# 4th ed, the Good & the Bad?



## Silverblade The Ench (Dec 26, 2007)

I was really lookign forward to 4th ed, as I loved the many great changes 3rd ed brought, but some things have popped up the have made me more ambivalent, sigh. Anyway, this is my list of pros and cons *from what I've heard*, please enlighten me if wrong 


*NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN * (sort of?)  (Good)
I'm nearly always a DM, rarely get to play, and while I like harassing me players' PCs, I don't like being mean, and I always felt level drain was grossly over powered, far too common, and wrecked characters needlessly. For instance, while COunt Dracula's cinematic apperances are menacing, and massively charismatic, they don't suck you dry just by touch, for goodness sake!   

So, removing level drain or at least, leavign it as a weapon only used by high lvl wizards (the 9th lvl spell) or very nasty undead, is good. It's *scary*, reserve it for appropriate things. Let lesser undead weaken strength or Slow or whatever


*NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN * (Bad?)
Ok, so Ability score damage is being removed? Guess going along with a "Star Wars Saga System" condition track? Meh, this seems...whimpish. I appreciate working out ability damage is a pain, but, it keeps the "scare" factor high. Poisons don't just leave you with a "skill penalty" etc, they really screw you up in _different _ ways, that's part of the thrill actually. Where's the fear of a scorpion if it just gives hit poink damage or an attack penalty?

This seems part of the steps that make 4th ed feel too cheap/easy sounding for my likes. I like "scary", but honest, believable scary, not "_DM is a cheating rat_!", you know, the bad DM who uses Deus Ex Machinas ways to screw over the players in blatant ways, rather than gives 'em believable, hard challenges (I hate the Tomb of Horrors)

Removing level drain is fine, but, removing spells/poisons etc potential to mess with characters I don't like. 3.5 Poisons were good (if you adjusted the DC fairly for level, which I wish there had been a mechanic for, I just winged it, to keep it challenging at higher levels)

I think this iwll be bad, but, maybe the "condition track" system they use will be good?
Simpler/easier does not automatically = "better".


*NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS * (Bad)
4th ed is removing Law (neutral) and Chaos alignments, the "ethical" alignments.This change REALLY irks me. While many folk abused or went nuts over alignment, in the end, it is a great tool for quickly noting the *rough* ehtical and moral behaviour of a character, superb tool for a DM especially. Also, it sets the tone of a heroic, non-scuzzy-Earth setting...which is why I like playing D&D, not "Papers & paychecks*  it's about _heroes _ and _villains_.

Long as folk remember alignment is just a rough guide for characters, not a straight jacket, it's fine, only for some planar beings is it almost an absolute: inevitables; fiends, celestials etc. Doesn't mean a devil won't break a rule, just means usually he won't. What's the big deal about that?

Merely noting a hobgoblin is lawful Evil (LE), two letters, gives me as a DM a _basic _ guide on how to run the NPCs. Removing that is...terrible. 
Good an Evil are real foccres in most D&D settings, they are NOT "Earth", fuzzy, "grey" "orlaly ambigious". Wishy washy morals don't fit in with most heroic campaigns or places where devils n' angels mess around. It's fine to reduce the importance of alignment in some settings, like Dark Sun, where it's less "heroic" and more "survival", but not most campaign settings, aslong as folk remember, where human-types are concerned, they are rarely ever extreme, it' sjsut a general tendency.

Otheriwse, I hate this change and will retcon it back in if I buy 4th ed books.

This also ties in with what I think is a bad way R. A. Salvatore is pushing the orcs in the Forgotten Realms. Orcs and drow are *EVIL*. Evil is not just "Mean surly", dwarves are mean surly, but they are innately "good"...Good and Evil are "real" things in D&D. You start messing with that and you end up with D&D becoming a "real world tactical combat simulation" by 10th edition.... I'm not saying individuals cannot be good, or, that some settings creatures are very different (like the orcs of Eberron's past who were not malign)...but I fear a trend of "politically correct nicey-nicey" is pushing it too far. I like film noir, and gritty sci-fi or fantasy, but I *like* D&D because it is about _heroes and villains...do not mess with that!_

WTH wants to have angst over whether killing an orc was a good thing or not, round the game table _most _ of the time? Nah you wanna kill the SOB!! 

So this change is very bad.


*SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING * (unsure)
It's not fun for a rogue to be gimped versus undead and constructs, so letting them sneak attack such is...useful. But it goes against logic. Some undead I can see having weak points, like the more "living" ones: vampires and ghouls. But not zombies (unles syou have a heavy slashing weapon), and certainly not incorporeal ones! Ok, pray tell me how you can sneak attack a wraith, eh? 

So this rule change I'm ambivalent on. Good to help players, but bad for game logic.


*FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION * (Good)
Lot so of tweaks to the game mechanics will speed up game play, now this is very good, as I'm sure most of us know it takes too long to play 3.5 ed encounters! 

As a DM, making 3.5 ed NPCs is a nightmare, mostly because of the SKill/feats. By changing it to a Saga system skill set, it will make it _sooooo _ much easier to create NPCs.

Most of the rule changes I hear about this are good. Making anyone able to Disarm Traps is great, fine by me, there's nothing "magic" about disarming traps...or having a game stall because of no rogue...the rogue will still have plenty of skill slot so he's most likely to have the skill, so it's fine. Removing confirming crit rolsl, good! Less wasted time, more "NATURAL 20!" happy joy joy 

So this change seems very good.


*NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS * (GOOD)
My homebrew game has a lot of ancient, nasty magic items (if you can find/survive using 'em) but even so, 3.5 ed seemed to have so many, or perhaps I should say _require _ so many magic items, it was unwieldy.

I do hope they improve the power of artifacts/items of legacy, which in 3.5 frankly SUCKED, they were woefully underpowered. I only ever had 2 artifacts enter our games in the 21 years I've been the DM, but when they did...oh boy...*mushroom cloud*  Artiacts should scare the snot out of players, I hope that is changed over 3.5, but have no idea if they are?

Mechanics to make magic items are sounding interesting: no more feats or loss of xp, just "rituals/lot of gold". I like risk too a bit of risk making 'em would be fun.

So, good changes it seems about magic items.

*NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING * (Good)
At _looooong _ blasted last! The system they suggest: at will; once per encounter; once per day, type of choice, seems great. 
Also, with spell durations seemingly not having to be kept track of (they last per whole encounter?) it speeds up game play.

Sounds good me!


 *NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS I*TEMS (Unsure)
The removal of spell schools peeves me. I'm a huge wizard fan, removal of the schools "does my knitting in" as we say here, it annnoys heck out of me. The spell chool idea make sense to me.

Making spell focus items: staff, wand, dagger etc, important, is an unknown quantity, I don't know if it will be bad or good. It could be fun, give casters new styles or it could be just a bad gimmick.

So, I'm ambivalent on this at the moment


*SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP * (Good?)
If, big if, 4th ed goes for Star Wars Saga style skills, that looks to be cool, it's a much faster, easier to create character system (as said above). It also lets non-skilled folk be somewhat useful, instead of 3.5 where you either have to be a master, or yer useless!

The 3rd ed change to opposed skills made the game vastly more balanced and fun, pitting PC against NPC, instead of the SAME  percentage chance to see if you're rogue could slit the throat of an orc sentry, or a high lvl drow bodyguard (which was woeful!)
New generations of players will never have to suffer the sillines of 1st/2nd ed proficiency and their skill checks, lol.

This could be good if it's like Saga system.


 *BASIC RACES CHANGES * (bad)
This one change, removing gnomes and adding tieflings/dragoborn, represents what I think is the very bad trend 4th ed is doing: throwing out what D&D was in _style_. Now it seems, any weird race can become "standard", and that sets a very dangerous precidence, IMHO. If that goes on as D&D inevitably make  snew editions, it could end up...clownish. Think about it for a bit...."_Hey lets play invincible super hero thingies in new uber 10th ed_!"
meh :/

If instead, they added a variety of races, but said speciffcally: "elves, humans, dwarves, halflings are the common races of D&D" it wouldn't be so bad, because, if players entirely new to D&D see exotic races, and make up games full of 'em, they'll miss out on the fact that exotic is best kept rare, or, not make up exotic millieu for these exotic people. the tone of the PHB, sets hwo new players see D&D. If they see "wierd creatures are the norm", I don't actually think it will be creatively good, it will just cheapen their use.

I really hate folk trying to bring in drow, teiflings etc into my games, because the reaction in my home brew setting, from the average person, is to either kill these dangeorus creatures or run and get someone else to do it! You have to think of how such exotic folk fit into a millieu. They are fine in a suitable setting, say, tieflings in Planescape, but elsewhere you really have to ram it home they are "dangerous, scary foreigners". D&D is not Star Wars, it's fantasy full of nasty evil beasties. The average perosn is pretty ignorant of what goes on outside his town, so, wierd stranegrs are *dangerous* and not welcome, and for good reason, because if it looks like a dragon or devil odds are it WILL try to harm you!

it feels to me like WOTC is trying to make their "Points of light" the _de rigeur _ for D&D, instead of the Player's Handbook being neutral (which is oddly important).

So I don't like this change


I think 4th ed will be good, mechnic wise. I just fear the "tone" of changes will cause a slow degrdation of the game's "feel".
Or am I wrong? *shrug*


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 26, 2007)

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> I was really lookign forward to 4th ed, as I loved the many great changes 3rd ed brought, but some things have popped up the have made me more ambivalent, sigh. Anyway, this is my list of pros and cons *from what I've heard*, please enlighten me if wrong
> 
> [*]*NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN * (sort of?)  (Good)
> I'm nearly always a DM, rarely get to play, and while I like harassing me players' PCs, I don't like being mean, and I always felt level drain was grossly over powered, far too common, and wrecked characters needlessly. For instance, while COunt Dracula's cinematic apperances are menacing, and massively charismatic, they don't suck you dry just by touch, for goodness sake!
> ...




I agree on this.



> [*]*NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN * (Bad?)
> Ok, so Ability score damage is being removed? Guess going along with a "Star Wars Saga System" condition track? Meh, this seems...whimpish. I appreciate working out ability damage is a pain, but, it keeps the "scare" factor high. Poisons don't just leave you with a "skill penalty" etc, they really screw you up in _different _ ways, that's part of the thrill actually. Where's the fear of a scorpion if it just gives hit poink damage or an attack penalty?
> 
> This seems part of the steps that make 4th ed feel too cheap/easy sounding for my likes. I like "scary", but honest, believable scary, not "_DM is a cheating rat_!", you know, the bad DM who uses Deus Ex Machinas ways to screw over the players in blatant ways, rather than gives 'em believable, hard challenges (I hate the Tomb of Horrors)
> ...




It seemed more trouble than it was worth. Pretty much anything that changed ability scores was a PitA to keep track of.



> [*]*NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS * (Bad)
> 4th ed is removing Law (neutral) and Chaos alignments, the "ethical" alignments.This change REALLY irks me. While many folk abused or went nuts over alignment, in the end, it is a great tool for quickly noting the *rough* ehtical and moral behaviour of a character, superb tool for a DM especially. Also, it sets the tone of a heroic, non-scuzzy-Earth setting...which is why I like playing D&D, not "Papers & paychecks*  it's about _heroes _ and _villains_.
> 
> Long as folk remember alignment is just a rough guide for characters, not a straight jacket, it's fine, only for some planar beings is it almost an absolute: inevitables; fiends, celestials etc.




I've always felt that alignment is descriptive. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. However, if you disagree with your DM on this, then it's a problem.



> Doesn't mean a devil won't break a rule, just means usually he won't. What's the big deal about that?




A lot. Who says lawful evil characters don't break rules? It's that kind of thinking that gives alignments a bad name. Lawful characters care about *order*. They follow some kind of code. This doesn't have to be your society's laws, however; indeed, some criminal organizations might be seen as lawful, even though they do *not* use the tired old argument of "we bend the laws to suit ourselves, but don't break them". The only reason it's called *lawful* evil is because "order evil" doesn't have that ring to it.

WotC has to deal with perceptions as well. If they keep telling us how to deal with alignment and it just bounces off, maybe it's not the presentation of alignment that's the problem, but alignment itself (with most gamers). Short of firing a lot of gamers, maybe they could try altering the rules and flavor to suit them... like by making alignment less important.



> Merely noting a hobgoblin is lawful Evil (LE), two letters, gives me as a DM a _basic _ guide on how to run the NPCs. Removing that is...terrible.




They're not getting rid of alignment. It's just that most characters can say they're "unaligned" now.



> Good an Evil are real foccres in most D&D settings, they are NOT "Earth", fuzzy, "grey" "orlaly ambigious". Wishy washy morals don't fit in with most heroic campaigns or places where devils n' angels mess around. It's fine to reduce the importance of alignment in some settings, like Dark Sun, where it's less "heroic" and more "survival", but not most campaign settings, aslong as folk remember, where human-types are concerned, they are rarely ever extreme, it' sjsut a general tendency.




Fantasy tastes change. Worlds that are "shades of gray" (such as "A Song of Ice and Fire") are becoming more popular.

Otheriwse, I hate this change and will retcon it back in if I buy 4th ed books.



> I *like* D&D because it is about _heroes and villains...do not mess with that!_
> 
> There are many ways of playing DnD. It does not have to be about heroes and villains, and I think it's a problem if you need a rule to explain how heroes behave.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm beginning to feel that these sorts of concerns (which are also mine) will turn out to be totally out of context.  I think we're getting something with a D&D chassis, but a completely new engine beneath the hood.

It will be like worrying over the decrease of magic items in Traveller, or sneak attacks in gin rummy.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 26, 2007)

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> [*]*SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING * (unsure)
> It's not fun for a rogue to be gimped versus undead and constructs, so letting them sneak attack such is...useful. But it goes against logic. Some undead I can see having weak points, like the more "living" ones: vampires and ghouls. But not zombies (unles syou have a heavy slashing weapon), and certainly not incorporeal ones! Ok, pray tell me how you can sneak attack a wraith, eh?
> 
> So this rule change I'm ambivalent on. Good to help players, but bad for game logic.






> In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain. I will repeat that: by removing the head or destroying the brain.




Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 26, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.



For me, the issue is not whether they have weak spots, but whether the rogue has learned them.  Flesh golems and most undead, fair enough, but tell me where you'd attack an animated oak table with a dagger to earn a sneak attack!


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 26, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.




And an ooze?  A cloud of sentient blood-sucking vapor?


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 26, 2007)

You'd attack the oak table in the joints. If you slid a dagger in and twisted, you could break a leg off (you'd want a fairly sturdy dagger - maybe magical).



> And an ooze? A cloud of sentient blood-sucking vapor?




No weapon is going to do _anything_ against a sentient cloud of blood-sucking vapour! 

It's not fair to invent a creature that should be immune to all damage, and then use that creature as an example for why sneak attack shouldn't do extra damage.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 26, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> It's not fair to invent a creature that should be immune to all damage, and then use that creature as an example for why sneak attack shouldn't do extra damage.




I didn't invent these creatures.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Dec 26, 2007)

May be specific individual types of constructs/undead will be immune to crits but I think the majority of undead/constructs should be vulnerable to them.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.




You know what I don't undrtsand about this logic...do these "weak points" damage the creature in a more significant way than striking it anywhere else?  I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm?  Same for zombies and other undead.  They aren't living beings, they are animate through magical energy...I can subscribe to the fact that a physical attack can hurt them, I can even subscribe to certain undead having a particular weakness (like a wooden stake through a vampire's heart) what I can't subscribe to is that hitting an undead in any place is more damaging than what it already takes from physical attacks upon any other part of it's body.  Otherwise how is an animate corpse with no muscles (skeletons) moving?  It isn't physically possible, yet you're telling me you can "sneak attack" him by damaging him physically.


----------



## WarlockLord (Dec 26, 2007)

*11. The wizard as boom-mage (excreable)*
In 3e, a wizard had many, many interesting options.  He could draw forth his opponent's nightmares and use them to attack his foes.  He could summon otherworldly creatures to attack.  He could ensnare his opponents in spiderwebs, craft illusory images, weaken them, curse them, change into a monster, turn them to toads, petrify them...the list is endless.
Now? Fire.  Boom.  A one-trick pony.  How boring is that?  Why must every wizard just throw bolts of flame? Wizards in fantasy stories are flexible with many different powers.  Now? Boom.  How interesting.  A fireball.  Again, and again, and again.  

3e had wizards, 4e has "wizards"

*12. Removal of Save-or-dies (mixed bag)*
I'm mixed on this issue.  On one hand, one-round fights are kind dumb.  On the other, if a guy can wither your limbs with magic, how hard is it to sever an artery?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 26, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> In 3e, a wizard had many, many interesting options.  He could draw forth his opponent's nightmares and use them to attack his foes.  He could summon otherworldly creatures to attack.  He could ensnare his opponents in spiderwebs, craft illusory images, weaken them, curse them, change into a monster, turn them to toads, petrify them...the list is endless.



That's a bug, not a feature. One class shouldn't be able to do everything.


> Now? Fire.  Boom.  A one-trick pony.



You don't know that. An article talked about siloing abilities such as phantom steed, making them available in addition to damage dealing, which indicates some utility will be still be there. We also know that wizards still have battlefield control, moving opponents around.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 26, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I didn't invent these creatures.




Ok. I'd never heard of a cloud of blood-sucking vapour, but my point still stands: It's not fair to use a creature that should be immune to all damage as an example of something that should be immune to sneak attack damage.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> You know what I don't undrtsand about this logic...do these "weak points" damage the creature in a more significant way than striking it anywhere else? I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm? Same for zombies and other undead. They aren't living beings, they are animate through magical energy...I can subscribe to the fact that a physical attack can hurt them, I can even subscribe to certain undead having a particular weakness (like a wooden stake through a vampire's heart) what I can't subscribe to is that hitting an undead in any place is more damaging than what it already takes from physical attacks upon any other part of it's body. Otherwise how is an animate corpse with no muscles (skeletons) moving? It isn't physically possible, yet you're telling me you can "sneak attack" him by damaging him physically.




