at the moment. My stellar USENET access via
Comcast has crashed once again.
Hong Ooi
> On May 18, 10:57 am, Hong Ooi <h...@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>>> I'm actually quite happy drinking the koolaid. You'll note it saved me
>>>> from being fired as a customer!
>>> No, you chose not to fire THEM as a supplier.
>>> You have this sad idea that THEIR viewpoint matters. It's about ME.
>>> (or in your case YOU, but you get the idea). Me, me, me, me, me.
>> Correct. I COULD have fired them as a supplier, but I CHOSE not to.
>
> That is my point. How could you choose to stay with the festering pile
> of crap that is 4E?
Because I want to.
>
> You play D&D. 4E isn't D&D. If you don't want to play D&D, there are
> better options. Ones you probably already own.
But THIS way, I get to have badwrongfun instead of complaining that it
isn't D&D anymore. AND SO I WIN.
>
> Replying via Google Groups at the moment. My stellar USENET access via
> Comcast has crashed once again.
Give it a day, they'll get it back up. Just like the last time you
complained about how they got it back up.
Nockermensch
> Tetsubo wrote:
> > On May 18, 10:57 am, Hong Ooi <h...@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
> >> Sea Wasp wrote:
> >>> Hong Ooi wrote:
> >>>> I'm actually quite happy drinking the koolaid. You'll note it saved me
> >>>> from being fired as a customer!
> >>> No, you chose not to fire THEM as a supplier.
> >>> You have this sad idea that THEIR viewpoint matters. It's about ME.
> >>> (or in your case YOU, but you get the idea). Me, me, me, me, me.
> >> Correct. I COULD have fired them as a supplier, but I CHOSE not to.
>
> > That is my point. How could you choose to stay with the festering pile
> > of crap that is 4E?
>
> Because I want to.
>
>
>
> > You play D&D. 4E isn't D&D. If you don't want to play D&D, there are
> > better options. Ones you probably already own.
>
> But THIS way, I get to have badwrongfun instead of complaining that it
> isn't D&D anymore. AND SO I WIN.
Dude, I will have the cake and eat it too. The simulationist in me is
still in shock for things like paper-thin MINIONS and the new, totally
player-centric rules on magic items, and the dramaticist cries for the
shoehorning of paragon path -> epic destiny -> HAPPY END!
But the gamist in me can't barely suppress his urge to fiddle with all
the COOL NEW OPTIONS. I want to see how well the game deals with non-
optimal builds, and my first character will probably be an eladrin
fighter, or something.
--
@ @ Nockermensch, who loves the PC building minigame.
Hong Ooi
>
> Dude, I will have the cake and eat it too. The simulationist in me is
> still in shock for things like paper-thin MINIONS and the new, totally
> player-centric rules on magic items,
Huh, I thought you'd be one of the first to like them.
>and the dramaticist cries for the
> shoehorning of paragon path -> epic destiny -> HAPPY END!
It's a level cap, not a victory condition. It just means there's an end
to the grind somewhere. Nothing stops you putting off the epic ending
for as long as you want.
>
> But the gamist in me can't barely suppress his urge to fiddle with all
> the COOL NEW OPTIONS. I want to see how well the game deals with non-
> optimal builds, and my first character will probably be an eladrin
> fighter, or something.
Here is the thing though; by design the game is going to strip out a lot
of the opportunities for fiddling with the mechanics at chargen. The
replacement is more fiddly mechanics during actual play, ie tactical
complexity instead of strategic/logistical complexity. If you liked
creating wacky one-off concepts, either as thought experiments or actual
PCs for a campaign, you probably won't like 4E as much.
Nockermensch
> Nockermensch wrote:
>
> > Dude, I will have the cake and eat it too. The simulationist in me is
> > still in shock for things like paper-thin MINIONS and the new, totally
> > player-centric rules on magic items,
>
> Huh, I thought you'd be one of the first to like them.
I'm divided. I'll still buy the books and probably have a good time
with 4E, but I keep this nagging feeling that the system isn't "solid"
enough. Probably, this is just because the simulationist in me still
didn't grok 4E, so I still feel uneasy that a level 5 orc minion has
1hp, while the orc elite besides him have 80hp or so.
I mean, part of the fun of being a DM for me IS thinking too hard
about pretending to be an elf. So, for 4E, I'll probably rule
something like "everybody not stated otherwise has 1 hp" meaning that
the world suddenly becomes GRIMDARK to 90% of everyone, who,
realistically, dies with any serious attack that connects. (with the
added benefit that minions seem to all have improved evasion, to
borrow a 3E term, which helps to explain how sometimes people survive
deadly shit). I then create a "wounded" status to map all the cases of
people not dying outright and not surviving unscathed and presto!
Then, for heroic business, over this mass of 1hp people, there are a
few beings who actually manage to roll with lethal damage, by chance
or profession. These are the normal monsters and PCs. Beyond these,
for a variety of reasons, some permanent, other temporary, even fewer
ones become "Elite" or even "Solo".
Then I can start to create adventures where the same NPC can be a
minion, a normal critter, a elite or a solo, depending of why he's
fighting. Imagine that: The PCs fight a Drow^H^H^H^HShadar-Kai Boss
and kill him, but one of his lieutenants escape. When the PCs storm
the Shadar-Kai fortress, this same lieutenant can be waiting for them,
this time as a solo encounter, because suddenly the fortress is
counting on him to hold the PCs while the others escape, therefore
DETERMINATION and HOT BLOOD, mapped to lots of extra hitpoints and
some quirky abilities.
In other words, if I can tweak the minion->normal->elite->solo system
into a in-game representation of the Law of Conservation of Ninjutsu,
there will be much win. The more 4E systems are groked this way, and
made to work for the kind of story I like to DM/play, the better.
What we can't use will probably be rule-zeroed away faster than you
can say "Favored Class". And speaking of multiclassing, I'm already
with a strong urge of nixing the stat prerequistes for the multiclass
feats, and I don't even have the game!
> >and the dramaticist cries for the
>
> > shoehorning of paragon path -> epic destiny -> HAPPY END!
>
> It's a level cap, not a victory condition. It just means there's an end
> to the grind somewhere. Nothing stops you putting off the epic ending
> for as long as you want.
But then, what Elminster is? Meaning, if people "stop worrying about
mortal affairs" or such at level 30 (which is more or less the
equivalent of level 20 in 3E, by what I read) then how should I
populate the world with old masters that, for a lot of reasons, are
still around?
Besides, regarding the cap, I'm willing to bet that 4e will see its
own "Epic Level Handbook" in a couple of years. WotC knows that people
grow attached to favorite characters and will try to cater to this
folk with a book for "ADVENTURE, BEYOND THE LIMITS OF EPIC!", or
something.
In fact, I can already see the new tiers:
levels 31-40 : Godly Road
levels 41-50 : Omnipotent Way
levels 51-60 : Plaid Freeway
level 61 : Immortal
level 62 : WIZARD
This, or they'll implement a REMORT system.
> > But the gamist in me can't barely suppress his urge to fiddle with all
> > the COOL NEW OPTIONS. I want to see how well the game deals with non-
> > optimal builds, and my first character will probably be an eladrin
> > fighter, or something.
>
> Here is the thing though; by design the game is going to strip out a lot
> of the opportunities for fiddling with the mechanics at chargen. The
> replacement is more fiddly mechanics during actual play, ie tactical
> complexity instead of strategic/logistical complexity. If you liked
> creating wacky one-off concepts, either as thought experiments or actual
> PCs for a campaign, you probably won't like 4E as much.
I'm failing to see how this design will survive the glut that will
inevitably follow. Unless people stop caring about making their
characters stronger and WotC stops catering to this needs, I mean.
--
@ @ Nockermensch, feeling divided, and then multiplied.
Tetsubo
Like so many other things Hong, you are once again wrong.
I still do not have USENET access.
Complaining when D&D is turned into something that *isn't* D&D any
longer is fully warranted. If you would put down that cup of koolaid
you might begin to see that for the truth it is. Heck, I'm starting to
hear rumors that some of the 4E playtesters were even turned off by
the new rules.
Want a nice breakdown of how 4E is broken? Go here:
Hong Ooi
No, playing something else when D&D isn't what you want to play
anymore is fully warranted. But of course, you would much rather be
WotC's bitch by continuing to talk about a game that you supposedly no
longer want to play. Why, I'll bet you've even secretly preordered the
books again!
>If you would put down that cup of koolaid
> you might begin to see that for the truth it is.
Tell me more about the koolaid, Spawn of Fashan boy.
>Heck, I'm starting to
> hear rumors that some of the 4E playtesters were even turned off by
> the new rules.
I forget. Does this imply that they playtested with the wrong people,
or the right people?
>
> Want a nice breakdown of how 4E is broken? Go here:
>
> http://www.thealexandrian.net/index.html
The Baconish one has always been thinking too hard about fantasy. His
opinion is fallacial in that it assumes thinking is good.
Hong Ooi
> On 19 maio, 10:59, Hong Ooi <h...@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Nockermensch wrote:
>
> > > Dude, I will have the cake and eat it too. The simulationist in me is
> > > still in shock for things like paper-thin MINIONS and the new, totally
> > > player-centric rules on magic items,
>
> > Huh, I thought you'd be one of the first to like them.
>
> I'm divided. I'll still buy the books and probably have a good time
> with 4E, but I keep this nagging feeling that the system isn't "solid"
> enough. Probably, this is just because the simulationist in me still
> didn't grok 4E, so I still feel uneasy that a level 5 orc minion has
> 1hp, while the orc elite besides him have 80hp or so.