It depends on the creatures. Zombies being vulnerable in the head is a pop culture staple. Stabbing a skeleton in the internal organs won't work, but severing the spine would be an appropriate use of sneak attack.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm relatively pro-4e but there are some things that seem too gamist to me. For 24yrs I have been involved in either playing (rarely) or DMing D&D from OD&D to 3.5e and have never seen a player have a problem when their character wasn't particularly effective against a certain kind of monster.

A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem. A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem. 

Is it really so unfun that a PC runs into a challenge that he cannot smite down. What if the rogue has to trick the golem? What if the warrior has to get his silver coins cast into a silver dagger when he discovers his foe is a werewolf? Every class should have its weaknesses and its strengths. If you want a character who will shine in every combat, play a combat orientated class. It is stupid that a rogue can find the weak spot on a vampire when they don't have weak points besides their hearts which unless punctured by a wooded stake isn't anymore vulnerable than anything else.

Oh maybe 4e is changig that as well. Maybe vampires should be more player kill-friendly.  :\ 

This is the kind of stuff about 4e that bothers me. Everyone has to be equally effective most all the time in a combat situation. With all the "unfun" going around I am surprised that anyone played D&D at all for all the years between OD&D and 3e. 

Its as up until now NO ONE played the game for the joy of the game. All those terrible, boring "dead levels" and no power-ups ever other level. How on earth did anyone manage to keep themselves interested in playing D&D? Ah ha, I have it. The players I knew loved role-playing gaming and loved playing their characters as part of an unfolding drama that they helped create. The fun was the joy of the game for the sake of the game. Everyone wanted a kickass character to be sure, but kickass meant more than just an assortment of whup-ass powers, kick ass meant a character who was tough, no doubt, but one that was memorable for what he or she accomplished in the context of the campaign.

The above is what bother me, in part, about 4e (3/3.5e too actually) but I am more behind it than not.

I have to admit that True20 and Runequest are becoming more and more my style. D&D seems to be becoming one gigantic action movie set in a dungeon. I know folks who played like that, but many of us did not and still don't. It seemed that in older editions of the game there was at least lip-service to versimilitude and a bone tossed in that direction from time to time. Now, the chant is "Its a Game why concern yourself with that?" Well if that's the case, just create a game where PC wrestle dragons with their bare hands, don't need weapons to decapitate a foe, where humans (without magic) fly at will, regenerate lost limbs, and where you can be as tall as my thumb and still have 20 strength. And in this game all the furniture is made of diamonds and clouds are made of cotton candy. 

Why not its only a game?

Of course a DM could do this, but should nonsense be a part of the official rules and held up on a pedestal as necessary for fun?



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Rechan (Dec 26, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> You know what I don't undrtsand about this logic...do these "weak points" damage the creature in a more significant way than striking it anywhere else?  I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm?  Same for zombies and other undead.  They aren't living beings, they are animate through magical energy...I can subscribe to the fact that a physical attack can hurt them, I can even subscribe to certain undead having a particular weakness (like a wooden stake through a vampire's heart) what I can't subscribe to is that hitting an undead in any place is more damaging than what it already takes from physical attacks upon any other part of it's body.  Otherwise how is an animate corpse with no muscles (skeletons) moving?  It isn't physically possible, yet you're telling me you can "sneak attack" him by damaging him physically.



You know what I don't understand? 

Attacking something with a different kind of material effects it differently. Why would using silver against a werewolf effect it when steel doesn't? Why hitting a fey with cold iron hurts it when adamantite doesn't? Why when you hit a demon or devil with (cold iron or silver, I forget which is which), it somehow hurts them. What GIVES? The elemental composition of various materials shouldn't effect carbon bodies differently!


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 26, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You know what I don't understand?
> 
> Attacking something with a different kind of material effects it differently. Why would using silver against a werewolf effect it when steel doesn't? Why hitting a fey with cold iron hurts it when adamantite doesn't? Why when you hit a demon or devil with (cold iron or silver, I forget which is which), it somehow hurts them. What GIVES? The elemental composition of various materials shouldn't effect physical bodies differently!




Oh c'mon this isn't chemistry.

Silver effects werewolves because it is the metal of the moon symbolically. Werewolves are a corruption that is tied to the cycles of the moon. Silver represents the moon's purity and therefore destroys the corruption the werewolf represents.

Cold iron is useful against fey because it represents industrialization and the seperation of man from the natural world. Cold iron represents progress and divorce from nature therefore it is bane to creatures as tied to nature as the fey.

In regards to vampires, the sun has in many cultures symbolized the life giving powers of nature as well as rebirth. It is the antithesis of what a vampire represents and therefore it is destructive to these creatures.

These old legends had their own internal consistancy and symbol logic that unfortunately many modern folks cannot understand. Read some Joseph Campbell and it will help you to understand underpinnings of various myths and their symbols. Jung's Mankind and His Symbols is a worthy read as well.

Too often they attempt to pseudo-science things up for modern consumption like making vampirism a retro-virus in the Blade movies when in fact they are just creating a new form of magic ie. science-magic, the use of science to create things that can only exist with involvement of magic. Yeah sure, a retrovirus that makes you into a superhuman killing machine that literally bursts into flame when exposed to the sun. Not sun sensitivity, literally turning to ash in seconds...that'll happen.   :\ 

Its just magic for people without imaginations.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Rechan (Dec 26, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Oh c'mon this isn't chemistry.



I was responding in sarcasm to Imaro.

Imaro asked "I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm?" 

You know, because it's not like there's tons of lore and legends and pop culture references about staking a vampire in the heart or anything.

So I took it a step further and asked werewolves should be effected by silver.


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 26, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Its just magic for people without imaginations.



I loathe and despise sigs, but if I didn't, I'd sig all that.  Well said.

If you want to get real-worldy about it, funnelweb spider venom affects primates but not dogs or cats.  Phenylketonurics are at risk from artificial sweeteners.  In a fantasy world, it's not hard to surmise that silver disrupts lycanthrope biology, or that cold iron damages the link between fey creatures and the netherworld.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 26, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yes, it's not chemistry. It's sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL

You got me.   

Sometimes its hard to tell online whether someone is serious or not. Its that whole lack of vocal inflection, tonality and body language thing. Sorry about that. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I loathe and despise sigs, but if I didn't, I'd sig all that.  Well said.
> 
> If you want to get real-worldy about it, funnelweb spider venom affects primates but not dogs or cats.  Phenylketonurics are at risk from artificial sweeteners.  In a fantasy world, it's not hard to surmise that silver disrupts lycanthrope biology, or that cold iron damages the link between fey creatures and the netherworld.




Hey if you ever convert to a sig user...feel free to quote me anytime.    



Wyrmshadows


----------



## xnrdcorex (Dec 26, 2007)

*hmm*

I disagree with everything the original poster thinks is bad. 
I happen to like all of those changes. 
I suppose that doesn't add much to this discussion, but I wanted to throw my vote in.

especially about alignments. I specifically DO want to argue the ethics of killing orcs. All my players do as well. It is intriguing, fresh, and more mature.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 26, 2007)

xnrdcorex said:
			
		

> especially about alignments. I specifically DO want to argue the ethics of killing orcs. All my players do as well. It is intriguing, fresh, and more mature.



Ultimately it comes down to how orcs are handled in your campaign.

In some campaigns, orcs are unredeemable evil humanoids. Even if you took an orc orphan in, and raised him in a good home, and gave him a pony, and fed him and loved him, he'd still stab you in the face when he felt like it. 

In this case, it's better to just kill them all because they will never do good.

In others, orcs have culture and can choose right from wrong. They can be depicted as noble savages or just meanderthal-like, primitive but not inherently wrong. 

In this case, it ultimately depends on the tribe and the individual orcs and what they're doing. 

It's important to let the players know which is which. Otherwise they try to negotiate with the irredeemable evil guys, or commence genocide on the misunderstood pigmen.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 26, 2007)

Count me as a guy whose very happy with the changes in alignment that have been hinted at. I expect to homerule that all creatures except for celestials and infernals (possibly folks with divine power) are unaligned. In all the years I've played D&D, alignment has been the one element of the game that has bothered me the most. In previous editions, it was so hardwired into the rules that it was hard to disregard. The ability to have unaligned characters in the core rules makes me *very* happy.


----------



## Voss (Dec 26, 2007)

xnrdcorex said:
			
		

> I disagree with everything the original poster thinks is bad.
> I happen to like all of those changes.
> I suppose that doesn't add much to this discussion, but I wanted to throw my vote in.
> 
> especially about alignments. I specifically DO want to argue the ethics of killing orcs. All my players do as well. It is intriguing, fresh, and more mature.




And you still can.  The lack (or presence) of the simplistic alignment system that has haunted d&d for decades doesn't preclude an ethical debate about killing orcs, though it arguably isn't intriguing or 'more mature'.  However, having been done to death, it certainly isn't fresh.

Of course, it isn't really fun until you max out the irony and kill someone else over it.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Dec 26, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Ok. I'd never heard of a cloud of blood-sucking vapour, but my point still stands: It's not fair to use a creature that should be immune to all damage as an example of something that should be immune to sneak attack damage.
> .




There IS such a beastie in 2nd ed! Crimson Death and Vampiric Mist, page 253/254 of the montser Manual (the latte rhardbackk book not the earlier compendium folder)


On other folk's points:

I find the tendency to have "Earth-like shades of grey morality", very bad. It's fine when it's applied to a *specfic* millieu, but too often it's just an excuse for _ammorality_, not actually actual good reasons, ie, Dark Sun, Thieves World, Cona's Hyboria, Modern d20 are fine for such things, but, it's nice ot have some sense of morality as a serious issue when you're going around slaughtering things...hm?

Give you an instance: 
some years ago, Dark Sun campaign, gladiator character, PC of a pal, was a total evil psycho, he slaughtered everyone in an inn to get _one _ NPC; poisoned it, set fire to it and hacke dup the survivors...I kept dropping hints of where that would end...but he was revelling in being a one man slaughter house...killing anything in his way...which made everyone hate/fear/run/attack him. Now that was fine it was HIS character if he wanted to play that way...but there are consequences. _D&D is story telling made formt he work of ALL parties, not just a war game_.

and when they left Dark SUn (long story, triggered by his slaughter at the inn)...and arrived in Sigil...his excessive carnage attracted attention....in the end, he took an offer of aid form an evil god...and thus...he became an NPC. I'd dropped hints that he was going to end up being carnage incarnate...and that's what occured, he became the god's avatar!

The player was PO'd and said the god had said he wouldn't take his character over...to which I pointed out, the god was a chaotic evil, lying, murdering, untrustworthy mass murderer, which even the other player had warned him of. Hoist by his own petard, sort of 

In my games, _morality and ethics have consequences_. It's *important*. At least, as long as you take D&D as a RPG with dice rolls, and characters and story. It had better not become "WOW" drivel. Sorry to WOW players   but much as I used ot love Everquest and DD&O, they are *nothing* like as good as an actual D&D PnP game, or even a good single player RPG like "Temple of Elemental Evil". MMORPG are not "MMORPG" because there's almost NO roleplaying, ever (from experience). Good tactics, godo fun, but not Roelplaying (much as I used ot love keeping taunts/shouts/silliness in RP style)

While alignment isn't a straight jacket, CHaotic Evil folk can keep their word, if they care about something for example. But if you thinka  drow is trustworthy, haha! Only as trustworthy as long you are useful to them unmolested. Isntea do fhaving to write that down in notes, just having "CE" makes it easy to get a rough guess of actions. Also, in settigns where alignment IS very important, it is essential. I admired Planescape, where morals and ethics, philosophies, were *crucial*.
That's ANOTHER thing that's annoying me!

14) NO MORE GREAT WHEEL.
The Great Wheel of the Planes has been removed for 4th ed? 
Bah, humbugs! says I. For "generic" campaign settings its great, easy way to link them too. Remove it and...well, WTH remove some of the traditions of D&D when they are iconic and work fine? *scratches head*.



Aye that's a good line: 







> Its just magic for people without imaginations




This is a FANTASY game. Ever seen an undead shambling around Glasgow? I sure ain't (well...maybe ) As an aside, I hate the "viruses cause zombie" rubbish. Humans die in 3 days without water including dumb virus infested ones...viruses cannot kill you quickly (unless you're splashed with large amount of pure viral culture and yer immune system does you in)..corpses cannot move viruses around (no blood moving), dead flesh the DNA etc breaks down rapidly so all you have is organic soup, virsues only work on living cells, etc. In other words, I *hate* the "Resident Evil" films, hehe. "The Omega Man", on the other hand is fun and logical.

_Things do not have to work like the rational world in fantasy!.  _If a rogue has a special dagger, he could sneak attack undead...etc, long as it has some logic to the *mythological supernatural world of the game*. 
-Example: Werewolves can just heal ordinary damage instanlty, but not silver: never seen THE HOWLING? 

Evil beings in European myth are often hurt by silver/cold iron (Werewolves were not D&D "lycanthropes", instead they were shape changing demons and thus hurt by cold iron, it got changed for Hollywood) I suspect the cold iron they meant way back was magnetic iron, iron when heated loses it's magnetism, hence COLD iron, unheated magnetic iron: lodestone. Magnetic Iron is "magical", it's powers "mysterious".
-Chinese myths had differing weaknesses for creatures, like rice and bamboo, iirc?

Rather than see those as annoying game mechanics, forcing players to carry a golf bag of weapons, ugh, it should be seen as part of the story, and used appropriately. IE, if Peter Cushing's Van Helsing didn't research the weaknesses of vampires, he'd be toast! Same thing for PCs  it makes the game *richer*.


----------



## Spinachcat (Dec 26, 2007)

*NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN * 
I am a mean bastard old school viking helm DM and I like temporary, but not permanent level drains.  I houseruled "healing" from level drain back in the early 80s. 

*NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN * 
I do not like "ability drain" that adds math to my game.  I like slapping a flat -X to totals.   
The SWSE condition track could be well modified to make poisons / ability drain effects to be quite scary to players and evocative of the monster's abilities.   Whatever they do, I hope it is easy and quick to use at the table. 

Simpler/easier DOES = "better" at my game table

*NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS *
I have not heard any 100% confirmed reports that Law and Chaos are gone.   That would be a shame.  I am a big fan of alignment and I have ENOUGH other RPGs where morality is gray. 

*SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING * 
I am uncool on the Rogue = UberWarrior and Fighter = Damage Soak Schmuck that seems to be the design decision for 4e.  I am okay with the rogue who can sneak attack most anything because he is the master of weapon targeting and weak spots.   I am cool with zombies taking sneak attacks as the rogue slashes the part of the zombie that is most rotten or least holding together. 

However, I expect that incorporeal creatures / amorphous blobs will be immune when we see the actual 4e books. 

*FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION *
I am holding my breath on this one, but I sincerely hope that 4e is DM centered and gives us the tools to run the game with minimal time wasted on game mechanics.   The unnecessary time and trouble of running 3.X drove me away from the game as a DM. 

*NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS * 
I like running Diablo style games with LOTS of disposable magic items and very cool signature items that show up in the campaign.   I do not like +X items because they are bland. 

*NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING * 
Vancian casting is good, fun and easy.   I have played many spell-point RPGs and those systems are NOT perfect and require extra pip tracking.   I suspect many people who cry against the Vancian system have little experience with playing wizards in other RPGs.   I am very glad that 4e is not going spell-point and I am intrigued to see how the at-will / encounter / day combo works in actual play. 

 *NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS and FOCUS ITEMS* 
I am confused by no more spell schools.  I wonder what style grouping they will do instead.  The spell focus items sounds fine - we have been doing that in Tunnels & Trolls and RuneQuest for 30 years now and its kewl beans.  

*SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP *
The D20 skill system was a mess.  You spent your whole career trying to roll over 10.  The strongest base human (STR 18) got a +4 bonus to roll his STR checks.  Is Conan only 20% stronger than an average man?   Castles & Crusades did a great job with the Siege Engine and SWSE looks like it did a decent job, but neither game fixes the D20 problem that your ability scores are not reflective of actual ability. 

I run OD&D and your badass STR 16 Fighter rolls a D20 under his STR to kick in doors which means unless I throw some modifiers, that door is gonna splinter 80% of the time.  In D20, that same Fighter is a weenie who has to get lucky to open a stuck door.  

 *BASIC RACES CHANGES *
It is obvious that 4e D&D is trying to brand itself as a non-generic product.  Palladium Fantasy and Tunnels & Trolls have had playable monster races for 25+ years.  They only add to the fun.   And Gnomes will be in the MM as a playable race. 

For those of us who have home setting that will differ from the default PoL, this just means we have some extra work ahead of us.  I am kewl with that because newbies will benefit from a default setting.   As always, I hand out my own docs to players about chargen so their characters fit my game world.  

BTW "exotic races" only refers to the uncommon races in your game world.  You get to determine what is uncommon.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That's a bug, not a feature. One class shouldn't be able to do everything.






> You don't know that. An article talked about siloing abilities such as phantom steed, making them available in addition to damage dealing, which indicates some utility will be still be there. We also know that wizards still have battlefield control, moving opponents around.




Yeah. From what I've gathered, the wizard flavor will be one of blasting, yes (but that's been a wizard staple from the very beginning), but also of pushing people around, creating walls of fire or seeping mires, and possibly turning them into stone.

The more focused wizard means that we're probably going to get more focused illusionists, enchanters and necromancers, which is a major bonus in my opinion. Using the current core RAW, the non-specialized wizard is no worse at necromancy as the necromancer, and has a greater breadth of possibilities, because of no excluded schools!


----------



## Mirtek (Dec 26, 2007)

My point of view:

*Good:*
The new per Encounter / at will / per day System for everyone
Obviously more movement during combats
More combatants
More important terrains
The system being designed and balanced with a levelcap in mind

*Bad*
The fluff changes to many monsters
The impact of the PoL philosophy on the etablished campaign settings
The gamist approach without consideration if such a world is believebale while maintaining supsension of disbelief


Long story short: I like all the mechanical changes but dislike all the non-mechanical changes


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 26, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Its as up until now NO ONE played the game for the joy of the game. All those terrible, boring "dead levels" and no power-ups ever other level. How on earth did anyone manage to keep themselves interested in playing D&D? Ah ha, I have it. The players I knew loved role-playing gaming and loved playing their characters as part of an unfolding drama that they helped create. The fun was the joy of the game for the sake of the game. Everyone wanted a kickass character to be sure, but kickass meant more than just an assortment of whup-ass powers, kick ass meant a character who was tough, no doubt, but one that was memorable for what he or she accomplished in the context of the campaign.



Why do we need airbags in car? We drived decades without them, and I was always fine! I didn't feel unsafe when driving just because I didn't have it. 

Why do we need TV? Centuries and millenia people lived without it - And they were able to enjoy themselves fine without it! 

Just because things worked well doesn't mean they can't be improved on. Just because a lot of people were fine with something doesn't mean things shouldn't be improved for the benefits of others.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 26, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> I'm relatively pro-4e but there are some things that seem too gamist to me. For 24yrs I have been involved in either playing (rarely) or DMing D&D from OD&D to 3.5e and have never seen a player have a problem when their character wasn't particularly effective against a certain kind of monster.
> 
> A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem. A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem.
> 
> ...




Yup. This more or less sums it up for me.

Unfortunately, I will not be DMing our first 4E campaign. Or, at least that is what I told everyone. But, I might just have to create a 3.75 and DM after all.


The fact that all PCs are getting "powers" in 4E might just make it too much over the top (or video gamey) for me.

As an example in Complete Warrior, there is a Tactical Feat called Elusive Target. In it, there is a benefit called Diverting Defense.

This benefit allows the user of the feat to have one flanking attacker potentially hit an opposing flanking attacker.

According to the normal rules, the first flanking attacker cannot even reach the second flanking attacker, but he can somehow attack him, even though he cannot reach him.

It becomes more nonsensical if the user of the feat is Large, Huge, etc.


This type of "cool power" for the sake of being a cool power blows away my sense of logical consistency. It goes way beyond simple verisimilitude. Adding to the rules is fine, breaking them for a cool power is bogus.

I have found quite a few of these types of jarring problems in many of the PHB II and Book of Nine Swords abilities. I suspect that I will find many more in 4E.

Cool for the sake of cool and regardless of the other rules is for video games, not FRPGs. IMO. But, I understand that WotC is going to put in cool for the sake of cool, just to continue sales.

It's a damn shame that they did not have at least a few designers on the team specifically put there to throttle down the "cool trumps tradition and cool trumps logic every time" type of mentality.


The idea of every PC getting powers is fine within certain logical boundaries. The implementation, I suspect, will not be fine because from what I have seen in recent books, the designers really don't seem to care what they do as long as it is cool and/or powerful.

I too wonder when the game became "unfun" enough to throw out the baby with the bath water.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I was responding in sarcasm to Imaro.
> 
> Imaro asked "I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm?"
> 
> ...




Actually the lore and legends are about staking a vampire through the heart with a wooden stake.  It's a specific mystical weakness and I already stated I could get behind those.  It's when any average joe can stab a vampire "in the heart" with a butterknife and score a critical for more damage that I find it well, not to my tastes.  No vampire lore supports that.

All of the examples you gave are specific weaknesses...how do you not see the difference between that and a monster being affected in a detrimental way by any smuck who can roll a 20? or sneak up behind him and stab him in one of those non-working organs to cause more damage.  I would actually put more stock in this approach if the undead in D&D were the virus made me into it, not really undead but feral humans we've seen become so popular lately.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 26, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> I'm relatively pro-4e but there are some things that seem too gamist to me.




Same here.



> A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem.




Nope. I can beat one at mid-level. By myself. Provided, of course, that by "beat" you mean "bypass". The thing has an Int of 0, so I don't see it as a monster, but as an obstacle. Glitterdust is low level and gives you plenty of time to bypass one. If you can cast it two or three times you can blind it again on the way out of the dungeon/castle/whatever.



> A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem.




Less effective. 



			
				Silverblade the Ench said:
			
		

> In my games, morality and ethics have consequences. It's important.




However, this has nothing to do with alignment. The character was acting badly, and so he was punished. This is not a surprise. He could have done the same thing if there were alignment in the game. (Even if he stated he was good, the DM tells him after a while that his alignment is changing.)


----------



## Silvergriffon (Dec 26, 2007)

Here's my opinions on these things (in red). Looking at this list has made me realize that there are a lot of changes I am looking forward to.


			
				Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> *NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN * Good.
> *NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN * Good.
> *NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS * Good.
> *SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING * Leaning towards good. But I may require players to explain how they are getting the extra damage in some cases.
> ...


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> It depends on the creatures. Zombies being vulnerable in the head is a pop culture staple. Stabbing a skeleton in the internal organs won't work, but severing the spine would be an appropriate use of sneak attack.




See and IMHO, the undead in D&D wouldn't be affected by this.  There has never been a precedent for D&D zombies going the whole destroying my head stops me thing.  But, I will readily admit, this is a purely aesthetic thing and I don't feel there is a right or wrong answer.  As a compromise I would still like ot see some of the more powerful undead with immunity to criticals and sneak attacks.


----------



## Odysseus (Dec 26, 2007)

I'd agree with all of Spinachcat reply. 
The only area that also bothers me is the racial changes for the forgotten realms, and how they will be handled. I'm certainly not keen on the changes they've made to races being applied to the realms. And I can't see them reversing the changes for the FRCS, so are they going to do something different?


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 26, 2007)

> *NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN * Losing levels sucks and is a bookkeeping chore. Good
> *NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN * Simpler. Better. Good
> *NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS * Loooong overdue. +Good
> *SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING * Good.
> ...




I don't have a homebrew to protect, nor am I attached to D&D 'canon'---so the fluff changes are totally fine with me.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 26, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Actually the lore and legends are about staking a vampire through the heart with a wooden stake.  It's a specific mystical weakness and I already stated I could get behind those.  It's when any average joe can stab a vampire "in the heart" with a butterknife and score a critical for more damage that I find it well, not to my tastes.  No vampire lore supports that.




Aaactually... Van Helsing and Harker off Dracula with a Bowie Knife to the heart (after cutting his throat, which also seems to have been a telling blow), in Bram Stokers' novel.

So I'd say there's some lore behind the point being weak. I know the sources you're referencing with the stake thing, but there's so much conflicting vampire lore that I'd say that's just one take on the vampire's weakness, and not the canonical one in D&D: how many of those vampires get bat form? Mist form? Wolf-o-kinesis? Hypnosis eyes? Spiderclimb? _Level-draining fists_?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Aaactually... Van Helsing and Harker off Dracula with a Bowie Knife to the heart (after cutting his throat, which also seems to have been a telling blow), in Bram Stokers' novel.
> 
> So I'd say there's some lore behind the point being weak. I know the sources you're referencing with the stake thing, but there's so much conflicting vampire lore that I'd say that's just one take on the vampire's weakness, and not the canonical one in D&D: how many of those vampires get bat form? Mist form? Wolf-o-kinesis? Hypnosis eyes? Spiderclimb? _Level-draining fists_?




See, you know what I'd like to see...A way to customize undead so that yes they have a weakness, but it's not just to a general attack and not the same one for each.  Something like White Wolf Antagonist book.  Anyway, like I said earlier it is purely an asthetic thing and not something I will argue or try to convince others to my viewpoint about.  For me general criticals and normal sneak attacks affecting the undead in general just don't feel right.  But to each his own.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 26, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem. A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem.
> 
> ....
> 
> This is the kind of stuff about 4e that bothers me. Everyone has to be equally effective most all the time in a combat situation. With all the "unfun" going around I am surprised that anyone played D&D at all for all the years between OD&D and 3e.




If there is a single potential "feature" of 4E that would cause me to drop it in a heartbeat, this would be it.

Yes, everyone should have something to do, most of the time.  No, they should not always have something equally effective to do.  And, yes, there should be a few situations in which a given class will be totally out of their element and act as cheerleaders, look-outs, meat-shields, or just crazy desperate while one or two people get to have dedicated "hero-time".

The goal should be to have every class equally important over the course of a campaign or adventure.  It should not be similar results with interchangeable methods.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 26, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> See, you know what I'd like to see...A way to customize undead so that yes they have a weakness, but it's not just to a general attack and not the same one for each.  Something like White Wolf Antagonist book.  Anyway, like I said earlier it is purely an asthetic thing and not something I will argue or try to convince others to my viewpoint about.  For me general criticals and normal sneak attacks affecting the undead in general just don't feel right.  But to each his own.




I don't think it's just undead that could benefit from something like that


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 26, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> It should not be similar results with interchangeable methods.



The question is, does "full sneak attack, all the time" really mean getting similar results with interchangeable methods? 

We know there are 4 roles - Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker. 
I think between the different Controllers, the different Defenders and so on, the methods might risk becoming a bit interchangeable. 

But a Controller will never be interchangeable with a Striker. The controller shapes the battlefield, the striker takes down individual foes. That's a big difference, and the only similarity in end result is that, hopefully, at the end of the encounter, the only ones still standing are the player characters (and any opponent turned to stone/glass, paralyzed or pinned with arrows or a spear to a wall )

But I really doubt that a short-range teleporting Warlock throwing curses and eldritch blasts around will ever feel interchangeable to a Rogue. Even if "tumbling similar to teleporting" and "eldritch blast similar to sneak attack".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 26, 2007)

*NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN *   (Good)


*NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN * (Good)

*NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS * (Mark in the about time column)

*SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING * (Good)

*FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION * (Bad)


*NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS * (Depends on setting)


*NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING * (Good)

 *NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS I*TEMS (Need more info)

*SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP * (Need more info)


 *BASIC RACES CHANGES * (bad)
Not bad in that I think Dragonborn and Tielfling are the essence of evil but I think that the core book could actually use fewer races and build more examples of role playing, combat, character building advice, etc... as opposed to having different flavors of elf, etc...

Forgotten Realms Timeline Advance (Bad)

Forgotten Realms Novels still cannon (Bad)

Racial Pantheons getting the boot (Bad)

No introductory cost on the core books (Bad)

Core price increase  on all books with all books being same price without being same page length (Bad)

Playtested less then previous edition (Bad)

Elimination of Prestige Classes (Depends on if they're actually gone or just renamed into the new paths)

Effort to actually balance feats (Good)
Never understood Monte's take on rewarding players who don't take sucky feats, especially as some of those sucky feats were built into requisities for PrCs latter on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2007)

> *  1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN  (sort of?) (Good)*



Bad.


> *2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN (Bad?)*



Bad.


> *3. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS (Bad)*



Bad.


> *4. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING (unsure)*



Bad unless it requires being very skilled or taking particular Feats (or the equivalent)


> *5. FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION (Good)*



Probably good.


> *6. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS (GOOD)*



Neutral.


> *7. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING (Good)*



Bad.  Vancian casting is one of the things that makes D&D stand out from the pack of other FRPGs, and makes you think a particular way.


> *8. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS ITEMS (Unsure)*



Bad on the spell schools.  Specialized mages are really, really cool.

Focus Items are potentially quite good- I use a lot of them in my HERO system spellcasters.


> *9. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP (Good?)*



Wait and see.


> *10. BASIC RACES CHANGES (bad)*



Some bad, some good.  I hate that they took some races out, but don't really mind them adding a couple.  I do, however, have an issue with the imbalance (we get tieflings but not aasimar) and choices.  Dragonborn could be quite cool- I like what I've heard _so far_...but Warforged have really earned a place in the front row, IMHO.

And to be honest, I'm all in favor of "exotic races."  I played Drow PCs soon after the race was introduced (IOW, well before a certain novel character made his debut), and have had great fun playing oucast Minotaurs and the like.  Did my PCs get "hunted" like Frankenstein's Monster or the Incredible Hulk?  Sometimes...and when they were able to redeem themselves in the eyes of this or that community, it was all the sweeter.



> *11. The wizard as boom-mage (excreable)*



Very bad if true.


> *12. Removal of Save-or-dies (mixed bag)*



Neutral- I think they have a place, but the mechanics may need work.

And for my $0.02, I'll add:
*13. Removal of certain base classes from the PHB in favor of newer base classes.*

Possibly Bad.

If they're anything like the 3.X versions, I must say I haven't seen much of the newer base classes that I liked.


----------



## Jhulae (Dec 26, 2007)

Spinachcat said:
			
		

> *NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING *
> Vancian casting is good, fun and easy.   I have played many spell-point RPGs and those systems are NOT perfect and require extra pip tracking.   I suspect many people who cry against the Vancian system have little experience with playing wizards in other RPGs.   I am very glad that 4e is not going spell-point and I am intrigued to see how the at-will / encounter / day combo works in actual play.




Vancian Casting is annoying and I'm glad to see it gone.  

Oh, and for the record, I've played 'wizards' in Earthdawn, M:TA, GURPS, Arcana Evolved, True20, WFRP, Ars Magica, Conan, Iron Heroes, Secret of Zir'An, Mutants and Masterminds, and probably a couple other systems that escape my mind at the moment.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2007)

Since we're laying it all on the table, for the record, I've played "wizards" in:

Each edition of D&D
True 20/Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved/Iron Heroes/Midnight (and other D20 FRPG variants)
Northern Crown
5 editions of HERO
2 editions of Stormbringer
RIFTS/Palladium RPG/Heroes Unlimited
Star Wars (Jedi, of course)
Ars Magica 4th
Earthdawn
TORG
Everway
Mage: The Ascencion
Mutants & Masterminds
GURPS 2Ed & 3Ed
Melee/Wizard/In the Labyrinth series of games
Talisantha
Harn
Shadowrun
Deadlands
D20 Modern/Urban Arcana
A.C.E. (playtest, never released)

as well as in some games I no longer own.

Like I said- _for me_ at least, Vancian magic helps D&D stand out from the other games.


----------



## Jhulae (Dec 26, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Since we're laying it all on the table, for the record, I've played "wizards" in:
> 
> <long list>
> 
> ...




Ohh, I can't believe I forgot Shadowrun and Deadlands...  And I had Talaslanta and Torg too, but we never played them.  I made characters for them though.

And, while my post wasn't directed toward you, Danny, (since spinachcat was the one claiming those who didn't like it hadn't played mages elsewhere), I'll agree that Vancian Magic makes D&D stand out to me too - but in an annoying way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2007)

Oh, I didn't think it was a dig or anything!  

I understand you were trying to give a perspective to your view.  Its one thing to say that you like or dislike the Vancian system, its quite another to say so with only 1 or 2 different systems to your rep as compared to 10 or more.

It also illustrates what kind of experience you've had.  For instance, even though I've played a number of "wizards" in the various Palladium games, I don't find it particularly pleasant.  Ditto GURPS.  OTOH, I'd rather play almost anything in M&M or HERO than just about any other system.

Its quite clear that both of us have a fair amount of experience and have drawn different opinions- both equally valid.

For me, the Vancian system is about strategic resource management- your components, your intellectual capacity, what spells you add to your repetoir.  It reminds me of real-world academics.

Unless built specifically to mimic that kind of structure, wizards in most other games are incredibly flexible...sometimes to the point of seeming to be "supermen."  Sometimes to the detriment of the fun of others.


----------



## Jhulae (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Oh, I didn't think it was a dig or anything!
> 
> I understand you were trying to give a perspective to your view.  Its one thing to say that you like or dislike the Vancian system, its quite another to say so with only 1 or 2 different systems to your rep as compared to 10 or more.
> 
> ...




I can see your point.  But, even with resource management such as Vancian, high level wizards (and clerics/druids) still seem to be supermen (and women) of the D&D universe.

I think my favorite system for mages was Earthdawn out of all the list.  A mage had a bunch of spells, but only a few 'online' at any given time.  If one of the 'offline' spells would do better in a current encounter, the mage could either try to shift spells (requiring time), or cast them anyway and possibly draw the attention of Really Nasty (tm) stuff..

And thanks for bringing up Palladium..   I'd been trying to purge that from my mind for years now.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 27, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The question is, does "full sneak attack, all the time" really mean getting similar results with interchangeable methods?




That is the $64,000 question.  There's a range that has "only a fighter can handle a combat" at one end and "a fighter attacks once each round with a sword that does 1d8+str damage and a mage attacks once each round with a spell-like ability that does 1d8+int damage" (for even more apples to apples, make it a ranger and a mage) at the other.

Either extreme is bad.  Somewhere in the middle is going to be a balance that is most fun for most people.  I don't know where that balance is.  I was just saying that I really, really hope WotC doesn't try to push 4E too far to the 1d8+stat end.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2007)

> high level wizards (and clerics/druids) still seem to be supermen (and women) of the D&D universe.