>
> I mean, part of the fun of being a DM for me IS thinking too hard
> about pretending to be an elf. So, for 4E, I'll probably rule
> something like "everybody not stated otherwise has 1 hp" meaning that
> the world suddenly becomes GRIMDARK to 90% of everyone, who,
> realistically, dies with any serious attack that connects. (with the
> added benefit that minions seem to all have improved evasion, to
> borrow a 3E term, which helps to explain how sometimes people survive
> deadly shit). I then create a "wounded" status to map all the cases of
> people not dying outright and not surviving unscathed and presto!
It's the logical conclusion to having high-level PCs fight low-level
mooks. To be mechanically correct, you could go to the trouble of
tracking hp for all those mooks, but 1) most of them will die with 1
hit anyway; 2) keeping track of hp for a big mob is a chore. Minion
rules basically formalise the approach that most DMs would take in
this situation: any hit kills, and don't sweat the small stuff. Again,
change in philosophy: the rules are what you use to play the game, not
what you use to build a world.
One quick 'n dirty fix, if 1 hp is too brain-bending, is to use a
threshold: a hit for N+ hp kills, instead of a hit for 1+ hp, where N
depends on the level of the monster. So kobold minions will die like
flies, but legion devils (21st level) could withstand lots of little
hits. This works in 4E, because you no longer have problems balancing
big sword guy vis-a-vis TWF flurry guy.
The evasion thing is just a way of keeping things like fireball from
being trivial ways to vaporise a mob. It'll still kill the majority of
them, but at least a few should survive so everyone else doesn't get
bored.
>
> Then, for heroic business, over this mass of 1hp people, there are a
> few beings who actually manage to roll with lethal damage, by chance
> or profession. These are the normal monsters and PCs. Beyond these,
> for a variety of reasons, some permanent, other temporary, even fewer
> ones become "Elite" or even "Solo".
No problem, as long as you don't start going on about millions of
people dying from being hit by wet pastries. :)
>
> > It's a level cap, not a victory condition. It just means there's an end
> > to the grind somewhere. Nothing stops you putting off the epic ending
> > for as long as you want.
>
> But then, what Elminster is? Meaning, if people "stop worrying about
> mortal affairs" or such at level 30 (which is more or less the
> equivalent of level 20 in 3E, by what I read) then how should I
> populate the world with old masters that, for a lot of reasons, are
> still around?
Elminster would probably be somewhere in the 25th-30th level range.
However, I heard that in the Brave New Forgotten Realms, he's now
senile and afraid of magic.
Anyway, 30th level guys don't just up and disappear from the campaign
if you don't want them to. Again, it's just a formalising of how
players might retire PCs from a game. Some go off to explore the
planes, others become sages on a mountain, others open a kung fu
school. In fact, you might say that's the real point of this epic
destiny thing: your fame is guaranteed for all time.
Well, unless you just want to disappear, in which case, that could
also be your epic destiny. Certainly nothing prohibits it.
>
> Besides, regarding the cap, I'm willing to bet that 4e will see its
> own "Epic Level Handbook" in a couple of years. WotC knows that people
> grow attached to favorite characters and will try to cater to this
> folk with a book for "ADVENTURE, BEYOND THE LIMITS OF EPIC!", or
> something.
Quite possible.
>
> > Here is the thing though; by design the game is going to strip out a lot
> > of the opportunities for fiddling with the mechanics at chargen. The
> > replacement is more fiddly mechanics during actual play, ie tactical
> > complexity instead of strategic/logistical complexity. If you liked
> > creating wacky one-off concepts, either as thought experiments or actual
> > PCs for a campaign, you probably won't like 4E as much.
>
> I'm failing to see how this design will survive the glut that will
> inevitably follow. Unless people stop caring about making their
> characters stronger and WotC stops catering to this needs, I mean.
I'm not expecting them to stop power creep. An edition reboot is a
_resetting_ of power creep, not an elimination of it. But this edition
seems to be designed with a specific goal of making sure the excesses
that happened in 3E won't happen again, so at the very least, I'd say
that the rate of creep should be a bit slower.
Nockermensch
More to the point, as SeRiAl was explaining to me today, is that as
each class now has it's own finite list of distinct powers, the risk
of say, a new broken arcane spell breaking ALL arcane classes is gone.
I think I'm starting to see where 4E will be better at keeping things
sane.
--
@ @ Nockermensch, but then again, I liked words were there's a
Fireball spell, and "arcane casters" who learn to use it. Now there
will be Fireball as a wizard spell, and the sorcerers will probably
get "Fiery breath of Tiamat" or something. Quirky.
Tetsubo
I shouldn't have to complain of course. But then I expect to get what I
pay for.
>
>
>>Complaining when D&D is turned into something that *isn't* D&D any
>>longer is fully warranted.
>
>
> No, playing something else when D&D isn't what you want to play
> anymore is fully warranted. But of course, you would much rather be
> WotC's bitch by continuing to talk about a game that you supposedly no
> longer want to play. Why, I'll bet you've even secretly preordered the
> books again!
I never ordered them. I said that I wouldn't. I am a person of my word.
>
>
>>If you would put down that cup of koolaid
>>you might begin to see that for the truth it is.
>
>
> Tell me more about the koolaid, Spawn of Fashan boy.
Frankly, when compared to 4E, that term holds no sting.
>
>
>>Heck, I'm starting to
>>hear rumors that some of the 4E playtesters were even turned off by
>>the new rules.
>
>
> I forget. Does this imply that they playtested with the wrong people,
> or the right people?
That their rules fail.
>
>
>>Want a nice breakdown of how 4E is broken? Go here:
>>
>>http://www.thealexandrian.net/index.html
>
>
> The Baconish one has always been thinking too hard about fantasy. His
> opinion is fallacial in that it assumes thinking is good.
I still remember the days when you thought. When you wrote interesting
and entertaining things. Prior to your drinking the 4E koolaid.
Hong Ooi
Which you will, at which point you will complain about how they got it
back up. Such is the life of a bitch.
>
>
> >>Complaining when D&D is turned into something that *isn't* D&D any
> >>longer is fully warranted.
>
> > No, playing something else when D&D isn't what you want to play
> > anymore is fully warranted. But of course, you would much rather be
> > WotC's bitch by continuing to talk about a game that you supposedly no
> > longer want to play. Why, I'll bet you've even secretly preordered the
> > books again!
>
> I never ordered them. I said that I wouldn't. I am a person of my word.
Yes, that's what you say NOW.
>
>
>
> >>If you would put down that cup of koolaid
> >>you might begin to see that for the truth it is.
>
> > Tell me more about the koolaid, Spawn of Fashan boy.
>
> Frankly, when compared to 4E, that term holds no sting.
Alas, thus have you become a salutary lesson to the dangers of being a
bitch without knowing it.
>
>
>
> >>Heck, I'm starting to
> >>hear rumors that some of the 4E playtesters were even turned off by
> >>the new rules.
>
> > I forget. Does this imply that they playtested with the wrong people,
> > or the right people?
>
> That their rules fail.
Or that they can't please everyone all the time. Not even the bitches.
>
>
>
> >>Want a nice breakdown of how 4E is broken? Go here:
>
> >>http://www.thealexandrian.net/index.html
>
> > The Baconish one has always been thinking too hard about fantasy. His
> > opinion is fallacial in that it assumes thinking is good.
>
> I still remember the days when you thought. When you wrote interesting
> and entertaining things. Prior to your drinking the 4E koolaid.
No, you mean prior to your becoming a bitch. Like me, but I am having
fun.
Jasin Zujovic
>>>>>> I'm actually quite happy drinking the koolaid. You'll note it saved me
>>>>>> from being fired as a customer!
>>>>> No, you chose not to fire THEM as a supplier.
>>>>> You have this sad idea that THEIR viewpoint matters. It's about ME.
>>>>> (or in your case YOU, but you get the idea). Me, me, me, me, me.
>>>> Correct. I COULD have fired them as a supplier, but I CHOSE not to.
>>> That is my point. How could you choose to stay with the festering pile
>>> of crap that is 4E?
>> Because I want to.
>>
>>> You play D&D. 4E isn't D&D. If you don't want to play D&D, there are
>>> better options. Ones you probably already own.
>> But THIS way, I get to have badwrongfun instead of complaining that it
>> isn't D&D anymore. AND SO I WIN.
>
> Dude, I will have the cake and eat it too. The simulationist in me is
> still in shock for things like paper-thin MINIONS and the new, totally
> player-centric rules on magic items,
For me, it's "what the hell is this mechanic supposed to represent,
other than an interesting game mechanic!?"
> and the dramaticist cries for the
> shoehorning of paragon path -> epic destiny -> HAPPY END!
I don't have a problem with this. It remains to be seen how well it will
work in practice when the fighter wants to become a demigod and the
wizard wants to become an archmage and the DM has to tie it all up
together, but I think the basic idea of "... and at 30th you win the
game, congratulations!" is sounder than the 3E Epic approach of "...
EXTENDABLE FOREVER! well, in theory anyway".
Both mechanically (I mean, just look at Epic) and in terms of story and
sense of accomplishment for the players. After 30 levels and years of
real time invested in a character, I quite like that the default result
is that he's just about as awesome as the world can take, and it's time
to move on to something different. Much better than the endgame leaving
you cool, but not as cool as Elminster, and certainly not as cool as
Demogorgon, and *certainly* not as cool as Bane.