True...but they seem to get to that point faster in so many other systems.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Dec 27, 2007)

NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN  - Great. Always hated it. Too much bookkeeping for too little effect.
 NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Good. See Item 1
 NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - About friggin' time. Alignment is one of the most miss-used and ranted-on parts of D&D, and its effect on mechanics has always been a questionable leap for me.
 SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Note that "anything" is something we don't know to be true yet. But I like the idea of Rogues being able to do their thing against undead and constructs - just not all and every one of them
 FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION - Great. DM'ing is hectic enough with story planning and everything, being able to more quickly throw in encounters is a good thing. Any NPC's that need fleshing out, you can flesh out.
 NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - If done well, tremendous. The Christmas Tree is a D&D'ism I can certainly do without
 NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - *Cheers* I was a big fan of the Sorcerer in 3rd Edition, and I can only cheer this on. Low level mages having two spells worth their while and having to go through multiple encounters per day was one of my big grievances with D&D, and this is another step in the right direction.
 NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS / FOCUS ITEMS - I'm holding off till we hear more about the implementation of the implements (yeah, lame, I know), but from what I hear, this is good. Specialist wizards always were two things: weak, and not much of a specialist at all.
 SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - From what we've heard, sounds good. It's never made much sense to me that someone who could jump 6 feet up in the air (so to speak), and climb the Mount Everest with ease (so to speak), still would sink to the bottom of a lake because he didn't take swim. Too many skills -> sillyness.
 BASIC RACES CHANGES - *shrugs* The half-orc gave some roleplaying potential, but in my experience - and without some serious homebrewing - gnomes never served except for comic characters, which don't seem to fit the new setting. Also, Tieflings and Dragonborn have potential.
 Racial Pantheons getting the boot - Good. You can implement this in a manner of your choosing (reinstate a few old ones and use them as aspects, or some such), but racist gods never made much sense to me. 
 Playtested less then previous edition - *Boing* That's the sound of a jump to conclusions.
 Elimination of Prestige Classes - The Paths mechanic _looks_ to be a potentially better implementation of this, but that remains to be seen. I'm hopeful, really; can't get much worse than the potential for munchkinism present in PRC's.
 Effort to actually balance feats - Good. Feats should remain meaningful, but in 3.x feats could be ranked from "way too good" all the way down to "not even if I got it for free".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2007)

I have to ask:

To those who vigorously welcome more than half the changes 4Ed seems to be ushering in...

Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?


----------



## Warbringer (Dec 27, 2007)

what don't people like about the Vancian system, btw...

- only recovery options after 8 hours of sleep
- too much mechanic importance on school, and not enough on things like description (fire, death etc)
- spell levels not in step with class levels

in fact what do you like?

- built spells
- idea of spellbooks (extended to runestones, prayer beads etc)
- Wizards suffer penalty for wearing armor (but dislike spell resistance)
- no explict magical progression
- bad stacking mechanic for different knowledge of magic


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> To those who vigorously welcome more than half the changes 4Ed seems to be ushering in...
> 
> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?



Hard as hell to find players period, much less find ones that know systems beyond D&D. I'm envious of the people who have managed to play all those systems! 

Almost all gamers are familiar with some iteration of D&D. 

Of the Fantasy RPGs that I know, most are either _too_ complex (HERO) or _Too Simplistic and gritty_ (GURPS). D&D operates as a nice medium.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I have to ask:
> 
> To those who vigorously welcome more than half the changes 4Ed seems to be ushering in...
> 
> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?




Because they're not D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2007)

> - spell levels not in step with class levels




I had heard that spell levels will track with class levels in 4Ed...THAT is one of the best things I've heard about it.  It is one of the things that has always bogged down the understanding of players new to the game...much like the Str stat's unique progression pre-3.X.

IOW, the genius of simplicity rears its pretty head once again!



> Because they're not D&D.




Because its the internet and I can't judge your body language...

One could easily argue that the number and character of the changes will make 4Ed D&D in name only, so that's not a real response.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

I'll point out that the Per-Day, Per Encounter and At Will is still somewhat Vancian. It's not spell points, it's not spell pools, it's still 'Slots used'.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 27, 2007)

I noticed that most of the arguments in support of keeping _ethical_ alignments dealt with _moral_ quandaries.  Since we know the latter are still in the game, I don't think you guys need to be worrying.  Also, we don't know that ethical alignments are gone, but it does seem that way.

As for ability drains and level drains, not only were they annoying on a bookkeeping level, but the latter could cause major balance problems.  The easiest way to drop a fighter in 3E was to drain his or her mental abilities, and the easiest way to drop a wizard was to drain his or her mental abilities.  I saw this as being sort of counter intuitive.  It does make a lot of sense, but I always saw the ability damage attacks and spells as ways to weaken your opponents' effectiveness, not drop them entirely; that's what HP damage was for.  And for poisons, I think slowly ticking away a player's hit points will scare him or her just as much as damaging one of his or her ability scores.

I think rogues being able to sneak attack [everything?] leaves a lot less logical inconsistency than the current system where they are unable to sneak attack large swaths of monsters, many of which with obvious weak points.  Also, remember that HP are definitely an abstract in 4E; there is no discussion over it as there was in previous editions.  Because of this, it becomes much more easy to see how a rogue can sneak attack a whole larger variety of targets.

As for the races and class changes, I can see why people get upset about it because of flavor.  It is a change in "core" D&D flavor.  On the other hand, the logic that it wouldn't be "realistic" to have these races able to move freely about the world is a little weak.  For one thing, the obvious assumption is that these are known and fairly common races, so they're not going to strike the average fantasy townsfolk as a horrible monster.  Also, if we're going to take real world country bumpkins as the measuring stick for our fantasy country bumpkins, shouldn't they hate anything not of the same race as them.  I mean if skin color can cause such ire, shouldn't differently shaped ears, very different proportions, and a tendency to have either a whole hell of a lot of facial hair or absolutely none at all logically end up with someone saying, "Jethro, get a rope"?  

And while the core assumptions include a distinct change in flavor, I don't believe you have to change your own flavor to match if you want to still include Dragonborn or Tieflings or whatever.  What I mean is that you can keep these races as rare, mysterious and potentially hated by common folk of the world.  Drizzt and Viconia from the BG games are good illustrations of how this can be done.  (I know, I'm sorry I'm using frikking Drow as examples of how to include "evil" races.  I'm even less creative than the 4E designers.   )  Drizzt earns his way in the world with his actions.  Because he has proven, time and time again, that he is definitely not evil, he is now welcomed throughout the North and in a number of other locales.  Viconia, on the other hand is through and through evil (and a total b*tch; talk about "kiss me; diss me"), but she finds herself able to travel relatively freely on the surface when she's in the party because she's either adventuring with a group of heroes or a group of people to frikking BA for Joe Dalesman to mess with.  Both of these characters come from an uncommon or downright rare race on the surface, but they're uncommon people; they're adventurers!

For the most part, I agree with everything else in the OP.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I have to ask:
> 
> To those who vigorously welcome more than half the changes 4Ed seems to be ushering in...
> 
> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?




1) You have to be introduced to and learn the system.

2) You have to be able to find other gamers. It's hard enough to find DnD gamers, even harder to find people who want to play something else. Note that this also makes #1 quite difficult.



			
				PeterWeller said:
			
		

> I noticed that most of the arguments in support of keeping ethical alignments dealt with moral quandaries. Since we know the latter are still in the game, I don't think you guys need to be worrying. Also, we don't know that ethical alignments are gone, but it does seem that way.




I've found explanations for law vs chaos to always be weaker than good vs evil. Maybe WotC figured they couldn't come up with good explanations for the ethical side and dropped it. I, for one, am tired of "I can't do this because I'm lawful" or "crazy chaotic PC".


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 27, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> 1)
> I've found explanations for law vs chaos to always be weaker than good vs evil. Maybe WotC figured they couldn't come up with good explanations for the ethical side and dropped it. I, for one, am tired of "I can't do this because I'm lawful" or "crazy chaotic PC".




It doesn't help that the ethical spectrum has always felt secondary to the moral one.  For example, Paladins have been discouraged from adventuring with evil characters (when not downright disallowed) but not chaotic ones.



> I have to ask:
> 
> To those who vigorously welcome more than half the changes 4Ed seems to be ushering in...
> 
> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?




I still liked D&D more than other systems I tried.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 27, 2007)

Lord Ernie said:
			
		

> Playtested less then previous edition - *Boing* That's the sound of a jump to conclusions.\




"And as regards the comparison between the amount of playtesting that went on with the 3E launch and the amount for 4E:

OK yes when you say External playtesting 3e likely got more external testing. The jump from 2nd to 3e was massive. This jump is big but not that big."

I based that statement off the 'cover' newspage.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?



Because they also have lots of features I'm not looking for, like dice pools and pointless complexity. And don't have things I do want, like character classes, levels and detailed tactically interesting combat.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Dec 27, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I've found explanations for law vs chaos to always be weaker than good vs evil. Maybe WotC figured they couldn't come up with good explanations for the ethical side and dropped it.




I've read somewhere something like "Most Paladins are lawful or good (or both)..."


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Because its the internet and I can't judge your body language...
> 
> One could easily argue that the number and character of the changes will make 4Ed D&D in name only, so that's not a real response.




One COULD argue that, yes.  We could argue a lot of things, but that's all we'd do...argue.    

D&D changed drastically from 1E to 3E, did that make it D&D in "name only"? 

BTW, stating that I don't play other systems because they're not D&D IS a real response.  If you don't find it to be the most well thought out or well supported response...  

::shrugs::

(did that help with my body language?)


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 27, 2007)

Thanks to previous posters for generating the lists:

 NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Bad.  I'm another old-time viking-helmed RBDM whose players had better expect bad things to happen to their characters, 'cause they will; and levels are fair game.
 NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Good.  Oddly enough, given what I've just said, temporary ability drain (or enhancement) generates more paperwork headaches than it's worth.
 NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Bad.  It's a dice-based game and random chance is sometimes a biznitch, for both good and bad.
 NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Leaning toward bad.  I don't mind the idea of an "unaligned" alignment, but I see vast potential for abuse.  The DM should just assign the alignment based on the character's actions.
 SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Leaning toward bad.  Sometimes, Rogues (and all characters, for that matter) just gotta suck it up and admit they can't help out very much in a given situation.
 FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Jury's out.  Verdict comes in once we see how much realism gets sacrificed on the altar of efficiency, and how efficient it all really turns out to be.
 FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Very Good. (as long as I'm allowed to pretend point-buy does not exist...)
 NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good.  That said, I don't mind PCs finding lots of magic provided it is both risky to use and fragile...easy come, easy go.
 NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Jury's out.  I'm very dubious about per-encounter abilities in general, but I despise spell pre-memorization, so let's see what they come up with.
 NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Good.  Excellent if Illusionist and Necromancer get their own base classes.
 FOCUS ITEMS - Jury's out.  Verdict comes in once we see how they work.
 SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Leaning toward good.  The simpler, the better; rating becomes excellent if "skills" (gather info, intimidate, etc.) that replace role-play are toned down or eliminated as well.
 BASIC RACES CHANGES - Leaning toward bad.  Gnomes I can take or leave, and I'm neutral to the elf changes; but dragonborn and tieflings as base races are a big step in a non-traditional direction I'm not sure the game wants to go.  D+D has become a game of tradition; if one tires of the traditions there are many other games out there one can try, safe in knowledge that traditional D+D will always be there.
 RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Very Bad.  The races' cultures are largely defined by their pantheons.  I'd rather see racial pantheons expanded...surely Humans aren't the only race with more than one pantheon.  While we're at it, I'd also prefer to see more reference to real-world pantheons e.g. Greek, Roman, Norse, in the game
 ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Very Good.  They had gotten completely out of hand in 3e.  There needs only to be a section in the DMG instructing DMs how to design their own PrC's as an optional extra, and let people do their own thing to suit their game.
 EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Jury's out.  Verdict comes in once we see if they really are balanced (and balance can be overdone).  I also hope we see fewer feats overall; they, like prestige classes, just got out of hand in 3e.
 PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Jury's out.  Verdict comes in once we see how they work and-or whether they really mean anything at all.
 POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good.  It trends toward a grittier game.
 LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Bad.  And I said the same thing about 3e.  See above re: tradition. 

Lanefan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2007)

> BTW, stating that I don't play other systems because they're not D&D IS a real response. If you don't find it to be the most well thought out or well supported response...




It seems a bit of a cop-out to me.

There must be _something _within the game's mechanics, fluff, or players community that attract you beyond the name on the cover.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 27, 2007)

D&D's popularity is largely because of the community, the relative simplicity and honesty of the mechanics (WW has like twenty different words for "character class"), the ease of homebrewing, and the sheer mindshare of it.

Good or bad, if you say "Dungeons and Dragons" people at least have some idea of what you're talking about, considering that, between D&D and LotR, entire careers have been made, all around the world.  D&D is a large part of human culture.  It's not very -important- on the world scale, but it's part of history.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 27, 2007)

POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good. It trends toward a grittier game.

I'd just like to point out, as others have pointed out to me when I was wondering why Dragonborn and Tielflings wouldn't be shot on sight in a 'POL/Gritty game' that high fantasy games like Final Fantasy VII could be considered Points of Light.

POL is so vaguely defined that it can apply to pretty much anything.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?



D&D is just one of the many RPGs I play.

I'll admit that single game is perfect, but I think 3.5 has more than it's share of kludgy little rules and irritating design artifacts. So although I still enjoy playing, I definitely see the warts. 

4e is bringing D&D more in line with my personal tastes. 

Therefore, I _should _enjoy playing 4e more than 3.5


----------



## Midknightsun (Dec 27, 2007)

NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good.  I always thought it was metagamey in the extreme, and a real PITA to deal with anyway.

NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Neutral- I really didn't mind ability damage, but I'll hold off and see what they plan to do in its place. 

NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good- nothing sucks more than one bad roll taking you from kicking to kicked-the-bucket.  

NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Neutral- dependent- I always thought the alignment system was a litte too abstract anyway, and subject to far too many arguments.

SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Leaning Towards Good- that said, I'm not sure if it would apply to absolutely anything.  While i can see the argument for SA some undead and constructs, I have a hard time with incorporeal creatures or oozes being Sneak Attacked

FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good- if they can deliver

FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Very Good- One of my big gripes about 3.5 was the NPC prep time.

NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - About Time- I am pretty sick of the magic item trade that has taken over the game, and PC's reliance on soooo many items, plus the tragedy of having most players rather have their characters die than lose an item. 

NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Neutral/Leaning Toward Good.  I'm liking what I'm hearing about 4e's magic system

NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Neutral- waiting to see the results

FOCUS ITEMS - Neutral- Not enough info to go on really

SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Good-  I always thought there were many skills that were unnecessary, or that could be combined with other skills.

BASIC RACES CHANGES - Neutral- I had no love or hate for the gnome.  I actually like the idea of Dragonborn (remind me of Dracha from Arcana Evolved), and Tieflings have been around since 2e.

RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Good- I'd rather not have the clutter of gods needed to address each specific race's needs anyway. 

ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Good- It was an interesting idea, but poorly executed and so easily abused.  I only hope the alternative is better.

EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good- if they manage to do so

PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Neutral- Stuff that's been unofficially used for years anyway.

POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good- I like the feel of those kinds of settings myself 

LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Neutral- not really concerned.  If I wanted to play an older version of D&D, I'll play that version.


----------



## Toryx (Dec 27, 2007)

My own thoughts based on what we've heard:

NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good. I don't mind bad things happening to characters, and I don't mind scary things, but this always struck me as too big a punishment. 3.5 made it less so, but still...it doesn't contribute to the fun of the game for me.

NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Mixed. It sucks to have that happen, and the record keeping is a pain, but on the other hand, this seems to succeed in giving the characters a real source of terror without being as heavy on the punishment as level draining. It seemed like a good compromise. I won't miss it though.

NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good. I hate spending a lot of time putting together a character and exploring it's development only to have it all end with one bad roll. When it happens in the beginning of a massive climatic battle it's not at all fun.

NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Skeptical/ Bad. I don't think they're getting rid of ethical alignments. Personally, I'd rather they dropped alignments as a mechanic altogether and just offer a paragraph or two or roleplay suggestions. Having an alignment mechanic at all, even a dumbed down one doesn't appeal to me at all. I'll either have to choose my DM more carefully than usual or dump it altogether.

SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Mixed. To me, it really depends on how the sneak attack mechanic works. I've never liked Sneak Attack in the past and I'm hopeful they made some changes to 4th ed. but I don't really know enough at this point to have a strong opinion.

FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good. There's nothing wrong with making game play faster and more involving for all the players as well as the DM. 

FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good, if true. I believe that the NPC and Monster set-up times are improved...and that's great. PC creation, I am doubtful about. It'd be good if it were easier...the one thing I disliked most about the skill system in 3.5 is how complicated it is to create characters at higher levels.

NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Best News Yet! Alas, I think they're going to weasel out on this one. If they drop the excessive amounts of Magic Items and especially the reliance on magic items to survive, I will be overjoyed. From little bits of offline rumors and hints in Insider articles, however, I think they've chickened out and backed away. Which means for me that if they don't lessen the reliance on magic items, that'll be the thing I dislike the most about the new system. I can hardly tolerate it with 3.5 now.

NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good. I'm so tired of the vancian system it's not even funny. I'm not sure the power system is a good replacement, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Neutral. I don't know enough about the new system to have any opinion here.

FOCUS ITEMS - Neutral- As per above. Not enough information.

SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Mixed. I like simplifying the skills so that there aren't so many of them (Athletics for Jump, Climb, and Swim for example). But I don't want the skill system as a mechanic to be simplified to the point where you hardly use them, and I fear that's the direction they're going in. I'd much rather see something more similar to Iron Heroes.

BASIC RACES CHANGES - Good. I've liked everything I've heard so far. I won't miss the Gnome at all.

RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Indifferent. I've only rarely used the published pantheons anyway. I prefer my homebrewed systems of religions.

ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Good. I'd far rather they focused on making core classes fun to play all the way through the advancement table. 

EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good. I haven't heard anything bad about it yet. I hope they have a lot of racial and class linked feats.

PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Mixed. I don't mind it if it's to help people, especially beginners, design strong party dynamics. I will be very annoyed, however, if each role is required for a party. I don't want party design to be put into a box.

POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good. I like what I've heard, and even if I didn't, I'd design my own anyway.

LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Neutral. I don't really care that much.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Dec 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It seems a bit of a cop-out to me.
> 
> There must be _something _within the game's mechanics, fluff, or players community that attract you beyond the name on the cover.




Lord knows I don't want to cop out.  I'd say it's the fluff, the feel of the setting that attracts me the most, be that setting, Eberron (which I'm quite taken with), FR, or Greyhawk.  I've never felt the same draw from other Fantasy RPG's I've dabbled in.


----------



## outsider (Dec 27, 2007)

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good.
   2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Good.
   3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good.
   4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Bad.
   5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Good.
   6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good.
   7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good.
   8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good.
   9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good.
  10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided.  Will have to get a good look at the implementation.
  11. FOCUS ITEMS - Good in theory.  Will depend on the implementation.
  12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Undecided.  Depends on implementation.
  13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Good.
  14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Bad.
  15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Good.
  16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good.
  17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Good.  No matter what people say, these roles have always existed in D&D.  They are just trying to give them the tools they need to do their jobs this time around.
  18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good.
  19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Bad, but probably neccessary.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I have to ask:
> 
> To those who vigorously welcome more than half the changes 4Ed seems to be ushering in...
> 
> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?




Because despite the flaws, D&D does a better job of the dungeon delving, monster slaying playstyle than those other games.  When I want to play a game of courtly intrigue or some other fantasy story, I use a different system.  When I want to dive into a dungeon and slay some dragons, I play D&D.  Most of the changes seem like they are going to make dungeon looting and dragon slaying more fun, thus I welcome them.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 27, 2007)

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Bad
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Neutral (leaning towards bad). I need more information
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Bad. 
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Bad. Somethings should not be crittable (e.g., incorporeal)
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good unless it affects verisimilitude.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Neutral. Some of the solutions (e.g., skill consolidation), I don't like. I am also unsure about the things like elite opponents
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good and Bad. I'm all for getting rid of Vancian, but I don't like going to per encounter. I'd prefer something along the lines of Elements of Magic (Revised or Mythic Earth) or a spell point system.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided. Will have to get a good look at the implementation.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Good in theory. Will depend on the implementation.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Very Bad. As a DM, I wouldn't mind an optional method for creating NPCs. As a player, I dislike the consolidation.  If skill points are removed, I"ll boycott 4e just like I did Star Wars: SE. 

13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Bad. I like the Elvish split. Everything else, I dislike. If anything, what I wanted them to change, they didn't. I wanted the designers to remove the non-biological features from race and introduce environmental/cultural (e.g., forest, mountain, nomad, swamp, underground) skill packages to make it easier fpr DMs to customize races for homebrews or represent a character that grew up with another race/culture.

14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Good.  If  they are not using Greyhawk or FR as the default setting, I say goodbye to racial pantheons and don't let door hit them on the ass as they leave.  I prefer  to have either one creator deity or various existing deities in the pantheon as creators.
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Mixed. With rare exceptions, I disliked PrCs. I preferred class variants per the phb under customizing characters. 
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good. 
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Bad
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Neutral.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Bad.
20. NEW PALADIN SMITES- Very Bad. The one that allows you to strike an opponent and heal an ally was lame in ToB:Bo9S and still lame.
21. BLEEDING ABILITY- Very bad.  Extremely lame.
22. PARAGON PATHS and EPIC DESTINIES- Need more info/leaning towards  bad. They sound just as bad as PrCs.
23. Fluff for the new settings: Good. However, I felt 1e and 2e had good settings and not so great mechanics. With a lot of the new mechanics and changes, I think WOTC is heading back in this direction, but they will be saved from falling that far back by several of the underlying 3.x mechanics that they retain.
24. Removal of the Great Wheel. Good if they reintroduce the idea should they release a Greyhawk setting.


----------



## Nareth (Dec 27, 2007)

Not sure if this has been touched on or not, but Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved did not use an alignment system at all. This did not take away from the playability or fun of the game/setting. On the contrary, now characters had to have more of a reason to join forces than just "Well, you're Good, I'm Good, let's go kill some orcs.". It also created some very interesting group dynamics and interaction. I'm not saying that 4e should necessarily go this way, but if they did, it wouldn't be the end of D&D. It would just be a step toward a change. And, if that is the case, then individual DM's can house-rule an alignment system of their liking to fill the void.

I always found the alignment system to be a bit limiting. 3.0 and 3.5 helped with this, but when your alignment shifts due to an action you take, and that affects your abilities or powers, it's too much of a limit on what you can do. 

Anyway, just my 5 cp's (Adjusted for inflation)


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2007)

Thanks to previous posters for generating the lists:

 NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - FANTASTIC.  Never used it.  House ruled it out back in 1e and through 2e.  
 NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Good.  Much rather a straight up penalty than ability drain which just has too much paper work.
 NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - FANTASTIC.  Save or suck is great.  But, save or die just means that someone will die more often than not.  Much faster to just point to a random character and say, "you're dead".  Same result.
 NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Not sure if this is true.  Ambivalent.
 SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - FANTASTIC.  Screwing over rogues is bad.  Far too many common monsters were immune to sneak attack.  No other class gets screwed like this.  Even wizards against golems can still use summoning, buffs, and battlefield control spells.  Rogues just suck.
 FASTER GAME MECHANICS - If true, I'm happy.
 FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good.
 NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good.
 NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good.  Vancian casting has needed to be turned into hamburger for a while.
 NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Ambivalent
 FOCUS ITEMS - Seems ok.  Ambivalent.
 SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Ok, I guess.  Although, lumping skills together just makes the skill monkeys THAT much better.  Ambivalent.
 BASIC RACES CHANGES - Ok.  I've been pushing for yoinking the Tolkien races for a while and, my players rarely pick any PHB races anyway.  
 RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Fantastic.  Why should races have one god while humans get a pantheon.  Makes no sense.  Much rather a single pantheon for a large area with different names for different cultures.
 ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Ambivalent.  I saw so few PrC's in play during 3e that I don't really care.  Good I guess since they were so little used IME.
 EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Ambivalent.  I think the feats were fairly balanced in 3e for the most part.  The numbers of feats never bothered me since I don't buy that many books.  In other words, it didn't affect me, so I don't care.
 PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Great!  Finally the newbie player gets a cookie on what the classes are best at.  
 POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Now that they are putting a whole town+an adventure in the DMG I'm freaking happy!  Bloody about time.
 LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - GREAT!  Fuggin's FANTASTIC.  It's a new edition.  Most campaigns last 1.5 years and most groups not much longer.  Those with multiyear, multiedition campaign settings are the outliers, NOT the mainstream.  It's about time that D&D recognized this and created editions based on how the game is actually played, rather than catering to a very small subset of gamers, who, like the designers themselves, have lengthy, stable campaigns and groups.  1e and 2e and to some extent 3e all tried to cater to the gamer group who played together for thousands of game hours.  But, we know that's not how most people play.  Let's actually have a game that reflects that.

Hussar[/QUOTE]


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> .......
> .......
> etc.



::grins::  Hussar, why am I not surprised that we disagree on almost every one of these on which we have a non-neutral opinion?

One of these days we have *got* to sit down over a beer or three and argue the night away... 

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> ::grins::  Hussar, why am I not surprised that we disagree on almost every one of these on which we have a non-neutral opinion?
> 
> One of these days we have *got* to sit down over a beer or three and argue the night away...
> 
> Lanefan




Amazing isn't it.    We play the same game, for about the same amount of time and have pretty much opposite opinions on what makes the game great.  

I'd say D&D is pretty safe.


----------



## Gargoyle (Dec 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Amazing isn't it.    We play the same game, for about the same amount of time and have pretty much opposite opinions on what makes the game great.
> 
> I'd say D&D is pretty safe.




I'd venture to say that even the people who most vehemently disagree on the boards would have a great time sitting down at the same table to play, and that's what makes D&D so great.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 28, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Actually the lore and legends are about staking a vampire through the heart with a wooden stake.  It's a specific mystical weakness and I already stated I could get behind those.  It's when any average joe can stab a vampire "in the heart" with a butterknife and score a critical for more damage that I find it well, not to my tastes.  No vampire lore supports that.




You and others are assuming that a critical still means 'hits someone in a vital organ', but that never really worked as a description (I crit him with my dagger! 6 pts! 130hp fighter shrugs).

It seems much more likely that a critical is going to represent the attacker making an optimum attack with his weapon - getting his slice or thrust just perfect etc.

Similarly, sneak attack on corporeal undead seems fine, as we don't have to consider it to be striking vital organs as much as vital body parts - and for zombies that it most likely to be joints (knees, elbows, neck). A zombie that has run out of hit points might still be filled with 'unlife', but just thrashes around on the floor unable to move.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 28, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem. A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem.




Well, in 3.x

Rogue sucks against undead period.

Wizard doesn't worry much about iron golem ever since the golem was defined as unbeatable spell resistance. The wizard has such a range of no-SR spells that overcoming it is unlikely to ever be a problem unless specifically set up.

Warrior without a silver weapon against a werewolf? Well, thanks to the magic of 3e DR rather than immunities, he can power attack away with his two handed sword - it isn't that difficult to get some damage past the DR 10/silver each round.

Rogue still sucks against undead though.

In 3e the designers decided to balance the rogue being good in combat occasionally and not at other times by giving it more to do out of combat. Happily 4e designers (and thousands of person years of experience) has shown that it isn't a good plan. Much better to give all classes interesting options which allow them to be effective in combat, as well as interesting options which allow them to be effective out of combat too.

Cheers


----------



## Gargoyle (Dec 28, 2007)

NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good - The only thing good about level draining is that it scared the players.  I think I'm a clever enough DM to do that without causing the frustration of losing a level.

NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Good - It's not worth the bookkeeping in 3.5.  

NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Good - I've never been a fan of alignment being shoved down my throat.  As I understand it, it still exists in 4e enough so that people who want to use it can, and those of us who prefer to leave it behind can do so.  

SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING (Good for the most part) - I have no problem with abstracting sneak attack so that rogues can sneak attack undead or constructs.  I do think that in very rare circumstances a creature should be immune to sneak attacks.  Some examples:  oozes, gelatinous cubes, incorporeal creatures.  

FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION (Good)  - Yes, very good.

NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS (GOOD) - I like that I might be able to finally run a low magic campaign.  Or at the very least, heroes will be defined more by their abilities and less by what they're carrying.

NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING (Good) - I love per encounter and at will abilities, and I like that they haven't completely abandoned per day abilities.

NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS ITEMS (Unsure)  - I'm not sure about this either.  I don't like fluff mixed up too much in the rules, and this seems unnecessary.

SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP (Good) -  I like the SW saga system and think skills need some simplification in D&D.  

BASIC RACES CHANGES (Don't Care) - I've always tweaked the races in my homebrew campaigns.  If I don't think the dragonborn will fit, I'll remove them.  If I want gnomes, I'll add them.  Right now I'm thinking I don't really care for tieflings or dragonborn too much and may take them out or make them rare. 

In my campaigns I'm much more in favor of creating an interesting human culture rather than a bunch of races that accentuate some trait of human personality or culture.


----------



## maggot (Dec 28, 2007)

NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Neutral.  It is nice to have something really scary in the game, but the paperwork was annoying.
 NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Okay, but see level drain above.
 NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Fine, but see level drain above.
 NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Sure, seems like they would be easy to add back in if needed.
 SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Unsure.  Have to see how constructs and undead are designed in light of this.
 FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Happy if true.
 FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Very happy if true.
 NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Ecstatic if true.
 NO MORE VANCIAN CASTING - Getting rid of preprepping spells is great.
 NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Unsure.  I kind of liked illusionist and necromancers.  Transmuters and abjurers won't be so missed.
 FOCUS ITEMS - Unsure.  Seems like unnecessary baggage.  Have to see how they make the wizards different.
 SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Sure.
 BASIC RACES CHANGES - Ick!  I think most settings won't fit the Tiefling and the Dragonborn.
 RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Whatever.
 ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Great news!
 EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Is there really such an effort?
 PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - This new terminology disturbs me.
 POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Not big on it.  If it were a minor background item it would be fine, but they are using up space in the DMG with setting info (complete town and area) and including races based on it.  Put setting into a setting guide.
 LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Ick!  How do you convert old campaign ideas?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 28, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Why were you playing D&D in the first place when there are other FRPGs out there that have so many of the features you're looking for?




If previous editions have the traits you want in your D&D, why make 4th edition adhere to those traits, since you already have the game you want?


----------



## chitzk0i (Dec 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Warrior without a silver weapon against a werewolf? Well, thanks to the magic of 3e DR rather than immunities, he can power attack away with his two handed sword - it isn't that difficult to get some damage past the DR 10/silver each round.




Yeah, but it hurts my rep gain with the Mighty Arms of Kord


----------



## Phaezen (Dec 29, 2007)

I suppose it is about time for me to delurk and add my ZAR 0.02   

Opions expressed below are mine and based on incomplete and minimal info.  They are bound to change in the next few months and may not be held against me any any way or form   

As a side note I am approaching 4E as I would a new game system

   1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Neutral to Good, level drain makes for scary fights but the maths involve, especialy in the middle of a fight is just not worth it.
   2. NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Nuetral to Good, see above
   3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good, nothing sucks more than loosing a character or even a monster to one spell.
   4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - neutral
   5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Good, nothing is more pathetic than seeing the look on a rogue players face when coming up against another batch of sneak attack proof monsters.  Although we do need to see how they are going to be running sneak attacks in 4E. As a possible idea to test this in 3.x let the character roll a knowldge check (religion for undead, nature for plants, arcane for constructs) to find weak/critical points to attack to allow the sneak attack/critical.
   6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Not enough info
   7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Not enough info
   8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good, what I am realy looking forward to here is not having to give disposable monsters magic items to make them a challenge for the party.
   9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good, hopefully this will see an end to the 15 minute adventuring day.  Also I hope it will make dungeon crawls more exciting as we should now be able to design living dungeons with better interaction between groups of monsters.
  10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Good, what I am really looking forward to here is haveing specialist spellcasters not just being a wizard with a restricted spell list.  A necromancer should be more than a wizard/cleric who focusses on creating undead, same as a summoner, illusionist etc.
  11. FOCUS ITEMS - Waiting to see implementation, but could be a good thing tm.
  12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Need more info
  13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Good, on further thought I like the focus of the new elf compared to previous editions.  Elves now have the woodlands race schtick rather than the woodlandsracewhobythewayareswordwieldingmagicuserswithimmunitytosomeundeadattacksandcan spotahiddendoorinadungeonamileoff schtick.
  14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Neutral, this is setting specific and can be homebrewed as needed 
  15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Neutral, I am waiting to see what they do with Parragon paths, most likely moving to good depending on implementation.
  16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good
  17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Good, nice for designers helps to create focussed classes.  Should help players as well.  
  18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good.  Nice way to introduce new GMs to running a campaign, also more players as heroes focussed
  19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Neutral, no real opinion on this.

This should be an interesting thread to revisit every month or so as more info becomes available, see how peoples opinions change   

David


----------



## Hussar (Dec 30, 2007)

maggot said:
			
		

> LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Ick! How do you convert old campaign ideas?




At least they're being absolutely up front about this.  They've said that you're better off capping your current campaign world and starting over with 4e.  The current adventure from Dungeon works well as a "blow up your world" type event.  And, really, they're just recognizing that most people haven't invested huge amounts of work in homebrews and are willing to try out new campaigns ever time.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 30, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> D&D changed drastically from 1E to 3E, did that make it D&D in "name only"?




For some.  You can find them at dragonsfoot.org

In addition, while there was certainly plenty of mechanical change with 3E, that game was very much a "back to basics" approach in flavor and the "core D&D experience" and it was wildly successful in that regard.  4E is taking a different tactic: reinvention.  Whether it will work or not is still an open question, but of this I am fairly certain: it will take less than a year for the first good "Classic Play" book to appear from some well rearded 3rd party publisher.

When it comes out, I might buy 4E.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 30, 2007)

I was just reading an announcement in KotDT that Paizo is planning on continuing support of 3.5, so there will be some continued "Classic" stuff to play, regardless of edition.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 30, 2007)

maggot said:
			
		

> LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Ick!  How do you convert old campaign ideas?




With a fully operational brain.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 30, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I was just reading an announcement in KotDT that Paizo is planning on continuing support of 3.5, so there will be some continued "Classic" stuff to play, regardless of edition.




Yeah, but my big question is what changes will other third party companies like En Publishing, Green Ronin, Malhavoc and Mystic Eye Games have to make to keep their existing products in print and compatible with 3.x should WOTC pull the existing d20 license?  Furthermore, if the d20 license is pulled, will  the necessary changes be practical enough to implement to be worthwhile for third party companies to keep their 3.x products in print?


----------



## Jayouzts (Dec 30, 2007)

*Fixing what is not broken*

I think the "good" vs "bad" analysis for these misses the boat.   If you find the changes good, why not incorporate them into your 3E game now?

[*]*NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN *  Fixes something that is not broken.  If its a problem, why not publish an alternative rule. (They could release Unearthed Arcana II and include such rules as this).  

[*]*NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN * Fixes something that is not a problem for me.

[*]*NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS * A day late and a dollar short.  I have scrapped alignment altogether.  While I am glad to see WOTC moving in that direction, I am not sure it goes far enough.  

What the heck, I will say GOOD.  It is Christmas-time and I feel generous.

[*]*SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING *  Fixes something that is not broken.  Its not unreasonable to allow it for undead.  But why a new edition?

[*]*FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION *  I will call this good but the devil will be in the details.


[*]*NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS *  Good, i suppose.  But isn't it the DM's responsibility to keep magic items at  level which he is comfortable?  I do not see a need for new edition to remedy this.


[*]*NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING *  Ever hear of Spell Points?  We do not need a new edition to fix this problem.

[*] *NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS (bad?) FOCUS I*TEMS  The schools are not a problem.  Focus items are nice fluff but not really needed.


[*]*SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP *  Good


[*] *BASIC RACES CHANGES *  I wont miss the gnome.  I am indifferent to the fluff changes made to the dwarf and halfling.  I think Eladrin and Tieflings are boring.  I would consider the Dragonborne (I allow fire newts as a PC race so the Dragonborne may not be far off - as long as they are not half-dragons).

But why do we need a new edition for these? If you want to play in a setting with Tieflings and no gnomes, release a new setting. 

I do not play Forgotten Realms so I will skip those


[*]Racial Pantheons getting the boot 

Indifferent.  Use them if you want

[*]No introductory cost on the core books 
A  poor marketing decision IMHO.

[*]Core price increase  on all books with all books being same price without being same page length 

Again, bad idea.  But it does not affect me.