> But the gamist in me can't barely suppress his urge to fiddle with all
> the COOL NEW OPTIONS. I want to see how well the game deals with non-
> optimal builds, and my first character will probably be an eladrin
> fighter, or something.
A defender who ties down enemies that get too close... who can teleport
at 1st-level? Non-optimal indeed, you subconscious munchkin!
--
Jasin
Hong Ooi
> Nockermensch wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm actually quite happy drinking the koolaid. You'll note it
>>>>>>> saved me
>>>>>>> from being fired as a customer!
>>>>>> No, you chose not to fire THEM as a supplier.
>>>>>> You have this sad idea that THEIR viewpoint matters. It's
>>>>>> about ME.
>>>>>> (or in your case YOU, but you get the idea). Me, me, me, me, me.
>>>>> Correct. I COULD have fired them as a supplier, but I CHOSE not to.
>>>> That is my point. How could you choose to stay with the festering pile
>>>> of crap that is 4E?
>>> Because I want to.
>>>
>>>> You play D&D. 4E isn't D&D. If you don't want to play D&D, there are
>>>> better options. Ones you probably already own.
>>> But THIS way, I get to have badwrongfun instead of complaining that it
>>> isn't D&D anymore. AND SO I WIN.
>>
>> Dude, I will have the cake and eat it too. The simulationist in me is
>> still in shock for things like paper-thin MINIONS and the new, totally
>> player-centric rules on magic items,
>
> For me, it's "what the hell is this mechanic supposed to represent,
> other than an interesting game mechanic!?"
It's supposed to represent an interesting game mechanic, of course. :)
3E philosophy: the rules are a framework for building the world. Where
this conflicts with gaming needs, houserule or handwave.
4E philosophy: the rules are a framework for running the game. Where
this conflicts with world building needs, houserule or handwave.
Minions just formalise the rules for handling big mobs that most DMs
would use anyway. If this sometimes causes wacky results when
extrapolating to situations when the PCs aren't present, you should
expect to have to handwave it.
Jasin Zujovic
>> But the gamist in me can't barely suppress his urge to fiddle with all
>> the COOL NEW OPTIONS. I want to see how well the game deals with non-
>> optimal builds, and my first character will probably be an eladrin
>> fighter, or something.
>
> Here is the thing though; by design the game is going to strip out a lot
> of the opportunities for fiddling with the mechanics at chargen.
If anything, the more unified framework for powers seems like it would
facilitate this sort of fiddling, as powers interact more easily across
classes, and indeed across characters.
In 3E, a wizard with ray of enfeeblement works great with a rogue with
crippling strike, but a fighter or a cleric can't really contribute much
here.
In 4E, you could have the rogue, fighter and warlock all rearrange the
enemies, then have the warlord rearrange the allies, and then the wizard
drops a nuke.
But they're not going to be doing this if they took some other powers
instead of the movement ones. So unless the choice of powers is
extremely limited, I don't see how fiddling at chargen will be any less
important than it is now.
And if the choice is so limited 1) I think there's bigger problems than
whether chargen is intersting enough; 2) it won't be limited anymore in
two years time.
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>> But the gamist in me can't barely suppress his urge to fiddle with all
>>> the COOL NEW OPTIONS. I want to see how well the game deals with non-
>>> optimal builds, and my first character will probably be an eladrin
>>> fighter, or something.
>>
>> Here is the thing though; by design the game is going to strip out a
>> lot of the opportunities for fiddling with the mechanics at chargen.
>
> If anything, the more unified framework for powers seems like it would
> facilitate this sort of fiddling, as powers interact more easily across
> classes, and indeed across characters.
>
> In 3E, a wizard with ray of enfeeblement works great with a rogue with
> crippling strike, but a fighter or a cleric can't really contribute much
> here.
>
> In 4E, you could have the rogue, fighter and warlock all rearrange the
> enemies, then have the warlord rearrange the allies, and then the wizard
> drops a nuke.
>
> But they're not going to be doing this if they took some other powers
> instead of the movement ones. So unless the choice of powers is
> extremely limited, I don't see how fiddling at chargen will be any less
> important than it is now.
I see this as being a transfer of complexity from chargen to gameplay.
Yes, you'll still need to pick the right powers; but a bigger part of it
will be making sure you use those powers in the right way.
Basically, on the individual character level, I doubt you're going to
see as big a disparity in power between fully-twinked and mediocre. It's
quite possible that the disparity between a team operating at full
efficiency and a random collection of PCs will be big. I'd still call
that a win though, because it means everybody on the team is involved,
rather than one guy hogging the spotlight.
Jasin Zujovic
I don't think these will be house rules in 4E.
> What we can't use will probably be rule-zeroed away faster than you
> can say "Favored Class". And speaking of multiclassing, I'm already
> with a strong urge of nixing the stat prerequistes for the multiclass
> feats, and I don't even have the game!
I suspect this would be pretty of academic interest only. People with
Int <13 won't want wizard (Int-based, remember!) powers anyway, and so on.
>>> and the dramaticist cries for the
>>> shoehorning of paragon path -> epic destiny -> HAPPY END!
>> It's a level cap, not a victory condition. It just means there's an end
>> to the grind somewhere. Nothing stops you putting off the epic ending
>> for as long as you want.
>
> But then, what Elminster is?
Indeed, what is he? What is his purpose in the game, either as a game or
as a story?
> Besides, regarding the cap, I'm willing to bet that 4e will see its
> own "Epic Level Handbook" in a couple of years. WotC knows that people
> grow attached to favorite characters and will try to cater to this
> folk with a book for "ADVENTURE, BEYOND THE LIMITS OF EPIC!", or
> something.
Quite possible, but I think people don't really get as attached to their
characters as all that.
We've been playing AoW for nearly 2 years and we've gone from 1st to
18th. My wizard is one of my favourite D&D characters ever and I've
loved the story so far. But I'm not sure I'd want to continue the game
past 21st. The game system is at the limit of its usability, the story
has included about as much epicness as most people can easily get
into... what is left, really?
And since we won't play those characters anymore, why not end their
stories with ultimate awesomeness rather than quite a bit of
awesomeness, but not as much as [insert a list of stuff in the game
world more awesome than measly 21st-level folks].
--
Jasin
Jasin Zujovic
> Anyway, 30th level guys don't just up and disappear from the campaign
> if you don't want them to. Again, it's just a formalising of how
> players might retire PCs from a game. Some go off to explore the
> planes, others become sages on a mountain, others open a kung fu
> school. In fact, you might say that's the real point of this epic
> destiny thing: your fame is guaranteed for all time.
>
> Well, unless you just want to disappear, in which case, that could
> also be your epic destiny. Certainly nothing prohibits it.
Indeed, the Mythic Shadow in the 3.5 destinies article gets something
like that:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428
> I'm not expecting them to stop power creep. An edition reboot is a
> _resetting_ of power creep, not an elimination of it. But this edition
> seems to be designed with a specific goal of making sure the excesses
> that happened in 3E won't happen again, so at the very least, I'd say
> that the rate of creep should be a bit slower.
"Making sure the excesses [...] won't happen again"? That's some
idealistic rhetoric. :)
I don't really see anything to suggest that 4E power creep will be
slower than 3E's. Then again, I don't think 3E's was that bad; if 4E's
is no worse, I'll be just fine as far as that's concerned.
--
Jasin
Hong Ooi
>> I'm not expecting them to stop power creep. An edition reboot is a
>> _resetting_ of power creep, not an elimination of it. But this edition
>> seems to be designed with a specific goal of making sure the excesses
>> that happened in 3E won't happen again, so at the very least, I'd say
>> that the rate of creep should be a bit slower.
>
> "Making sure the excesses [...] won't happen again"? That's some
> idealistic rhetoric. :)
Well, enough people have been harping on about how chargen was dumbed
down, that I decided to take them at their word....
Besides, surely you would think that stuff like 1) identical
progressions for attacks, defs, AC across all classes; 2) identical
progressions for power gain across all classes; 3) much shallower power
curve by level; 4) nerfing of signature spells like fly and
invisibility; would mean that the scope for creating heavily lopsided
characters has been significantly reduced.
Jasin Zujovic
I can certainly see how that could be true.
In 3E, when you look at daze monster and web, you can see that daze
monster is meh and web is awesome. To be reasonably, if not fully,
twinked you just need to pick enough webs throughout your career.
OTHO, the usefulness of moving someone 3 squares depends on whether they
have somewhere within 3 squares where they need to be, which will depend
on your other powers, and the rest of the party, and terrain...
But that's the interesting part of fiddling with abilities for me.
Picking the better power is boring, constructing synergies from more or
less equal powers is fun.
> I'd still call
> that a win though, because it means everybody on the team is involved,
> rather than one guy hogging the spotlight.
Well, I'd be surprised if there weren't possible to build for
significant interactions within a single character: a power that pushes
enemies away + a class ability that gives you AoOs when they approach
even if they shift + a feat that gives bonus damage on AoOs...
Still, yes, the fact that powers work in (more) similar ways across
classes and power sources would seem to encourage teamwork, since it
should be easier to use your power to help someone else set up their own.
--
Jasin
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>
>> Yes, you'll still need to pick the right powers; but a bigger part of
>> it will be making sure you use those powers in the right way.
>>
>> Basically, on the individual character level, I doubt you're going to
>> see as big a disparity in power between fully-twinked and mediocre.