[*]Playtested less then previous edition (Bad)

Excellent point.  Everyone remember the 3.0 Ranger?  If they didn't catch the problems with all the 3E testing they did what is getting through in 4E?

[*]Elimination of Prestige Classes (Depends on if they're actually gone or just renamed into the new paths)

I think there are too many classes, Prestige and Standard.  This does not appear to be changing.  Bad.


[*]Effort to actually balance feats (Good)
Good on paper but the devil is in the details.

Although 4E may be good, I do not see it being better than my houseruled version of 3.5E.  If it is not BETTER, I will not buy it.  And if no one wants to play 3.5 anymore, fine.  I will stop playing RPG's and focus on other hobbies.


----------



## Scarbonac (Dec 30, 2007)

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good. It never made sense. Suddenly I forget how to use a bow or halberd because I shook Dracula's hand?
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Bad. 
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Bad. Bad things happen to adventuring scum.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Bad, although I like the "Unaligned" option, which is how I tend to play my "Neutral" charactes.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Bad. Some thing just can't be backstabbed.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good, if true. We'll see how accurate this allegation is.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - See above.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Unsure; I _want_ magic items, I just don't want them to be _necessary for my group's survival at a given level_.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Undecided.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided. 
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Might work. We'll see.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Undecided.
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES -Very badwrongstupid. Basic game needs _basic_ races; bring out the fancy-schmancy frou-frou tieflings and such in a supplement. 
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT -Bad, but barely tolerable.
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Undecided.
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Balance is illusory. 
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - No, just no.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Good. That's been pretty much the way things are in my games - lots of Wilderness with city-states, emerging nations and isolated racial enclaves dotting the landscape.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Badbadbad.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> there are some things that seem too gamist to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have to admit that True20 and Runequest are becoming more and more my style. D&D seems to be becoming one gigantic action movie set in a dungeon. I know folks who played like that, but many of us did not and still don't. It seemed that in older editions of the game there was at least lip-service to versimilitude and a bone tossed in that direction from time to time.



I don't know True20 all that well, but in the case of RQ verisimilitude is largely the result of its extensive action-resolution rules for both combat and non-combat situations. Whereas earlier editions of D&D, when it was less action-moviesque in tone, had detailed action-resolution rules only for combat, and even there GM moderation played a much greater role than in RQ. As a result those earlier editions depended a great deal on the GM to establish the feel and parameters of the game. 3E (and it seems 4e) have tried to shift some of that power from GMs back to players - hence the increasing gamism, I think.



			
				Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Is it really so unfun that a PC runs into a challenge that he cannot smite down. What if the rogue has to trick the golem? What if the warrior has to get his silver coins cast into a silver dagger when he discovers his foe is a werewolf? Every class should have its weaknesses and its strengths. If you want a character who will shine in every combat, play a combat orientated class. It is stupid that a rogue can find the weak spot on a vampire when they don't have weak points besides their hearts which unless punctured by a wooded stake isn't anymore vulnerable than anything else.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The issue that you don't quite address is this: where is "the joy of the game" if the player of the Rogue is sitting at the table for an hour (a plausible real-world duration for a D&D fight) having nothing interesting to do other than kibbitz, as his/her friends get to take a meaningful turn every round? That is the joy of watching one's friends play the game - which is not quite the same, and normally not quite as joyful.

OD&D and 1st ed dealt with this issue by giving every _player_ multiple _characters_ to control, via extensive rules for henchmen and hirelings, as well as having multiple PCs per player be fairly common. More recent editions and play styles have really emphasised one PC per player, and have removed henchmen and hirelings as a significant part of gameplay.

As for the Rogue tricking the golem - in the current edition of 3E this reverses the problem, with the other PCs typically having nothing meaningful to contribute, and therefore the other players having no meaningful participation in the game while the player of the Rogue resolves the trickery. It is to be hoped that 4e's changes to skills, and introduction of mechanics for social challenges, will deal with this to a decent extent, making a tricking of the golem a game experience in which all the players can participate.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2007)

Jayouzts said:
			
		

> I think the "good" vs "bad" analysis for these misses the boat.   If you find the changes good, why not incorporate them into your 3E game now?



Short answer: not everyone is as good a game designer as Mike Mearls.

Longer answer: As I see it, 4e is a working out of the implications for the game of certain changes made in the transition from 2nd ed to 3E, which implications were not fully appreciated at the time of the transition.

A lot of those changes (though by no means all) involved changing the fundamental dynamics of D&D play, from a system with fairly simple character-build rules and almost minimalist aciton-resolution rules which consequently gave the GM a tremendous degree of power in all aspects of play, to a system with complex characer-build and action-resolution rules which shifted power from the GM firmly onto the players.

One implication of these change at the character-build end: 3E makes it possible to build radically underpowered or overpowered characters if a player has a poor knowledge of the relevant game elements (feats, spells, PrCs, etc). As a result, new players can build themselves into a very poor play experience. 4e will try and rectify this to some extent (eg by explicitly calling out character roles, by balancing feats, etc).

One implication of these changes at the action-resolution end: By giving players so many choices, 3E makes combat take a long time to play at the table, and therefore makes it suck a great deal if one's PC is not able to participate meaningfully in a combat. 4e will try and rectify this to some extent, by making meaningful participation in combat possible for all characters all the time (eg by changing sneak attack, by changing the power suites of all classes, etc).

One implication of these changes for the GM: Apparently without really thinking about it (perhaps just following "common sense") 3E extends the character-build and action-resolution rules for PCs to monsters and NPCs. The result is big issues with prep time and play of GM characters. 4e will try and rectify this (with new monster build rules, not giving monsters feats and spells which require the GM to have intimate familiarity with the PC build elements, etc).

These aspects of 4e are all natural consequences of clever game designers reflecting on the implications for play of some key differences between 3E and earlier editions of D&D. They are not changes that are trivial to incorporate into 3E via house rules. And from the game design point of view, they seem to justify a new edition as well as anything would.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The issue that you don't quite address is this: where is "the joy of the game" if the player of the Rogue is sitting at the table for an hour (a plausible real-world duration for a D&D fight) having nothing interesting to do other than kibbitz, as his/her friends get to take a meaningful turn every round? That is the joy of watching one's friends play the game - which is not quite the same, and normally not quite as joyful.




This situation is only plausible if the definition of "interesting" is "do hit point damage".  I really can't muster much sympathy for a player that can't manage to engage the game in such a way so as to do more than sulk if they can't sneak attack the enemy.  Worse still is the idea of changing the system to coddle this sort of player and define "unfun" as anything that makes the players actually expend some effort _*playing*_ the game.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> This situation is only plausible if the definition of "interesting" is "do hit point damage".  I really can't muster much sympathy for a player that can't manage to engage the game in such a way so as to do more than sulk if they can't sneak attack the enemy.  Worse still is the idea of changing the system to coddle this sort of player and define "unfun" as anything that makes the players actually expend some effort _*playing*_ the game.



WotC are listening to their customers. That's a good thing.


----------



## Conjurer (Dec 31, 2007)

NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good, as long as there are other mechanisms in place to bypass HP as a way to threaten PCs.
 NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Good, as long as there are other mechanisms in place to bypass HP as a way to threaten PCs.
 NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Yes, it's annoying to lose a character to a lose-or-die effect, but that's part and parcel of playing D&D, I think. However, if there still are other save-or-suck effects, not all is lost.
 NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Good riddance to a pretty useless and polemic mechanic
 SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Seems Ok to me.
 FASTER GAME MECHANICS - I'll believe it when I see it.
 FASTER (N)PC CREATION - I'll believe it when I see it.
 NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good. I already favour low quanitities of magic items in my campaigns anyway.
 NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - It's good that they're giving Vancian a rest. I still need to see the new system in action, though.
 NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Depends. If I can still cherry-pick spells thematically linked and call myself a Conjurer (or Enchanter or Necromancer), then I won't care a bit. If, however, my spell-selection is going to be limited to blasting spells... well, I'm not going to be happy. I'm waiting on this one.
 FOCUS ITEMS - Fewer, but more interesting Items? Yes!
 SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Need to see it in action. Seems Ok, so far
 BASIC RACES CHANGES - None of the important races are missing, so Ok. I can probably work a way to introduce Eladrins into my own homebrew. (Plus, my group played in my admitedly generic homebrew over a year without realizing I had forgotten about Gnomes) 
 RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Good. I already did this in my own homebrew.
 ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Neutral. It seems we lose prestige classes but gain Parangon Paths. If I can still use the latter to give flavour to my homebrew, I'm Ok with it.
 EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good. After all, some feats were next to useless before. 
 PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - As long as classes are not restricted into the roles I'm fine with it. The people making this game are not stupid, and they know players would resent the unnecesary restrictions.
 POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Seems Ok. I might even borrow some fluff for my own homebrew.
 LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Nothing I can't work around to introduce into my own homebrew setting, so far.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> This situation is only plausible if the definition of "interesting" is "do hit point damage".  I really can't muster much sympathy for a player that can't manage to engage the game in such a way so as to do more than sulk if they can't sneak attack the enemy.  Worse still is the idea of changing the system to coddle this sort of player and define "unfun" as anything that makes the players actually expend some effort _*playing*_ the game.



In some ways I sympathise with your lack of sympathy. But not so much when it comes to D&D. In general, I prefer to blame the system, rather than the players, if the players of the system overwhelmingly refrain from "engaging the game" in a certain fashion. There are two main ways I know of for a player of an RPG to engage the game. In each case, D&D gives players reasons for focussing on the dealing of hit points to the exclusion of other in-game activity.

The first way to engage an RPG is via its action resolution mechanics. In D&D, these are (but in 4e perhaps may not be) overwhelmingly concerned with dealing hit points.

The other is via GM-moderated attempts at extra-mechanical "problem resolution". OD&D and 1st ed AD&D are the pre-eminent examples of games in which this sort of play dominates. 3E has expressly moved away from this style of play (which style of play is, in my view, principally responsible for D&D's reputation for producing adversarial GMing). Therefore it is no surprise that players of 3E do not attempt to engage the game in this fashion.

What other game systems do is open up mechanical space for engaging the game in a non-combat fashion, via all sorts of action resolution mechanics both simulationist and metagame. For various reason, D&D historically has not done so (one of those reasons might be the hostility of a vocal group of D&D players towards metagame action-resolution mechanics, and towards social interaction mechanics). If 4e changes this trend, then it may be that the player of the rogue will have a real (as in _meangingful in the context of play_) choice to trick the golem rather than sneak-attacking it. If that is so, then the changes to sneak attack rules will constitute an addition of an option rather than a concession to a lack of player imagination.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> WotC are listening to their customers. That's a good thing.




Which customers?  While there's a lot of "hey, that's a good idea!" going on, there wasn't much in the way of clamoring for these changes.  WotC isn't listening to customers so much as seeking new customers.  Whether that will ultimately work out for them is up the air, and will be until 4E hits.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> In some ways I sympathise with your lack of sympathy. But not so much when it comes to D&D. In general, I prefer to blame the system, rather than the players, if the players of the system overwhelmingly refrain from "engaging the game" in a certain fashion. There are two main ways I know of for a player of an RPG to engage the game. In each case, D&D gives players reasons for focussing on the dealing of hit points to the exclusion of other in-game activity.
> 
> The first way to engage an RPG is via its action resolution mechanics. In D&D, these are (but in 4e perhaps may not be) overwhelmingly concerned with dealing hit points.
> 
> ...




I'm not talking about non-combat action resolution, metagame mechanics or DM fiat.  I am talking about the rogue player, in the fight with the golem, realizing that there's a massive ruleset at his disposal for doing something besides sulking because his highest damage attack doesn't work against the enemy.  Aid Another.  Combat Maneuvers.  Providing flanking bonuses for the high damage fighters so they can power attack more. Protecting the casters.

One of the element of the 4E design philosophy that appears to be built in to the mechanics that irritates me the most is the idea of "roles" as they relate to combat.  A robust combat system, like 3E's, presents a high number of tactical options to every character, which means that battles can be built on something more than hit point attrition.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Aid Another.  Combat Maneuvers.  Providing flanking bonuses for the high damage fighters so they can power attack more. Protecting the casters.



Aid another and flanking just aren't good enough. If the best a PC can do in a fight is aid another that, to me, is the definition of useless.

I remember a few years ago playing a wizard facing a golem and not being happy that, after casting haste, the best I could do was aid another. I want my every round actions to be more effective than that. Back then I didn't know about overpowered conjurations such as glitterdust, and the orb spells. It's even possible for a rogue to be useful vs a golem if the player has access to enough splats but it's a lot harder than it is for a wizard.

In answer to your other question about which customers WotC is listening to - customers like me. We must comprise the majority or they would be leaving things as they are.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 31, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> WotC are listening to their customers. That's a good thing.




Except for where they're telling their customers what they'll be getting and that certain changes are coming regardless of what the fans want. (Dragon editorial 361 and the stance on the Forgotten Realms spring to mind.)


----------



## Campbell (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard,

I agree that all characters should occasionally face enemies that take them out of their element and force them to use unconvential tactics. However, 3rd Edition rogues didn't face creatures that were immune to sneak attack occasionally. It was a regular occurance.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 31, 2007)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Reynard,
> 
> I agree that all characters should occasionally face enemies that take them out of their element and force them to use unconvential tactics. However, 3rd Edition rogues didn't face creatures that were immune to sneak attack occasionally. It was a regular occurance.




My favorite was that in many dungeons, a base assumption is that the dungeon is sealed, full of ancient horrors. This means that the ecology is tricky at best, and thus monsters without biology -- elementals, constructs, undead, oozes, and fungi -- were easiest.

Well darn. Poor rogue!

This is made up for with traps. Traps which *only* the rogue can interact with -- well, enjoyably interact with )) -- and the class becomes a problem.

Especially when everything else it does is better done by magic.


----------



## babomb (Dec 31, 2007)

For the most part, I agree with OP. Some specific points:

*NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN *
I never liked permanent level drain except in very special circumstances. Temporary level drain is great. And yes, a vampire draining levels by TOUCHING is silly. By BITING, that I'm on board with.
*NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN *
I like the idea of ability drain, but this is kind of a pain to recalculate mid-combat, especially at higher levels. I'd usually just slapped a flat penalty to things and did real calculations later. Ok, so some of the numbers were a little off. Big deal.
*NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS *
I had no real problems with alignments, but I can see the reasoning behind this, as a lot of people did (or had differing definitions).
*SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING *
Making all undead immune seemed pretty silly to me. But some specific monsters, like gelatinous cubes, probably should remain immune.
*FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION *
Helpful, but I rarely bothered with accurate stats, since none of the players saw 'em anyway.
*NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS *
Yeah.
*NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING *
Hell yeah.
 *NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS* 
I've never really liked the way specialists worked, and some of the spells seemed oddly categorized, but spell schools are a cool concept, and I'm sad to see them go. I'll wait to see how 4e treats spells, but I'll definitely consider bringing schools back.
*FOCUS ITEMS*
I'm all for encouraging wizards to carry around staves. I'm intrigued by this idea, but I lack sufficient data even to say whether I like it so far.
*SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP *
I'm 100% on board with everything I've heard about this so far.
 *BASIC RACES CHANGES * 
I never really liked gnomes, at least not as presented. I've thought about making them Tiny and more naturey, like _David the Gnome_, but I never really bothered, and it looks like 4e elves will cover the nature niche. I'm not especially happy about the gnomes being gone, but I won't miss them either; I don't really care that much.
Tieflings and dragonborn are more iffy to me. Certainly with tieflings in, I expected aasimar as well. Dragonborn just seem weird to me, especially with the women having boobs. I like boobs as much as the next guy, but on lizard-like creatures? Creepy. That aside, despite the game having dragons in the title, they seem to have come a bit out of left field. Perhaps with more information about them they'll seem more interesting, but right now they seem kind of...blah.
And beardless dwarf women? SEXY beardless dwarf women? The mind boggles. I kind of liked the trope, but on the other hand, more sexy women...


----------



## Dormammu (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.



Everything has joints.  Sneak attacks are not hitting someone in the stinking knee!  In fact, that is something a fighter could do without surprise.  Sneak attacks are hitting vital organs which are normally kept protected by someone aware in combat.  Limbs and joints are _not_ hard to hit on an aware opponent.  Kidneys, the base of the skull, etc are.  Undead and golems do not have or do not live by means of organ function.

Any by the way, as I read it, all alignment is gone for most creatures (including players).  As I read the comments so far, certain extra-planar or archetypal creatures will be GOOD or EVIL (hi, Solars and Devils) and everything else will be unaligned.  It didn't sound as if players would even choose an alignment.  Maybe Paladins will?


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 31, 2007)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Any by the way, as I read it, all alignment is gone for most creatures (including players). ...



OK, but what about the characters they play?

Lane-"DM to non-aligned players since 1984"-fan


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 31, 2007)

_"Yeaahhh!!!  My rogue just sneak attacked the fire elemental and did triple damage. I swung my dagger so fast behind his back that I snuffed him out!! Huzzah!!"

"Wow! I just finished off the stone golem by striking its vitals. Fighter, I know that you were hitting it all over and made some great hits but you just didn't stick you sword between chunk of stone A and chunk of stone B. Right these is where is wee little golem heart was. What? You didn't know golems had hearts....well neither did I until 4e told me they do. Silly me, in 3e I thought the darn things were made of solid stone."

"Waahooo! I just killed that ooze with my shortsword with a quick thrust to its barely noticable neural ganglia located in this undefinable, shapeless glop of ooze right here. We rogues have studied the anatomies of every single creature you are ever going to encounter. This allows us to know where to srike every time."_


 

This makes baby jeebus...who cares about versimilitude....cry.