>> It's quite possible that the disparity between a team operating at
>> full efficiency and a random collection of PCs will be big.
>
> I can certainly see how that could be true.
>
> In 3E, when you look at daze monster and web, you can see that daze
> monster is meh and web is awesome. To be reasonably, if not fully,
> twinked you just need to pick enough webs throughout your career.
I was really thinking more of some of the wackiness seen on the WotC
CharOp board. Picking web over daze monster is a no-brainer, but some of
those combos... whoa.
Also, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. :)
Argonel
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or more explictly. If there are no PC around to see it the mechanics
don't matter. If you are busy having NPC - NPC interactions you are
probably sitting in a corner talking to yourself instead of playing
DnD. Show the PCs the results of a battle, if necessary you can flip
a coin to decide who won.
Jasin Zujovic
It seems to me that many, many of those combos are based on a willful
disregard for the intent of the rules. They're interesting as thought
experiments, but so perverse I've never seen anyone try anything close
to that in actual play, so I think that curbing that sort of thing is
somewhat of a non-issue.
The kind of twinking I'd like to see done away with is "fighters must be
polymorphed for important fights" or "sword and shield is crap, take a
two-hander and Power Attack".
> Also, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. :)
Me neither. :)
I think I'm agreeing that the 4E power framework is a good idea, but
disagreeing when you say that there shouldn't be significant
opportunities for fiddling/twinking during chargen.
--
Jasin
Jasin Zujovic
>>> Dude, I will have the cake and eat it too. The simulationist in me is
>>> still in shock for things like paper-thin MINIONS and the new, totally
>>> player-centric rules on magic items,
>>
>> For me, it's "what the hell is this mechanic supposed to represent,
>> other than an interesting game mechanic!?"
>
> It's supposed to represent an interesting game mechanic, of course. :)
>
> 3E philosophy: the rules are a framework for building the world. Where
> this conflicts with gaming needs, houserule or handwave.
>
> 4E philosophy: the rules are a framework for running the game. Where
> this conflicts with world building needs, houserule or handwave.
>
> Minions just formalise the rules for handling big mobs that most DMs
> would use anyway. If this sometimes causes wacky results when
> extrapolating to situations when the PCs aren't present, you should
> expect to have to handwave it.
Oh, I have no problem with the minion rules, or the 4E philosophy in
general (at least as you state it).
My problems are with some of the specific rules, which seem to provide
an admittedly decent framework for *a* game, but not necessarily *the*
game I want, which is a game experience equivalent to the
reading/watching experience of Lord of the Rings, Dying Earth, Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Kill Bill...
I suppose it's not so much that I need the game mechanics to represent
anything specific mechanisms that exist in the imaginary world, but I
want the results of the game mechanics to be those which I want to see
in the imaginary world.
A warlord's attack letting an ally shift is fine. It could be a feat of
swordsmanship which provides the ally with an opening, or a feat of
leadership which goads the ally onward, or something third, but the end
result is that as the cunning captain attacks the troll, his
giant-hammer-wielding friend moves into a better position, and I like
that, so I like the ability.
On the other hand, the result of the succubus' kiss is that the kissed
person runs away from the succubus and helps his party destroy her
without attacking her directly. That's silly, so I don't like that ability.
I don't think that's really a simulationist viewpoint. I don't expect
the rules to provide some sort of deterministic automaton which
describes the world. However, I do expect the results of applying the
rules in play to be the results I want: fighters fight, rogues are
sneaky bastards, wizards are magical, succubi seduce...
Trampling these sorts of expectations about how the world works (say,
giving paladins an devastating attack that only works from ambush or
restricting everyone to chess-like knight's move patterns) because it
might make for more interesting game play is just as bad as the reverse
(say, making wizards immensely more powerful than rogues because that's
how it usually is in the books/movies).
Having started with 2E, I see 3E's move towards better game play as an
obvious and significant improvement. The early hints (it's like SWSE!
it's like Bo9S!) suggested a good direction, but some of the specifics
make me think 4E might go to far.
--
Jasin
Hong Ooi
Well, the succubus is just one monster out of hundreds in the MM.
I think it's also an issue of what you want "succubi seduce" to mean. At
the one extreme, you could have it so that a succubus can "seduce"
anyone instantly. It locks eyes with someone, or kisses them, and if
they fail the save they become its slave forever (or at least for a very
long time). This would be treating it as super mind-control magic, like
a dominate spell.
At the other extreme, you could also have it so that a succubus seduces
people more-or-less the old-fashioned way: by buttering up the target,
playing with their minds, and generally acting sexy and available. This
would be treating it as basic character interaction, although the
succubus would be much better at it than normal humans.
I don't think the first option is that interesting or flavoursome. It
turns the succubus into a mind-control mage, albeit one with a rather
specific schtick. A succubus shouldn't be able to dominate anyone it
sees willy-nilly, and it certainly shouldn't beable to do it in a single
action: that makes a nonsense of the word "seduce".
However, if you go the second route, you then have the problem of how to
handle it in game terms. If you assume the succubus is mainly going to
seduce NPCs, then in 4E terms you don't need mechanics for it. Just
assume that it's had time to work its magic, and maybe give it a big
bonus on social skills to represent general competence. But you still
want something to show that it's really a succubus and an agent of evil,
as opposed to just a hawt chick with an agenda.
It would seem that the current succubus powers are a compromise between
these options. The charming kiss looks awkward, but that's only if the
succubus uses it on someone whom it hasn't already seduced. You can
safely assume that if it HAS seduced someone, the victim will happily
move to protect the succubus, even if this isn't spelled out in the
ability description. Conversely, the dominate power is something that
normal humans don't have, and emphasises that you really are fighting a
devil -- but isn't so powerful that it makes the "seduction" part
irrelevant. And of course, if that isn't enough you also have the change
shape thing, the fly speed, extra hp, etc.
Kyle Wilson
>Jasin Zujovic wrote:
Snip...
I kind of like (for more adult oriented games) the idea that one kiss
from a succubusn can magically force even the most rational mind to be
overwhelmed by desire and that the kissee would then find it nearly
impossible to allow harm to come to the succubus. This would seem to
permit some sort of 'run away' option for the strong willed (perhaps
with those saving against the effect needing to resave while the
duration lasts until they are out of line of sight of the critter).
I'm not suggesting that the 4e power works this way, but it might be
the beginnings of a rationalization...the affected character can't
think of anything else while the demon is nearby, but they may be
able to summon the strength of will to get away rom it for long enough
to regain their composure...
--
Kyle Wilson
email: myfirstname at wilson.mv.com
Jasin Zujovic
First I was going to say that it's one of the few ones I've seen, but
that's not really true, is it? I've at least glanced at most of the
monsters in that EN World compilation.
I suppose I keep complaining about things I don't like because 1) I want
4E to be awesome, not just kind of OK (for all its flaws, 3E set a high
standard); 2) most of the things I don't like (succubus, cleric powers,
cubic fireballs) aren't just isolated things I don't like, but seem to
be hinting at a change in... well, zeitgeist, that is not altogether to
my liking.
> I think it's also an issue of what you want "succubi seduce" to mean. At
> the one extreme, you could have it so that a succubus can "seduce"
> anyone instantly. It locks eyes with someone, or kisses them, and if
> they fail the save they become its slave forever (or at least for a very
> long time). This would be treating it as super mind-control magic, like
> a dominate spell.
>
> At the other extreme, you could also have it so that a succubus seduces
> people more-or-less the old-fashioned way: by buttering up the target,
> playing with their minds, and generally acting sexy and available. This
> would be treating it as basic character interaction, although the
> succubus would be much better at it than normal humans.
>
> I don't think the first option is that interesting or flavoursome. It
> turns the succubus into a mind-control mage, albeit one with a rather
> specific schtick. A succubus shouldn't be able to dominate anyone it
> sees willy-nilly, and it certainly shouldn't beable to do it in a single
> action: that makes a nonsense of the word "seduce".
This is a pretty sound argument. However...
> However, if you go the second route, you then have the problem of how to
> handle it in game terms.
... this.
> If you assume the succubus is mainly going to
> seduce NPCs, then in 4E terms you don't need mechanics for it. Just
> assume that it's had time to work its magic, and maybe give it a big
> bonus on social skills to represent general competence. But you still
> want something to show that it's really a succubus and an agent of evil,
> as opposed to just a hawt chick with an agenda.
Exactly.
> It would seem that the current succubus powers are a compromise between
> these options.
I don't think it's a good compromise, and I think it would be reasonably
easy to come up with a better one (even if I can't do it yet, without
reading the books), which is what has me worried: not that a single
monster has a single ability I don't like, but that the designers think
this kind of ability is fine, moreover good enough to be one of the ones
showcased in the previews.
> The charming kiss looks awkward, but that's only if the
> succubus uses it on someone whom it hasn't already seduced. You can
> safely assume that if it HAS seduced someone, the victim will happily
> move to protect the succubus, even if this isn't spelled out in the
> ability description.
The primary purpose of monster abilities (in any edition, really, but
explicitly so in 4E) is to be used against the PCs.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that PCs are going to "act
seduced" merely on the strength of description, so it seems to me like
the most likely result, in practice, of the succubus's kiss will be the
rather unnatural situation where a PC will be under an irresistible
compulsion to shield the succubus with his body if within 5 ft., while
at the same time having no particular incentive to help her, or indeed
to keep from harming her, as long as he doesn't target her with attacks
directly.
--
Jasin
Kyle Wilson
>Hong Ooi wrote:
Big snip...
>
>I don't think it's a good compromise, and I think it would be reasonably
>easy to come up with a better one (even if I can't do it yet, without
>reading the books), which is what has me worried: not that a single
>monster has a single ability I don't like, but that the designers think
>this kind of ability is fine, moreover good enough to be one of the ones
>showcased in the previews.
>
>> The charming kiss looks awkward, but that's only if the
>> succubus uses it on someone whom it hasn't already seduced. You can
>> safely assume that if it HAS seduced someone, the victim will happily
>> move to protect the succubus, even if this isn't spelled out in the
>> ability description.
>
>The primary purpose of monster abilities (in any edition, really, but
>explicitly so in 4E) is to be used against the PCs.
>
>I don't think it's reasonable to assume that PCs are going to "act
>seduced" merely on the strength of description, so it seems to me like
>the most likely result, in practice, of the succubus's kiss will be the
>rather unnatural situation where a PC will be under an irresistible
>compulsion to shield the succubus with his body if within 5 ft., while
>at the same time having no particular incentive to help her, or indeed
>to keep from harming her, as long as he doesn't target her with attacks
>directly.
I think that much depends on the description of the details of the
power. I could see a purely physical/sexual power where the PC knows
that he is being magically coerced, but can't stop from protecting the
succubus if he is near/within sight. He could certainly then close
his eyes and run away (this negating his utility in combat, but not
making himself an automatic pincushion for attacks against the demon).
This would seem a bit at odds with the defend power although it would
presumably allow the demon to chase after him and present herself in a
position where he still can't ignore her presence...might actually
make sense this way and make for interesting tactical situations.
Hong Ooi
>
> I suppose I keep complaining about things I don't like because 1) I want
> 4E to be awesome, not just kind of OK (for all its flaws, 3E set a high
> standard); 2) most of the things I don't like (succubus, cleric powers,
> cubic fireballs) aren't just isolated things I don't like, but seem to
> be hinting at a change in... well, zeitgeist, that is not altogether to
> my liking.
>
The cubic fireballs is one of those things that reads bad, but plays
well. I still don't get why so many people have this reflexive distaste
for them. Unless you see radius-10 or 15 effects (which you shouldn't in
typical play), the difference between square and kludged-circle is small
in absolute terms. Further, if you don't use a grid, then the whole
issue becomes moot. (This gets into whether you can play without a grid,
but that's another matter....)
The zap-happy cleric powers is a matter of taste, I guess. I find that
thinking of them as "somatic component: hit a bad guy" works for me.
>> The charming kiss looks awkward, but that's only if the succubus uses
>> it on someone whom it hasn't already seduced. You can safely assume
>> that if it HAS seduced someone, the victim will happily move to
>> protect the succubus, even if this isn't spelled out in the ability
>> description.
>
> The primary purpose of monster abilities (in any edition, really, but
> explicitly so in 4E) is to be used against the PCs.
The primary purpose of monster abilities is to be used in situations
where the PCs are present. This doesn't mean they always have to be used
on the PCs themselves.
>
> I don't think it's reasonable to assume that PCs are going to "act
> seduced" merely on the strength of description, so it seems to me like
> the most likely result, in practice, of the succubus's kiss will be the
> rather unnatural situation where a PC will be under an irresistible
> compulsion to shield the succubus with his body if within 5 ft., while
> at the same time having no particular incentive to help her, or indeed
> to keep from harming her, as long as he doesn't target her with attacks
> directly.
I don't see that as the most likely result. The most likely result is
that the _NPC_ whom the succubus seduced beforehand, the old-fashioned
way, jumps to its defense and uses the shield-other ability to protect
it. Because that's how a succubus would generally be encountered: as an
already-present actor in a scenario, who has worked its magic on an
unsuspecting victim as part of the adventure background. That's why the
PCs are there; they have to find and expose it, while being hindered by
NPCs who would normally be on their side.
You are assuming that the succubus will use the kiss on a PC, without
any prior interaction, as a way of defending itself. I say that the
succubus will rely on its pre-existing target for that, while using its
other powers -- flight, change shape, dominate, etc -- to fight the PCs.
Note also that the charming kiss can only be used on one person at a
time, so that's another reason why it wouldn't kiss anyone willy-nilly.
(In the scenario where the succubus hasn't seduced anyone yet, the
tactics given in the excerpt would come into play. It uses dominate on a
target, orders him to come close, then kisses him. If this succeeds, it
should get at least one turn where the target acts as a shield, without
any forced roleplaying.)
Jasin Zujovic
>> I suppose I keep complaining about things I don't like because 1) I
>> want 4E to be awesome, not just kind of OK (for all its flaws, 3E set
>> a high standard); 2) most of the things I don't like (succubus, cleric
>> powers, cubic fireballs) aren't just isolated things I don't like, but
>> seem to be hinting at a change in... well, zeitgeist, that is not
>> altogether to my liking.
>
> The cubic fireballs is one of those things that reads bad, but plays
> well. I still don't get why so many people have this reflexive distaste
> for them. Unless you see radius-10 or 15 effects (which you shouldn't in
> typical play), the difference between square and kludged-circle is small
> in absolute terms. Further, if you don't use a grid, then the whole
> issue becomes moot. (This gets into whether you can play without a grid,
> but that's another matter....)
>
> The zap-happy cleric powers is a matter of taste, I guess. I find that
> thinking of them as "somatic component: hit a bad guy" works for me.
Note that I don't really have any problems with melee + buff cleric
powers, and only slight ones with zap + buff ones. I dislike the fact
that buffs A and B always require a zap while buffs X and Y always
require a melee attack.
If the cleric had two basic attacks, melee and zap, and the powers were
phrased as "make basic attack, get buff", I'd be fine.
>>> The charming kiss looks awkward, but that's only if the succubus uses
>>> it on someone whom it hasn't already seduced. You can safely assume
>>> that if it HAS seduced someone, the victim will happily move to
>>> protect the succubus, even if this isn't spelled out in the ability
>>> description.
>>
>> The primary purpose of monster abilities (in any edition, really, but
>> explicitly so in 4E) is to be used against the PCs.
>
> The primary purpose of monster abilities is to be used in situations
> where the PCs are present. This doesn't mean they always have to be used
> on the PCs themselves.
That's a good point, especially the considering the bit (snipped) about
only one kissed target.
Thanks! I'm a bit less bothered by the succubus's kiss now. :)
--
Jasin
Christopher Adams
>
> The cubic fireballs is one of those things that reads bad, but plays
> well.
Personally, I've always used them. Saying "anyone in this 6x6 area is gonna
get burned" is a hell of a lot less annoying and time-consuming than laying
down a "circular" (i.e. not at all circular, if you're on a square grid)
area of effect.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>
>> thinking of them as "somatic component: hit a bad guy" works for me.
>
> Note that I don't really have any problems with melee + buff cleric
> powers, and only slight ones with zap + buff ones. I dislike the fact
> that buffs A and B always require a zap while buffs X and Y always
> require a melee attack.
>
> If the cleric had two basic attacks, melee and zap, and the powers were
> phrased as "make basic attack, get buff", I'd be fine.
That seems a bit nitpicky. It's not that different to how some buffs in
3E give a morale bonus, others give a luck bonus, and others give a
competence bonus. A bit of variety adds spice to the game.
Reading between the lines, though, I guess the underlying complaint is
that the class designs are relatively constrained and narrow, sometimes
for no good reason. Multiclassing doesn't seem to be a good solution in
all cases either. Eg I'm still unsure of how best to handle the big
sword/light armour schtick, and someone on EN World was complaining that
the warlord class was built entirely around melee combat: a ranged
warlord simply doesn't work.
It's a fair cop. The limits on what classes can do look pretty arbitrary
sometimes. In the long term the gaps will no doubt be plugged by new
classes, but that isn't much help now. I guess we'll see what impact
this has on actual play in a couple of weeks. :)
Jasin Zujovic
>>> The zap-happy cleric powers is a matter of taste, I guess. I find
>>> that thinking of them as "somatic component: hit a bad guy" works for
>>> me.
>>
>> Note that I don't really have any problems with melee + buff cleric
>> powers, and only slight ones with zap + buff ones. I dislike the fact
>> that buffs A and B always require a zap while buffs X and Y always
>> require a melee attack.
>>
>> If the cleric had two basic attacks, melee and zap, and the powers
>> were phrased as "make basic attack, get buff", I'd be fine.
>
> That seems a bit nitpicky. It's not that different to how some buffs in
> 3E give a morale bonus, others give a luck bonus, and others give a
> competence bonus. A bit of variety adds spice to the game.
I think we've talked about this, but for the benefit of the audience: my
problem is that the link between the attack and the buff seems
completely arbitrary: if you want +2 to saves, you need to zap; if you
want +1 to AC, you need to smack.
Admittedly, they might not be *completely* arbitrary: you could say that
a rather literal ray of hope is appropriate for a save boost, and that
it makes sense that a physical attack is needed to provide physical
defense. I guess I need to see more powers.
> Reading between the lines, though, I guess the underlying complaint is
> that the class designs are relatively constrained and narrow, sometimes
> for no good reason. Multiclassing doesn't seem to be a good solution in
> all cases either. Eg I'm still unsure of how best to handle the big
> sword/light armour schtick, and someone on EN World was complaining that
> the warlord class was built entirely around melee combat: a ranged
> warlord simply doesn't work.
>
> It's a fair cop. The limits on what classes can do look pretty arbitrary
> sometimes. In the long term the gaps will no doubt be plugged by new
> classes, but that isn't much help now. I guess we'll see what impact
> this has on actual play in a couple of weeks. :)
Right!
--
Jasin
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>>> The zap-happy cleric powers is a matter of taste, I guess. I find
>>>> that thinking of them as "somatic component: hit a bad guy" works
>>>> for me.
>>>
>>> Note that I don't really have any problems with melee + buff cleric
>>> powers, and only slight ones with zap + buff ones. I dislike the fact
>>> that buffs A and B always require a zap while buffs X and Y always
>>> require a melee attack.
>>>
>>> If the cleric had two basic attacks, melee and zap, and the powers
>>> were phrased as "make basic attack, get buff", I'd be fine.
>>
>> That seems a bit nitpicky. It's not that different to how some buffs
>> in 3E give a morale bonus, others give a luck bonus, and others give a
>> competence bonus. A bit of variety adds spice to the game.
>
> I think we've talked about this, but for the benefit of the audience: my
> problem is that the link between the attack and the buff seems
> completely arbitrary: if you want +2 to saves, you need to zap; if you
> want +1 to AC, you need to smack.
>
> Admittedly, they might not be *completely* arbitrary: you could say that
> a rather literal ray of hope is appropriate for a save boost, and that
> it makes sense that a physical attack is needed to provide physical
> defense. I guess I need to see more powers.
But like I said, if the problem is flavour, it's not that different to
3E buff spells giving all sorts of different bonus types. So some spells
need you to zap at range, while others need you to hit with a mace. Is
it really that important an issue?
Jasin Zujovic
It seems more similar to using Energy Substitution (acid) on shout to
create a spray of acid that deafens people. I thought that kind of thing
was silly in 3E too.
> So some spells
> need you to zap at range, while others need you to hit with a mace. Is
> it really that important an issue?
As I've said, by itself, perhaps it isn't, but enough of the little
things seem wrong, and wrong in a similar way ("this doesn't make any
sense except as an abstract game move, but it sure looks like a fun and
cool abstract game move!") that I'm wondering whether 4E will be D&D but
better, or just D&D but different.
Now, even D&D but different is probably well worth my money, but I hoped
for D&D but even better, much like I got going from 2E to 3E.
--
Jasin
Kyle Wilson
>Hong Ooi wrote:
>>>> The zap-happy cleric powers is a matter of taste, I guess. I find
>>>> that thinking of them as "somatic component: hit a bad guy" works for
>>>> me.
>>>
>>> Note that I don't really have any problems with melee + buff cleric
>>> powers, and only slight ones with zap + buff ones. I dislike the fact
>>> that buffs A and B always require a zap while buffs X and Y always
>>> require a melee attack.
>>>
>>> If the cleric had two basic attacks, melee and zap, and the powers
>>> were phrased as "make basic attack, get buff", I'd be fine.
>>
>> That seems a bit nitpicky. It's not that different to how some buffs in
>> 3E give a morale bonus, others give a luck bonus, and others give a
>> competence bonus. A bit of variety adds spice to the game.
>
>I think we've talked about this, but for the benefit of the audience: my
>problem is that the link between the attack and the buff seems
>completely arbitrary: if you want +2 to saves, you need to zap; if you
>want +1 to AC, you need to smack.
>
>Admittedly, they might not be *completely* arbitrary: you could say that
>a rather literal ray of hope is appropriate for a save boost, and that
>it makes sense that a physical attack is needed to provide physical
>defense. I guess I need to see more powers.
I think that the flavor text is the key here (and for more than just
the flavor really). Knowing why the effect happens can help with both
the suspension of disbelief and with the DM ajudicating odd cases. If
the bonus is morale related then I'd know how to manage that. If it
is instead a literal sapping of energy from the opponent to power the
effect (or a standard magic trop...spilling blood to make things
happen) then I can figure that out... Also helps with things that
don't have blood or have odd natures...
I'll be resonably happy if they supply some non-gamist reasons why
these things work...
>> Reading between the lines, though, I guess the underlying complaint is
>> that the class designs are relatively constrained and narrow, sometimes
>> for no good reason. Multiclassing doesn't seem to be a good solution in
>> all cases either. Eg I'm still unsure of how best to handle the big
>> sword/light armour schtick, and someone on EN World was complaining that
>> the warlord class was built entirely around melee combat: a ranged
>> warlord simply doesn't work.
>>
>> It's a fair cop. The limits on what classes can do look pretty arbitrary
>> sometimes. In the long term the gaps will no doubt be plugged by new
>> classes, but that isn't much help now. I guess we'll see what impact
>> this has on actual play in a couple of weeks. :)
>
>Right!
--
Kyle Wilson
email: myfirstname at wilson.mv.com
Kyle Wilson
I think that it is...if only because you can model things like this in
your head. One spell shoots some sort of effect at the enemy while
the other 'charges' your mace with some sort of effect. I think that
folks can make sense of these sorts of things.
Without some explanation though it is harder to figure out why
smacking one enemy with a mace might give one of your allies an AC
bonus... Even more puzzling why (say) an AC bonus comes from smacking
with a mace while a to hit bonus comes from zapping with a ray. They
could both be morale effects, but it isn't clear why different damage
mechanisms should provide different morale effects.
That said, I'd be more than happy to see detailed flavor text in the
final product discussing the reasons for such things. While I might
or might not agree with their reasoning, it would indicate that
they're thinking about it.
My worst nightmare is that I'll open the books and find out that WoTC
has decided that such in-world explanations are extraneous clutter and
aren't needed in the books... Hoping that this isn't the case...we'll
see soon...
Jasin Zujovic
>>>>> The zap-happy cleric powers is a matter of taste, I guess. I find
>>>>> that thinking of them as "somatic component: hit a bad guy" works for
>>>>> me.
>>>> Note that I don't really have any problems with melee + buff cleric
>>>> powers, and only slight ones with zap + buff ones. I dislike the fact
>>>> that buffs A and B always require a zap while buffs X and Y always
>>>> require a melee attack.
>>>>
>>>> If the cleric had two basic attacks, melee and zap, and the powers
>>>> were phrased as "make basic attack, get buff", I'd be fine.
>>> That seems a bit nitpicky. It's not that different to how some buffs in
>>> 3E give a morale bonus, others give a luck bonus, and others give a
>>> competence bonus. A bit of variety adds spice to the game.
>> I think we've talked about this, but for the benefit of the audience: my
>> problem is that the link between the attack and the buff seems
>> completely arbitrary: if you want +2 to saves, you need to zap; if you
>> want +1 to AC, you need to smack.
>>
>> Admittedly, they might not be *completely* arbitrary: you could say that
>> a rather literal ray of hope is appropriate for a save boost, and that
>> it makes sense that a physical attack is needed to provide physical
>> defense. I guess I need to see more powers.
>
> I think that the flavor text is the key here (and for more than just
> the flavor really).
Much of what we've seen has been less than inspiring. Too often, it it's
just restating the power's effect rather than adding anything new: "You
utter a minor defensive prayer as you attack with your weapon." is
flavour text for "make an attack, grant AC bonus".
Of course, that's no worse that much of 3E's flavour text, but it's not
making me feel any better about the powers that feel silly.
--
Jasin
Kyle Wilson
One big difference from the samples I've seen though is that many of
the 4e powers seem less intuitive... Charging up your mace with mojo
and then whacking someone with it is relatively easy to model...
Hitting the orc soldier and having an ally halfway across the room
heal some damage needs more explanation (at least for me). They're
looking to implement more 'interesting' powers...these need more
extensive explanation....
Malachias Invictus
"Kyle Wilson" <Usenet...@wilson.mv.com> wrote in message
news:7ctl34h5keb55i6lc...@4ax.com...
> My worst nightmare is that I'll open the books and find out that WoTC
> has decided that such in-world explanations are extraneous clutter and
> aren't needed in the books...
Mine too.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
> One big difference from the samples I've seen though is that many of
> the 4e powers seem less intuitive... Charging up your mace with mojo
> and then whacking someone with it is relatively easy to model...
> Hitting the orc soldier and having an ally halfway across the room
> heal some damage needs more explanation (at least for me). They're
> looking to implement more 'interesting' powers...these need more
> extensive explanation....
I agree completely. I suppose it is similar to the idea that flight should
require less mojo than teleportation.
Kyle Wilson
>
>"Kyle Wilson" <Usenet...@wilson.mv.com> wrote in message
>news:o50m34p0msv9keuql...@4ax.com...
>
>> One big difference from the samples I've seen though is that many of
>> the 4e powers seem less intuitive... Charging up your mace with mojo
>> and then whacking someone with it is relatively easy to model...
>> Hitting the orc soldier and having an ally halfway across the room
>> heal some damage needs more explanation (at least for me). They're
>> looking to implement more 'interesting' powers...these need more
>> extensive explanation....
>
>I agree completely. I suppose it is similar to the idea that flight should
>require less mojo than teleportation.
Well...and that flight requires less explanation than teleportation. A
person flying is relatively easy to model...the spell is cast and they
can move around horizontally and vertically. For teleportation, there
are various 'styles'...blink out and blink back in..walking through
another plane and coming out elsewhere...that sort of thing. Depending
on the details (and in D&D 3.5e there are suggestions that teleports
take you through the astral I believe) there would be different ways
to block teleports and possibly different implications to failed
teleports...
Christopher Adams
> Kyle Wilson wrote:
>
>> My worst nightmare is that I'll open the books and find out that WoTC
>> has decided that such in-world explanations are extraneous clutter
>> and aren't needed in the books...
>
> Mine too.
Every power we've seen so far has a line of flavour text explaining how it
works.
Shielding Smite: A translucent golden shield forms in front of a nearby ally
as you attack with your weapon.
Now, if you need more of an explanation than that, you're out of luck, I
guess.
There iss an obvious interpretation: paladins are required to actually go
out and *be* the strong arm of their deity or cause if they want to make use
of their supernatural powers, and the act of "casting" their "spells"
therefore often involves making an attack. It's no more of a logical
disconnect than the one that exists between a wizard's spell and the words
she speaks to cast it.
Kyle Wilson
>Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> Kyle Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> My worst nightmare is that I'll open the books and find out that WoTC
>>> has decided that such in-world explanations are extraneous clutter
>>> and aren't needed in the books...
>>
>> Mine too.
>
>Every power we've seen so far has a line of flavour text explaining how it
>works.
>
>Shielding Smite: A translucent golden shield forms in front of a nearby ally
>as you attack with your weapon.
>
>Now, if you need more of an explanation than that, you're out of luck, I
>guess.
>
>There iss an obvious interpretation: paladins are required to actually go
>out and *be* the strong arm of their deity or cause if they want to make use
>of their supernatural powers, and the act of "casting" their "spells"
>therefore often involves making an attack. It's no more of a logical
>disconnect than the one that exists between a wizard's spell and the words
>she speaks to cast it.
And that is where my problem is going to start... I can't really wrap
my head around the cleric smacking an orc over here (does a bag of
rats work too?...can he find a mook with one hp and nail him) and a
golden shield pops into place over someone else in the room. I can't
visualize how this works...does he just smack something and think of
the target of the spell?
Ah well...I can almost certainly come up with some sort of
rationalization that will allow me to swallow this...
The difference from most existing spells for me is that I see (and
maybe this is wrong) the somatic components for many spells as
directing the effect (or possibly verbal components in some cases). A
mage or cleric casting the spell and calling out 'sheildio Joe' or
gesturing at the target. Here the link seems to get more
tenuous...the cleric may not even be able to see the target and he is
in combat...somehow the recipient/target gets specified...I guess from
WoTCs perspective it just happens with no mechanism needed...I find
that unsatisfying...
Christopher Adams
>
> And that is where my problem is going to start... I can't really wrap
> my head around the cleric smacking an orc over here (does a bag of
> rats work too?...can he find a mook with one hp and nail him) and a
> golden shield pops into place over someone else in the room. I can't
> visualize how this works...does he just smack something and think of
> the target of the spell?
The point is that the attack is part of what would be considered the somatic
components of the spell in earlier editions. Describe it how you like.
Perhaps the paladin calls out her ally's name as the blow lands. Back when
the D&D Experience character sheets were first made public, I remember a
simple description of Shielding Smite that ran something like "Moradin,
protect my friend as I cannot do myself!", with the paladin throwing herself
at an enemy as a "sacrifice" for the effect.
Personally, I think it's pretty appropriate that adventuring clerics and
paladins have a great many abilities which can only be used when they're
actually striving against those opposed to their own purpose (which is,
presumably, at least acceptable to their patron deity or cause, if not
directly in service to it).
> The difference from most existing spells for me is that I see (and
> maybe this is wrong) the somatic components for many spells as
> directing the effect (or possibly verbal components in some cases). A
> mage or cleric casting the spell and calling out 'sheildio Joe' or
> gesturing at the target. Here the link seems to get more
> tenuous...the cleric may not even be able to see the target and he is
> in combat...somehow the recipient/target gets specified...I guess from
> WoTCs perspective it just happens with no mechanism needed...I find
> that unsatisfying...
Use more ellipses . . .
Seriously, though, what on Earth is wrong with the idea that the paladin's
prayer simply names her ally, or even simpler, that she gestures at her
friend as part of "casting" the prayer? I mean, why take the most absurd
interpretation - that *nothing* happens when invoking the power except an
attack and an effect? I would assume that, like most magic, there's some
form of invocation, command, or plea involved, even if it's a silent prayer
to save breath in the midst of battle.
Quibbling about whether or not you can see your target is silly: Fourth
Edition is sure to have rules for line-of-sight and line-of-effect just as
Third Edition (and previous editions, albeit less formally) had.
I genuinely don't see what the Hell you're talking about, here. Assuming
that the attack against a foe is the whole of the power's "casting" is
ludicrous, even if the description of the power doesn't say exactly what
happens. A paladin's powers *are* called prayers, after all.
Check out the description of the warlord's Inspiring Word power:
"You call out to a wounded ally and offer inspiring words of courage and
determination that helps that ally heal."
Pretty simple. If Shielding Smite said "You strike a blow against your foe
while naming an ally you wish to protect, and a golden shield of protection
forms around that ally as your weapon finds its target", would that help you
"get" how it could work?
Hong Ooi
> "Kyle Wilson" <Usenet...@wilson.mv.com> wrote in message
> news:o50m34p0msv9keuql...@4ax.com...
>
>> One big difference from the samples I've seen though is that many of
>> the 4e powers seem less intuitive... Charging up your mace with mojo
>> and then whacking someone with it is relatively easy to model...
>> Hitting the orc soldier and having an ally halfway across the room
>> heal some damage needs more explanation (at least for me). They're
>> looking to implement more 'interesting' powers...these need more
>> extensive explanation....
>
> I agree completely. I suppose it is similar to the idea that flight should
> require less mojo than teleportation.
>
If you're a normal person, flight does require less mojo than teleportation.
Kyle Wilson
If the ellipses offend you then I'll avoid them when respoding to your
posts.
>Seriously, though, what on Earth is wrong with the idea that the paladin's
>prayer simply names her ally, or even simpler, that she gestures at her
>friend as part of "casting" the prayer? I mean, why take the most absurd
>interpretation - that *nothing* happens when invoking the power except an
>attack and an effect? I would assume that, like most magic, there's some
>form of invocation, command, or plea involved, even if it's a silent prayer
>to save breath in the midst of battle.
>
>Quibbling about whether or not you can see your target is silly: Fourth
>Edition is sure to have rules for line-of-sight and line-of-effect just as
>Third Edition (and previous editions, albeit less formally) had.
>
>I genuinely don't see what the Hell you're talking about, here. Assuming
>that the attack against a foe is the whole of the power's "casting" is
>ludicrous, even if the description of the power doesn't say exactly what
>happens. A paladin's powers *are* called prayers, after all.
>
>Check out the description of the warlord's Inspiring Word power:
>
>"You call out to a wounded ally and offer inspiring words of courage and
>determination that helps that ally heal."
>
>Pretty simple. If Shielding Smite said "You strike a blow against your foe
>while naming an ally you wish to protect, and a golden shield of protection
>forms around that ally as your weapon finds its target", would that help you
>"get" how it could work?
Ok, I see you point. I think that in kicking this around I have put
together a way of looking at it that makes sense. I can see your
point that a character whose thing is to smack down the enemies of the
faith might very well activate powers when doing so.
Jasin Zujovic
>>> One big difference from the samples I've seen though is that many of
>>> the 4e powers seem less intuitive... Charging up your mace with mojo
>>> and then whacking someone with it is relatively easy to model...
>>> Hitting the orc soldier and having an ally halfway across the room
>>> heal some damage needs more explanation (at least for me). They're
>>> looking to implement more 'interesting' powers...these need more
>>> extensive explanation....
>>
>> I agree completely. I suppose it is similar to the idea that flight
>> should require less mojo than teleportation.
>
> If you're a normal person, flight does require less mojo than
> teleportation.
Normal person as opposed to adventurer? Or normal person as opposed to
eladrin?
Kyle Wilson
For a normal person, only in the downwards direction. Watch out for
the hard stop :-)
Justisaur
Oh the drama!
I rather like this interpretation.
- Justisaur
Hong Ooi
> > teleportation.
>
> Normal person as opposed to adventurer? Or normal person as opposed to
> eladrin?
Normal person as opposed to eladrin.
Fey step is an excuse to showboat. It accentuates the fact that
eladrin are not normal people, just like the tieflings get fire
resist. Heck, now I'm tempted to start my first 4E campaign with the
PCs locked in jail, just so that the eladrin can get them out.
Keith Davies
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> Kyle Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> My worst nightmare is that I'll open the books and find out that WoTC
>>> has decided that such in-world explanations are extraneous clutter
>>> and aren't needed in the books...
>>
>> Mine too.
>
> Every power we've seen so far has a line of flavour text explaining
> how it works.
>
> Shielding Smite: A translucent golden shield forms in front of a
> nearby ally as you attack with your weapon.
>
> Now, if you need more of an explanation than that, you're out of luck,
> I guess.
It's something of a description of what happens, it's nothing of an
explanation.
Keith
--
Keith Davies I married the moonshiner's daughter
keith....@kjdavies.org How could I go wrong?
keith....@gmail.com The moonshiner's daughter
http://www.kjdavies.org/ Put some corn in the water
And makes me liquor all night long
-- Hayseed Dixie, _Moonshiner's Daughter_
Hong Ooi
As it turns out, teleport effects in 4E now require line of sight,
according to people who got the books early/torrented. So my fiendish
plan is ruined.
Bah.
Malachias Invictus
"Keith Davies" <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrng3sc6m.a7...@kjdavies.org...
> Christopher Adams <mhacdeinva...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> Kyle Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> My worst nightmare is that I'll open the books and find out that WoTC
>>>> has decided that such in-world explanations are extraneous clutter
>>>> and aren't needed in the books...
>>>
>>> Mine too.
>>
>> Every power we've seen so far has a line of flavour text explaining
>> how it works.
>>
>> Shielding Smite: A translucent golden shield forms in front of a
>> nearby ally as you attack with your weapon.
>>
>> Now, if you need more of an explanation than that, you're out of luck,
>> I guess.
>
> It's something of a description of what happens, it's nothing of an
> explanation.
I am seeing a similar pattern with the Monster Manual entries: they describe
what the thing does, but not what the monster is all about.
Keith Davies
Windows still work, the bars aren't going to mean a damn thing.
Of course, this suggests to me 'oubliette' rather than 'cell' will be
the norm.
Hong Ooi
> Hong Ooi <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>> On May 28, 12:26 pm, Hong Ooi <h...@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>>> On May 28, 3:13 am, Jasin Zujovic <jzujo...@inet.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>>>> If you're a normal person, flight does require less mojo than
>>>>> teleportation.
>>>> Normal person as opposed to adventurer? Or normal person as opposed to
>>>> eladrin?
>>> Normal person as opposed to eladrin.
>>>
>>> Fey step is an excuse to showboat. It accentuates the fact that
>>> eladrin are not normal people, just like the tieflings get fire
>>> resist. Heck, now I'm tempted to start my first 4E campaign with the
>>> PCs locked in jail, just so that the eladrin can get them out.
>> As it turns out, teleport effects in 4E now require line of sight,
>> according to people who got the books early/torrented. So my fiendish
>> plan is ruined.
>
> Windows still work, the bars aren't going to mean a damn thing.
Oh good. My fiendish plan is restored!
>
> Of course, this suggests to me 'oubliette' rather than 'cell' will be
> the norm.
Bah. It suggests that eladrin are not the norm, and assuming every
two-bit village and town will be designed to be lockdownable against
them simply makes for fewer spotlight moments.
Nockermensch
So, an eladrin can move through bars as long as there's line of sight
to the other side. But how often if outside an "encounter"? 5 min
intervals?
--
@ @ Nockermensch, like nightcrawler on morphine.
*BAMF* ......................................................... *BAMF*
Hong Ooi
Yep, the rule is if you have 5 minutes, you can recharge your
per-encounter abilities.
Me, I'll probably use a looser definition: an encounter is a discrete
scene where PCs interact with NPCs or the environment. If these scenes
come along more frequently than once per 5 minutes, I'd let people use
their per-encounters anyway.
>
> --
> @ @ Nockermensch, like nightcrawler on morphine.
> *BAMF* ......................................................... *BAMF*
Slow morphine, anyway. :)
Kyle Wilson
An interesting question, but since the game consists of encounters
with 'something' in between, this should not be a big issue in 4e ;-)
I haven't yet looked at the bootleg 4e files that appear to be
circulating around the net, but from the initial releases of
information that I've seen, I'd expect it is one encounter until you
stop worrying about initiative. It does raise the question of whether
hiding in a broom closet for thirty seconds or so resets your
per-encounter powers. I think that there may have been some
definition of how long a rest is needed before you have a new
encounter.
In denser (particularly town)/urban) environments this would seem to
be more of an issue. You get past the guards at the gate using a
power and then have a short time without any obvious enemy in sight
before you move to the next part of the heist. How quiet does it need
to be and for how long before the per-encounter stuff resets?
Hopefully there are some guidelines for this that don't assume that
you just kill everything in room A1 and then move to the encounter in
room A2...
Argonel
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's pretty clear, even from the Keep on the shadowfell material.
Once you use an encounter power you need a short rest to recharge it.
A short rest is defined as a uninterrupted period approximately 5
minutes long. So if you use an encounter power in room A1 then move
on to room A2 without taking a break you don't get to use your
encounter power again, even though it is a new encounter. Same if you
kill everything in room A1 and get a bit noisy as you loot drawing the
monsters in A2 to attack you before you take a break. It seems to be
a decent mechanic for limiting powers that can have significant
effects on combat without being so big that they should be limited to
once per day.
Kyle Wilson
>On May 29, 8:58 am, Kyle Wilson <UsenetMess...@wilson.mv.com> wrote:
Snip...
>> An interesting question, but since the game consists of encounters
>> with 'something' in between, this should not be a big issue in 4e ;-)
>> I haven't yet looked at the bootleg 4e files that appear to be
>> circulating around the net, but from the initial releases of
>> information that I've seen, I'd expect it is one encounter until you
>> stop worrying about initiative. It does raise the question of whether
>> hiding in a broom closet for thirty seconds or so resets your
>> per-encounter powers. I think that there may have been some
>> definition of how long a rest is needed before you have a new
>> encounter.
>>
>> In denser (particularly town)/urban) environments this would seem to
>> be more of an issue. You get past the guards at the gate using a
>> power and then have a short time without any obvious enemy in sight
>> before you move to the next part of the heist. How quiet does it need
>> to be and for how long before the per-encounter stuff resets?
>> Hopefully there are some guidelines for this that don't assume that
>> you just kill everything in room A1 and then move to the encounter in
>> room A2...
>
>It's pretty clear, even from the Keep on the shadowfell material.
>Once you use an encounter power you need a short rest to recharge it.
>A short rest is defined as a uninterrupted period approximately 5
>minutes long. So if you use an encounter power in room A1 then move
>on to room A2 without taking a break you don't get to use your
>encounter power again, even though it is a new encounter. Same if you
>kill everything in room A1 and get a bit noisy as you loot drawing the
>monsters in A2 to attack you before you take a break. It seems to be
>a decent mechanic for limiting powers that can have significant
>effects on combat without being so big that they should be limited to
>once per day.
Ok, this was about how I had the impression that it worked. It sounds
to me as if the PCs are going to be investing in 5 minute 'egg-timers'
then (or maybe a new magic item the turns green when encounter powers
are available again). I'd assume that the characters are expected to
be able to tell when their encounter powers have recycled (you feel
refreshed after your short rest and fell like you could do *foo*
again).
I would guess that in actual play there will be lots of 'we'll rest
until our encounter powers recharge' stops. My players tend to press
on if the alternative is eight hours of sleep, but I'd expect they'd
be happy to wait five minutes after each encounter.
DougL
Works fine for me. Even a short fight with no serious injuries or
weapons involved can do a pretty good job of winding you. Waiting five
minutes or so to catch your breath is far more realistic than kicking
in the next door without waiting and without being a bit tired.
DougL
Christopher Adams
>
> It's something of a description of what happens, it's nothing of an
> explanation.
How does Magic Missile work?
If you want to say that the spell conjures a glowing missile of magical
force which the caster can direct to fly at her enemy, then I'll simply
state that Shielding Smite conjures a magical shield for an ally, and that
casting Shielding Smite requires attacking a foe.
Big fucking difference, eh?
Kyle Wilson
wrote:
If the local sherrif can't deal with them then the should be very
rare. I'd expect that folks who could just get away with pretty much
anything in small towns would become a problem rather quickly.
This might suggest though that the standard small town approach to
trouble with a strange character that might have odd powers is to put
them down, permanently. A few serious problems with odd critters that
look pretty much human ought to build some serious xenophobia in a
small hamlet.
Kyle Wilson
email: kylew...@wilson.mv.com
Kyle Wilson
For a power like this under quiet circumstances, what is required for
a line of sight? Looking through a key hole? Looking under the door?
Air vent at the top of the oubliette?
Could make these folks seriously hard to pin down (at least as long as
they are conscious).
Kyle Wilson
email: kylew...@wilson.mv.com
Del Rio
Kyle Wilson <ky...@wilson.mv.com> wrote:
>
>This might suggest though that the standard small town approach to
>trouble with a strange character that might have odd powers is to put
>them down, permanently.
And here I just re-watched First Blood recently, when they ran
it in theaters a couple weeks ago. ;-)
--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
tussock
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> It's something of a description of what happens, it's nothing of an
>> explanation.
>
> How does Magic Missile work?
>
> If you want to say that the spell conjures a glowing missile of magical
> force which the caster can direct to fly at her enemy, then I'll simply
> state that Shielding Smite conjures a magical shield for an ally, and
> that casting Shielding Smite requires attacking a foe.
>
> Big fucking difference, eh?
Yes. DnD magic has traditionally been sympathetic in nature. To
damage someone, you direct a peice of damaging stuff at them, or create a
volume of damaging stuff to envelop them. To protect someone, your focus
on their protection for a few seconds. To heal someone you touch them. To
deafen someone you shout. To dazzle someone you create a bright light.
If you look closely, the old material components are all similarly
organised. Make your big sound with a tiny toy bell, a bolt of lightning
from a little static cling.
The effect in question should be just another Mark, penalties to
attack anyone who isn't the Cleric that's busy whomping on you. Enemy
hurt, friend defended, only in a way that makes some sense.
You might suggest magic doesn't have to make sense, you'd be wrong.
--
tussock
I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
Christopher Adams
>
> You might suggest magic doesn't have to make sense, you'd be wrong.
You might suggest that this doesn't make sense, but you'd be wrong.
--
Christopher Adams
>
> Yes. DnD magic has traditionally been sympathetic in nature.
Also, seriously? Fuck tradition.
Holding on to tradition for tradition's sake is the worst kind of mindless
bullshit in which someone can engage.