If a PC can't hack every single creature up with his special powers...we'll the game just aint worth playing. Well I think that the game isn't fun unless my fighter can shoot fire from his fingertips as a class ability or unless my cleric can shapechange like a druid. Why should I be penalized for my character concept bah? blah, blah.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 31, 2007)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Everything has joints.  Sneak attacks are not hitting someone in the stinking knee!  In fact, that is something a fighter could do without surprise.  Sneak attacks are hitting vital organs which are normally kept protected by someone aware in combat.  Limbs and joints are _not_ hard to hit on an aware opponent.  Kidneys, the base of the skull, etc are.  Undead and golems do not have or do not live by means of organ function.



The name "sneak attack" doesn't tell us where you hit. Just that it is a kind of attack that seams to be "sneaky". 3.x flavor text speaks of "vital organs". Maybe 4E flavor text speaks of something different, more related to "using the element of surprise to bring down the enemies defenses". 

And it's not like a Fighter wouldn't try to strike vital organs either if the opportunity presents itself. But he doesn't get a special mechanic for it, just like the Rogue doesn't get the Weapon Specialisation feat.


----------



## Gargoyle (Dec 31, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> _"Yeaahhh!!!  My rogue just sneak attacked the fire elemental and did triple damage. I swung my dagger so fast behind his back that I snuffed him out!! Huzzah!!"
> 
> "Wow! I just finished off the stone golem by striking its vitals. Fighter, I know that you were hitting it all over and made some great hits but you just didn't stick you sword between chunk of stone A and chunk of stone B. Right these is where is wee little golem heart was. What? You didn't know golems had hearts....well neither did I until 4e told me they do. Silly me, in 3e I thought the darn things were made of solid stone."
> 
> ...




So hitting a walking stone statue with a sword is going to kill it?  I'd say that's pretty unrealistic too, but neither of us seems to have a problem with that.

The thing is, we are already suspending our disbelief.  Letting sneak attack affect constructs just takes D&D combat a little farther into fantasy.  Some people don't have a problem with it, but some will.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Which customers?  While there's a lot of "hey, that's a good idea!" going on, there wasn't much in the way of clamoring for these changes.  WotC isn't listening to customers so much as seeking new customers.  Whether that will ultimately work out for them is up the air, and will be until 4E hits.



I heard this clamoring all over the place when I ran games.  Sure, I didn't see threads dedicated to "We MUST change this or the game is no good."  However, if i asked all the people I know who play what they would change if they could change the game any way they wanted to, almost all of these things would be on their list.

If I was going to list all of the parts of the game where it became tedious rather than fun it would be:
-When my attacks are completely useless against an enemy or I feel like my character isn't having an effect on the combat
-When my character is forced to do nothing for most of a combat due to an effect
-When I lose a level
-When I lose a magic item
-When I die way quicker than I expect to because of negative levels, ability drain, or save or die(I like to play the game with a lot of strategy and that is bypassed by these abilities)
-We have to use real world knowledge in order to get to the end of an adventure

Most of this is fixed by 4th Ed.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 31, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> So hitting a walking stone statue with a sword is going to kill it?  I'd say that's pretty unrealistic too, but neither of us seems to have a problem with that.
> 
> The thing is, we are already suspending our disbelief.  Letting sneak attack affect constructs just takes D&D combat a little farther into fantasy.  Some people don't have a problem with it, but some will.




Magical weapons provide the suspension of disbelief required to allow for a sword to cleave into a stone golem. In fantasy fiction enchanted blades are described as supremely sharp and capable of cutting into damn near anything. Its not the skill of the wielder that makes a sword cut through stone, it is the wielders skill combined with the enchanted nature of the weapon.

All good fantasy has the quality of internal consistancy with a nod to the believable within the context of the millieu. Humans have two arms and two legs, the world revolves around the sun, green plants need water and sun to survive, animals eat other animals to stay alive, etc. In other words a baseline realism that allows for the suspension of disbelief required for immersion in the game. Some of this "reality" can be altered due to magic but there is the key, the internal consistancy is maintained by invoking that which can supercede the normal laws of reality ie. magic.

There is nothing inherently magical about a rogue's sneak attack that would allow him to score more damage than a warrior striking the same golem, elemental, ooze, etc. The decision to allow rogues to sneak attack everything is nothing more than another indicator that D&D, though never known for its intense realism, is becoming a game that is more and more a *Medieval Supers Boardgame of Tactical Combat* (tm) where unless everyone gets to be badass all the time, the game is unfun.

I think this philosophy is designed to take the sting out of the consequences of choices a player makes in regards to his or her character. IMO this is an attempt to allow those who were weaned on videogames to play D&D and feel that there are no real consequences to their in game choices. In a videogame you can always start again at the last checkpoint/save point and things like versimilitude mean absolutely nothing. Does anyone really look for versimilitude when the play WoW? I have never seen anyone raise such a concern.

I was very enthusiastic about 4e and still like a lot of what I have seen. However, I am having grave doubts about some of the design philosophy behind the game that makes it seem that versimilitude is worthless and ruins everyone's fun. For 22yrs as a DM versimilitude added to the depth of the game and though there were chellenges that come PCs couldn't overcome merely with wicked cool powers, and they were forced to think outside the box, ultimately the campaigns seemed real and were a great deal of fun for all involved. 

I still remember a situation in my 2e campaign when the party encountered a dragon who, with their resources too low to overcome it with sheer might, they were able to escape by collapsing the mouth of the cavern. Collapsing the cavern trapped the creature long enough to make a hasty retreat. Two of my friends still talk about that encounter and how powerless they were against the creature and of their pride in ultimately surviving the battle by using their wits. 

This is IMO a lot of what the adventure of D&D is supposed to be about. Of course that encounter required on-the-fly adjudication on my part but IMO ultimately everything possible cannot and should not be covered in some rule. The DM is more than just a rule arbitrating CPU whose sole function is to interpret RAW though YMMV.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Reynard,
> 
> I agree that all characters should occasionally face enemies that take them out of their element and force them to use unconvential tactics. However, 3rd Edition rogues didn't face creatures that were immune to sneak attack occasionally. It was a regular occurance.




What's a "regular occurance" versus "occassionally"? In official modules? Dungeon magazine adventures? Homebrew adventures?  Are we talking about WotC or individual DMs?

In any case, the issue of the rogue sneak attack isn't really my point.  My point is that players like Doug who can't figure out what to do after using the best ability, or when their best ability isn't working out during a particular fight/scene, are the ones driving the game design.  If Doug and players like him aren't having fun, then the game as it is must be "unfun" and therefore must be changed to make sure everyone has as much fun as possible, all the time, continuously and without interruption.

It is not a design philosophy I agree with because it is not a playstyle I agree with.  Hell, I don't even agree there's a problem, let alone that there's an issue of "unfun" at stake.

If you don't like having your special powers limited by circumstance, don't play a rogue.  If you don't like having to actually think about allocation of resources over the long term (i.e. a day) don't play a wizard.  if you don't like having to support your teammates with buffing and healing, don't play a cleric.

Instead, we'll just remove all the problematic elements of the game.  For Doug.*

*I'm not really picking on you, Doug -- I am just using you as an example.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 31, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> This is IMO a lot of what the adventure of D&D is supposed to be about. Of course that encounter required on-the-fly adjudication on my part but IMO ultimately everything possible cannot and should not be covered in some rule. The DM is more than just a rule arbitrating CPU whose sole function is to interpret RAW though YMMV.



This is exactly what I don't like in a game.  I like being able to use strategy to win.  Strategy requires that I know the relative merits of every action I take.

If I know that I do more damage when flanking, it lets me choose between moving to a flanking position and attacking from where I am.  I might be able to hit the monster immediately this round or for more damage next.  However, I might risk attacks of opportunity or being trapped behind the monster when my allies decide to flee.  I might be too far away from the cleric to get healing if I take a big hit.  All of those things I know because the rules tell me that's how it works.

If I am fighting a monster that due to every rule in the book I cannot reasonably expect to beat all it does is make me want to run away and wonder why a DM would use a monster that we were unable to defeat.  Either that, or if I know my DM is one who uses on the fly adjudication then I start guessing randomly at things the DM might accept as an answer:

Me: "I run underneath the dragon to a position where he can't hit me and attack his soft underbelly.  That should ignore his DR."
DM: "No, you can't end your movement in an enemies square, sorry."
Me: "Damn, we're using that rule?  Ok.  I shoot arrows at the ceiling above its head.  Does that cause rocks to collapse on him?"
DM: "No, arrows don't do anything but chip the rocks."
Me: "Ok, I'm beginning to get it.  *I* cannot defeat this monster, apparently the DM expects the wizard to fireball the ceiling to cause a collapse so we can beat it.  I'll delay until after the wizard tries that.  Until then, I'll be reading my novel and waiting until I can do something."

Frankly, it's no fun to be useless or to be at the whim of the DM as to what will work and what won't.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> What's a "regular occurance" versus "occassionally"? In official modules? Dungeon magazine adventures? Homebrew adventures?  Are we talking about WotC or individual DMs?
> 
> In any case, the issue of the rogue sneak attack isn't really my point.  My point is that players like Doug who can't figure out what to do after using the best ability, or when their best ability isn't working out during a particular fight/scene, are the ones driving the game design.  If Doug and players like him aren't having fun, then the game as it is must be "unfun" and therefore must be changed to make sure everyone has as much fun as possible, all the time, continuously and without interruption.
> 
> ...




Well, a regular occurance would mean, to me, fairly common monsters that see play in adventures.  I'm thinking that undead certainly fit that bill.  Elementals are pretty high up there.  Constructs are also making appearances in many, many adventures.

Put it another way.  Putting a rogue in the party means that you cannot do tomb raiding.  What's the point of having a rogue if Tome Raider is not on the list?  Sure, the rogue sorts out the traps, but, that's one die roll (or maybe a couple) and 20 seconds of game time.  I watched our last adventure, which was a tomb raid, and the rogue sat around for THREE SESSIONS.  And, that's not unrealistic.  Pick any tomb raiding sort of adventure and you should be seeing lots of constructs and undead.  

Woo hoo, my rogue gets to sit around with his thumb up his bum.  Oh, I can give someone else a whopping +2 to hit.  Yay me.  Gimme a break.

Even the wizard, facing constructs, is not totally nerfed.  He can buff, he can use non-SR spells.  Bang, he's back in the game.  No matter what, the rogue is screwed.

What blows my mind is that people have no problems with a fighter with a non-magic sword kicking the crap out of a stone golem (two handed sword, five points power attack, no more DR), but, nope, the rogue can NEVER EVER be effective.  It's not a case of "the best ability doesn't work, so the game is unfun".  That's not the problem.

The problem is NOTHING the rogue does can be effective.  He might as well sit in the corner and watch, because he's not going to help in that fight.  

If you don't believe this to be true, design an undead filled dungeon for your party.  Do a tomb raid and watch the rogue player.  See how much fun he/she has for the duration of that adventure.

I really get the sense that people who don't worry about the rogue being screwed over have never seen it in play.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really get the sense that people who don't worry about the rogue being screwed over have never seen it in play.



They probably avoided the situation in the first place. Some people still have (or take) time to create their own adventures and tailor them to their group. I know that it's pretty impossible for my group to do that, but others might have more luck. Some might focus more on the non-combat parts of the game.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If you don't believe this to be true, design an undead filled dungeon for your party.  Do a tomb raid and watch the rogue player.  See how much fun he/she has for the duration of that adventure.




And here's the key to this issue.  The problem isn't a systemic one, it is a DM one.  Consequently, the fix is a mechanical one designed to "protect" the player from the DM.  It ain't going to work.  A DM who totally ignores his players' desires as expressed through what's on their character sheets will do that no matter what.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really get the sense that people who don't worry about the rogue being screwed over have never seen it in play.



I don't think it's so much a matter of that as it is that there ARE some people who truly don't care if they can't do anything in a combat.  They believe that their role is to be bad at combat.

They have ways of compensating for being bored.  Some will read or fall asleep during combat.  Some watch movies or play video games from the couch while everyone else is playing D&D.  Some just sit at the table and make jokes or talk to the person beside them about their week or their WoW character.

Some don't get bored at all, they love the challenge of coming up with things outside the rules to do.  They know that the game itself gives them no chance to succeed so they'll try to invent new ways of harming the enemies.  Some DMs really love this sort of thing and will make the ideas work much better than they should in order to reward the players for thinking outside the box.  This ends up making those rogues even MORE effective in these situations than in ones where they can use their real powers.

Other times the DMs see the rogue being screwed over by the adventure but they don't care.  They think that they player is obviously playing the wrong character if they want to be useful in combat and they shouldn't be stupid and choose a better class for what they want.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> And here's the key to this issue.  The problem isn't a systemic one, it is a DM one.  Consequently, the fix is a mechanical one designed to "protect" the player from the DM.  It ain't going to work.  A DM who totally ignores his players' desires as expressed through what's on their character sheets will do that no matter what.



Huh?  A DM problem?  It's my problem if I think it would be a cool session for the players to go through an undead infested tomb simply because I don't throw out the idea immediately when I realize there is a rogue in the group?


----------



## Gargoyle (Dec 31, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Magical weapons provide the suspension of disbelief required to allow for a sword to cleave into a stone golem. In fantasy fiction enchanted blades are described as supremely sharp and capable of cutting into damn near anything. Its not the skill of the wielder that makes a sword cut through stone, it is the wielders skill combined with the enchanted nature of the weapon.




Yet non-magical weapons work just fine in D&D against all sorts of constructs and undead.



> All good fantasy has the quality of internal consistancy with a nod to the believable within the context of the millieu. Humans have two arms and two legs, the world revolves around the sun, green plants need water and sun to survive, animals eat other animals to stay alive, etc. In other words a baseline realism that allows for the suspension of disbelief required for immersion in the game. Some of this "reality" can be altered due to magic but there is the key, the internal consistancy is maintained by invoking that which can supercede the normal laws of reality ie. magic.
> 
> There is nothing inherently magical about a rogue's sneak attack that would allow him to score more damage than a warrior striking the same golem, elemental, ooze, etc. The decision to allow rogues to sneak attack everything is nothing more than another indicator that D&D, though never known for its intense realism, is becoming a game that is more and more a *Medieval Supers Boardgame of Tactical Combat* (tm) where unless everyone gets to be badass all the time, the game is unfun.
> 
> ...




I agree that some groups have fun with encounters they can't muscle through.  Some don't.   I wouldn't go so far as to label the latter as whiners.  

The complaint about rogues not being able to use their sneak attack against entire monster types has some merit.  The good thing about rogues being able to sneak attack constructs and undead is that it makes it easier on the DM to design campaign worlds and adventures.  Design a nation of undead ruled by vampires in 3E and guess what?  If your group includes rogues they won't go there.  Create an evil puppetmaster NPC and populate his dungeons with clockwork automatons, and they'll find some other dungeon.  Of course you can railroad them into anything, but if you want them to have some say in how the campaign goes, you don't want to hamstring rogues or any other class.

I feel like the new sneak attack is designed to free the DM to design things they wouldn't have in 3E. 

However, as I said earlier in the thread, I do think that some monsters can and should have immunity to sneak attack.  I have a hard time myself imagining formless oozes and incorporeal creatures as being vulnerable to a sneak attack.  But instead of making the entire creature type immune, they can now just make those particular creatures immune.  If they don't, I may house rule a couple of monsters, as I agree with you that not every class has to be fully effective in every encounter.


----------



## Phlebas (Dec 31, 2007)

OK - been lurking in 4E forum rather than getting involved since i'm basically neutral to 4E but these lists seem to sum up most of the key issues so here's my humble opinion. Btw i've played most editions from the basic boxed set onwards and generally enjoyed the improvements (and house ruled anything i don't like the feel of) and suspect in a few years time i'll be doing the same to 4E.... 

thanks to previous posters for the list!


 NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good, once you have restorations available its just an awkward mechanic and i much prefer ability drain....
 NO MORE (temporary) ABILITY DRAIN - Bad - ability drain is scary to PC's regardless of level, and simple to work out the impact on the fly. As a DM its a great way to threaten the party in alternative ways, as a player its a scary threat requiring different tactics. 
 NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good - I don't mind the odd 'make this roll or die moment', but it should be at the end of the encounter, not at the start. 
 NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Good / Bad -  Good in that i never played or DM'd it as written and prefer shades of gray in my own campaigns / Bad in that its a useful shorthand for monster / encounter / NPC / Church etc attitude. 
 SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Neutral - yes it would be nice to have less things immune but it does make for variety in encounters if some things are. Why not allow charm or sleep spells to work on Zombies if you don't like general immunities? 
 FASTER GAME MECHANICS -  Good. Hmm, waiting to see since every game promises this and very few deliver but the combat in 3E, though a lot more tactical, is much slower than prev edtions (though still faster than some dice pool / hit location systems) it would be nice to have a "combat lite" option to allow for better pacing of minor encounters.....
 FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Neutral :
PC - low level PC's are easy - high levels are more complex. Seems a fundamental that wont change. Biggest improvement would be handing out some simple function spreadsheets that did the number crunching for the math-averse. Hopefully included in the online section. Hope that the points / dice options remain....
NPC- since you have the std NPC's in the DMG, and lots of free software for NPC creation I've never seen this as a major problem. worried about skills? just give them level bonus in class skills and don't worry overmuch about something that will rush into combat and die without using 90% of its abilities. If its a major NPC then take the same time you would on a PC - it deserves it. My (& others) biggest problem as a DM is when you have mid - high level encounters and you need to spend a lot of time just understanding their abilities and working out tactics and i don't see that changing unless you're going to oversimplify every monster
 NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good. I always disliked the christmas tree impact, and body slots seemed artificial so the idea of fewer, more powerful items i like. Not sure what the final mechanic for making items will be so staying neutral on that. xp wasn't brilliant but gp is very campaign dependant
 NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Bad / Neutral. I thought the sorcerer/bard mechanic of 'cast anything you know' in 3E solved the book-keeping issue for those that disliked it, while allowing those who like the resource management bit to carry on using it.  I've been toying with allowing cantrips at will in my current game so i'm interested to see what they do with the at will / per encounter abilities. But I really get annoyed by the argument that having to rest after every few encounters is a system problem - learn how to conserve ammo people! 
 NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Neutral - I like the idea of specialist spell-casters and having a mechanic to reward those who theme rather than cherry pick - I've seen alternatives based on elemental lists before so I'm not too attached to the current schools - but I'll need to see the alternatives in detail first before making any judgement
 FOCUS ITEMS - Good - less magic items and gives flavour. concerned they will end up like familiars and be forgotten about 90% of the time....
 SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Neutral - current skills don't seem particularly broken to me at the moment but be interesting to see what the alternative is
 BASIC RACES CHANGES - Neutral - not because i'm fond of gnomes (though Zilargo has dramatically improved my opinion of them) but because I would have preferred to see a proper mechanic merging LA and Racial levels so that pretty much any race from the MM could be played and so allow DM's to choose for themselves what exotic creatures you can use. No problems with the new races proposed but seems a wasted opportunity
 RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - Neutral - this is something you can homebrew or not as suits - there's nothing fundamental or rules based in this decision - in fact you could argue that other than a couple of examples all pantheons should be in a campaign sourcebook rather than the core rules but its only a page or twoand does help DM's who don't feel the need to world-build.
 ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Neutral. The prestige classes were getting slightly out of hand with all the add on books but it was a relatively simple mechanic to create variety. I certainly preferred it to most of the 'new' base classes that came out of various books. If the 'Paragon' mechanic is better then no problems
 EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Neutral - The great things about feats is their variety and the fact you have a huge number to choose to create the character you desire. If you have a huge number then some will be better than others depending on your PC build / campaign / party mix / style of play etc.  Not sure how 4E will change this but interested to see attempt. 
 PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Neutral - ok its nice to give a general guidance on how to make an effective party, but this seems really unnecessary and potentially restrictive. D&D at its core has always been class & level based. not sure what the Role adds
 POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Neutral- the beauty of previous editions was that you could use the same rule systems for anything from stone age to renaissance settings, urban to wilderness. If this is just fluff/flavour then its not a problem and helps newcomers but if starts affecting rules too much....
 LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Good / Neutral / Bad : Good that they've told us up front, Neutral in that most DM's will find a way to convert as has been done for basic to AD&D to 2nd ed to 3E to 3,5E,  Bad in "Buy all our new stuff and throw away the £'s you've spent in the last 5 years"


----------



## Leugren (Dec 31, 2007)

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> [*]*SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING * (unsure)
> It's not fun for a rogue to be gimped versus undead and constructs, so letting them sneak attack such is...useful. But it goes against logic. Some undead I can see having weak points, like the more "living" ones: vampires and ghouls. But not zombies (unles syou have a heavy slashing weapon), and certainly not incorporeal ones! Ok, pray tell me how you can sneak attack a wraith, eh?
> 
> So this rule change I'm ambivalent on. Good to help players, but bad for game logic.




Yet another example of why it never pays to choose a character with a martial power source!  When you choose a martial power source, people have this irresistible compulsion to invoke "real-world logic" as a nerf-bat against you.  The same people who cry "foul" as they watch you attempt to sneak attack a gelatinous cube never even bat an eye when the party wizard effortlessly warps the entire fabric of time and space to obliterate a horde of howling demons.  Don't be fooled by the hype; rogues and other martial types will always be the shackled runners of D&D, even in 4e, thanks to the so-called "verisimilitude" nerf-bat that is constantly invoked against them!

DM: "Sorry, Regdar, I just don't see how it would be at all possible for you to jump more than 4 or 5 feet in full plate; I don't care what the rules say!  You therefore fall into the crevasse and plummet 600 feet to your death... And Lidda, there's just no way you could use that _improved evasion_ ability out in the open like that with nothing to hide behind, so the red dragon fries you to a crisp with his breath weapon."

Wizard: "I've gotta agree with the DM on this one, guys; it just wouldn't be realistic. While they're dying, I gesticulate wildly and mutter a string of non-sensical words.  This temporarily grants me the ability to fly like Mary Poppins.  I use this ability to glide effortlessly across the crevasse, waving at the fluffy pink _cloud myconids_ as I float on by..."


----------



## Greg K (Dec 31, 2007)

The rogue sneak attack issue is just one of the reasons I like the martial rogue option from UA.   I considered building sneak attack into the rogue to be a bad idea from the beginning and it should have been a feat.  Still, I think corporeal undead should be critable.  They might not feel pain, but their limbs are still flesh and bone.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> And here's the key to this issue.  The problem isn't a systemic one, it is a DM one.  Consequently, the fix is a mechanical one designed to "protect" the player from the DM.  It ain't going to work.  A DM who totally ignores his players' desires as expressed through what's on their character sheets will do that no matter what.




What?

A very common, archetypal setup in the fantasy genre is entirely untenable because of the rules.  And, yes, I consider an adventure where one of the players cannot contribute to combat for the entirety of the adventure to be untenable.  So, I should NEVER do tomb raiding if there's a rogue in the party?

Sorry, I'd like the rules to be broad enough that I can do common fantasy archetypes without worrying that the rogue player's going to be completely screwed over for the next 4-6 sessions.  

Isn't it funny though.  People scream that a rogue shouldn't be able to sneak attack a construct, but, don't blink that the same rogue can sneak attack a demon or an abberation.  What weak points does a gibbering mouther have?  If I can sneak a chaos beast, why not a gelatinous cube?

Given the choice between verisimitude and fun, I'll go with fun EVERY time.


----------



## rounser (Jan 1, 2008)

> Yet another example of why it never pays to choose a character with a martial power source! When you choose a martial power source, people have this irresistible compulsion to invoke "real-world logic" as a nerf-bat against you. The same people who cry "foul" as they watch you attempt to sneak attack a gelatinous cube never even bat an eye when the party wizard effortlessly warps the entire fabric of time and space to obliterate a horde of howling demons. Don't be fooled by the hype; rogues and other martial types will always be the shackled runners of D&D, even in 4e, thanks to the so-called "verisimilitude" nerf-bat that is constantly invoked against them!



I understand what you're saying, but breaking physics and logic just because there's magic in the game _when there's no magic directly involved_, is a suspension of disbelief killer, and leads to Superheroization of the game.  I agree that some things already don't make sense, like how striking an ooze with a sword is going to make much of an impact, but again, that's not an invitation to leave the stable door wide open.

In other words, that way lies madness.  Just put some brakes on the magic, or somehow wrangle out some logic as to how the fighter manages to pull off that wire fu that will float for more than someone who's not just focused on what the kewl powerz will do for their PC.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2008)

> Given the choice between verisimitude and fun, I'll go with fun EVERY time.




OTOH, "Fun" is subjective.

Some, like myself, find it fun to have a PC who isn't 100% effective against everything.  (One of my favorite superheroic PCs of all time was "nigh-invulnerable"- an example in her case meaning she could take a header off of a skyscraper onto concrete and walk away, but she was just as vulnerable as I am in RL to a shock from a house appliance dropped in her bath.)

Consider...

A rogue scouting for his party, rounds a corner to find a sealed door.  He cautiously breaks the seal and quietly opens the door, revealing a room full of (cinematic, fast) zombies.  Confronted with legions of undead beats a hasty retreat (i.e. runs, screaming like LEEEETLE GORIL) past his party who try to decipher his echoing, doppler effect shifted screams of "Run, Zombies!" as he flies by.

Classic!  Archetypal!  and most of all- Fun!


----------



## shilsen (Jan 1, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I understand what you're saying, but breaking physics and logic just because there's magic in the game _when there's no magic directly involved_, is a suspension of disbelief killer, and leads to Superheroization of the game.




As a wise person once said, physics is a house rule. As soon as you have a game world where fifty foot long lizards can fly without magical aid, you've thrown physics out of the window. Reality in D&D even without magic being present is emphatically not reality in our world. A cat or a dog or a horse or a human being in the D&D world is not the same as a cat, dog, horse or human in our world. So drawing an arbitrary line and saying one side is realistic and one side is not is nothing more than an expression of personal taste. The same is true for suspension of disbelief, which usually has much more to do with habit and the conventions one is used to than anything objective.


----------



## rounser (Jan 1, 2008)

> As a wise person once said, physics is a house rule.



After hearing about 60 people groan simultaneously in disbelief as James Bond "catches up" with a falling plane that's come off the edge of a cliff in Goldeneye, I beg to differ.


> As soon as you have a game world where fifty foot long lizards can fly without magical aid, you've thrown physics out of the window.



Strict physics, yes.  Narrative physics?  Not really.  Those wings are _big_.  Big enough to suspend disbelief for most people except maybe an aviation engineer.

Flying with no wings, or vestigial wings?  You'd better have magic aplenty, buster.


> So drawing an arbitrary line and saying one side is realistic and one side is not is nothing more than an expression of personal taste. The same is true for suspension of disbelief, which usually has much more to do with habit and the conventions one is used to than anything objective.



I call shenanigans.  Just because something's subjective is not carte blanche to ignore the issue just because it suits you.  That's not being subjective, just wilfully ignorant.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2008)

D&D characters, even those without magical abilities, have physical attributes no real-life human being (even the steroid-enhanced!) has ever enjoyed. They also have the mental drive of Hercules or Achilles. They are  beloved of the gods. And, as the rules are written in 3E, they can defeat lions and tigers in combat with their bare hands (from somewhere around 10th level or so, for a fighter, and so probably at 20th level for even the most scholarly magic-user trapped in an anti-magic zone).

Given this, complaints about rogues sneak-attacking elementals as killing suspension of disbelief strike me as odd (or, perhaps, rather idiosynchratic). Particularly because, as someone else posted above, sneak attack can easily be read as a particularly well-timed or vicious blow, rather than as one which hits a vital area.

Btw, for those who think that you can't sneak attack an iron golem because it has no vitals, does that mean that you envisage an iron golem reduced to 0 hit points as having been pounded to rubble? If not, and to stop it all one has to do is lop of its foot (or whatever), then why can't a rogue be doing _that_ with a successful sneak attack?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2008)

I think a big part of it is that the sneak attack damage has been explicitly predicated on striking vitals through each edition up until, it seems, 4Ed.

Sacred Cow?  Maybe.

But then again, I see this particular change as a scooby snack for the inner munchkin.

By that I mean that even though I dislike the change, it does make me salivate over playing a rogue in 4Ed.  Its appealing.  Its seductive.

But I don't think its good for the game.


----------



## Campbell (Jan 1, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> In other words, that way lies madness.  Just put some brakes on the magic, or somehow wrangle out some logic as to how the fighter manages to pull off that wire fu that will float for more than someone who's not just focused on what the kewl powerz will do for their PC.




Rounser Dude,

That isn't really a fair argument to make. Being okay with martial characters performing actions that lie outside the realm of real world physics doesn't imply that a person is focused on 'what their kewl powerz can do for their PC'. Some people (namely me) simply have different aesthetic tastes. Perhaps my wahoo meter is out of whack, but I've never had any issues with warrior types in D&D performing superhuman stunts when his spellcasting comrades are raining down holy fire, raising the dead, or forcing people to do their will. 

Let's face it : even without any over the top abilities high level martial characters aren't even close to being on the level of even the most elite of real world soldiers. They can face a multitude of lesser warriors without breaking a sweat. They come face to face with gargantuan monstrousities and rely on their strength of arms to take down those foul beasts. They stare down supernatural horrors.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *snip*
> Consider...
> 
> A rogue scouting for his party, rounds a corner to find a sealed door.  He cautiously breaks the seal and quietly opens the door, revealing a room full of (cinematic, fast) zombies.  Confronted with legions of undead beats a hasty retreat (i.e. runs, screaming like LEEEETLE GORIL) past his party who try to decipher his echoing, doppler effect shifted screams of "Run, Zombies!" as he flies by.
> ...




But, whether or not the rogue can sneak attack those zombies is irrelavent.  He's still going to run like a little girl because he'd get his ass handed to him if he didn't.  

Only now, when the party decides to turn and fight, he can do more than "aid another".

I agree that character's don't need to be 100% effective all the time.  That's fine.  However, there's a huge difference between being 100% effective and 0%.  No other class is relagated to being useless in this way.  It's not a case of being a bit less effective (such as fighting something with DR) or having to use different spells (high SR).

It's a case of being incapable of doing anything.  

I wouldn't mind the idea that certain creatures get extra damage reduction against sneak attacks.  That's fine.  Or half damage.  Or whatever.  Reduced is fine.  Reduced to zero is not.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 1, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> After hearing about 60 people groan simultaneously in disbelief as James Bond "catches up" with a falling plane that's come off the edge of a cliff in Goldeneye, I beg to differ.




And I've seen people cheer during such scenes. Taste, as I noted, is subjective.



> Strict physics, yes.  Narrative physics?  Not really.  Those wings are _big_.  Big enough to suspend disbelief for most people except maybe an aviation engineer.




Perhaps for most people. Which goes to show, as I noted, that what is needed to achieve suspension of disbelief varies drastically between people.



> Flying with no wings, or vestigial wings?  You'd better have magic aplenty, buster.




You just don't like beholders and will o' wisps, do you?  



> I call shenanigans.




Which, of course, you are free to do.



> Just because something's subjective is not carte blanche to ignore the issue just because it suits you.  That's not being subjective, just wilfully ignorant.




I didn't say I ignore the issue or think one should. I just find it amusing when I see posts like yours which try to argue that their subjective tastes are somehow more accurate or laudable than others, and if I've got nothing better to do I sometimes post about it. That's all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2008)

> I agree that character's don't need to be 100% effective all the time. That's fine. However, there's a huge difference between being 100% effective and 0%. No other class is relagated to being useless in this way. It's not a case of being a bit less effective (such as fighting something with DR) or having to use different spells (high SR).
> 
> It's a case of being incapable of doing anything.




That is some _FINE_ hyperbole.

The rogue isn't reduced to zero effectiveness against undead, he's just less effective. If he has the right equipment and his wits about him, he has the potential to be just as deadly when he hits.

After all, what's to say that the rogue expecting to face corporeal undead doesn't load up with acidic or flaming grenade like weapons- with his high dex allowing him to strike where and when he wishes, he still makes a GREAT contribution in such a situation.

One could argue that a fighter without his weapons or armor is useless, but I've seen just such a case this month, and it wasn't the case.  The newly naked (yes, _naked_) warrior charged into battle, same as always, protected by spells rather than armor...then got healed by the Cleric afterwoads...I mean, afterwards.

I've even seen wizards contribute without their spellbooks, and Barbarian diplomats.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 1, 2008)

I tend to side with those happy with this change of making sneak attack more "common".

My problem is, and has ALWAYS been, the tacit assumption that magic trumps all. If this is true, it should NEVER have been allowed in the hands of the players.

I mean, you as a DM have to DELIBERATELY target a wizard to nerf it (Golem, Anti-magic areas) yet even here, a smart wizard can STILL use his class powers "Summon a beast to fight the golem"/"use dispel magic on the antimagic"

Whereas just rolling randomly, you end up with creatures immune to the sneak attack ability which results in a class that pretty much can't use its class ability.

I'm not against this per se, but just how common it occurs.


----------



## rounser (Jan 1, 2008)

> You just don't like beholders and will o' wisps, do you?



Oh get off it, both are clearly magical.  

(Or at the very least have a supernatural force at work on them in the case of wisps...e.g. ghosts are a good example of arguably non-magical yet supernatural).  

Human fighters are neither supernatural nor magical, except in superpower games, and maybe manga universes, where supernatural martial arts forces are at play (e.g. Star Wars' "The Force").  

You can take some artistic license when they're "epic" and on the road to divinity, maybe, but otherwise it's kind of stupid and against type - IMO.  Unless you're aiming for an anime feel, maybe (and I don't mean that in the derogative way it's usually used on this board), where shooting fireballs out of your behind after an especially good maneuver might make sense in the context of secret supernatural martial arts of some sort.

If D&D keeps peppering the fighter with borderline supernatural powers as a matter of course, then D&D has indeed turned into a superhero game.  Not so hot, IMO.  YMMV.

"Oh, but that's subjective..."  Yes, it is. But some opinions are more equal than others. 


> I didn't say I ignore the issue or think one should. I just find it amusing when I see posts like yours which try to argue that their subjective tastes are somehow more accurate or laudable than others, and if I've got nothing better to do I sometimes post about it. That's all.



And I'm just saying that you can't just discount tastes which don't match _yours_ totally, which is what you're implying.

Pot, kettle, black.


----------



## rounser (Jan 1, 2008)

> Some people (namely me) simply have different aesthetic tastes. Perhaps my wahoo meter is out of whack, but I've never had any issues with warrior types in D&D performing superhuman stunts when his spellcasting comrades are raining down holy fire, raising the dead, or forcing people to do their will.
> 
> Let's face it : even without any over the top abilities high level martial characters aren't even close to being on the level of even the most elite of real world soldiers. They can face a multitude of lesser warriors without breaking a sweat. They come face to face with gargantuan monstrousities and rely on their strength of arms to take down those foul beasts. They stare down supernatural horrors.



Yes, fantasy warriors do amazing things that wouldn't be possible in the real world, like kill dragons with a sword and shield.  We suspend disbelief for that, but not Yoda-like antics without a supernatural force at play.  There's only so far you can strain disbelief before it turns into a superpower game or Dragonball Z.  

That's a stylistic choice that Gygax seems to think has already happened to D&D - the change from fantasy heroics to superpowered heroics.  Bordering on hypocrisy, he did it with the monk, but I think the whole "mystical martial arts" thing gave him a license to do that.  The fighter...well, he's not exactly mystical by default.  Maybe when he's on the road to becoming a deity it makes more sense, because the "power of legends" envelopes him/her or something.

Again, we're into shades of grey.  A bit of something being present doesn't necessarily mean "go crazy with it, it doesn't matter".  I'm not arguing in absolutes, but it seems the people disagreeing with me are - saying that a bit of something is okay, so a lot of it is fine too.  'Taint necessarily so, it's not everyone's cup of tea to go completely wahoo, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the game robs Peter to pay Paul by doing this.

WOTC can do this, they have the power.  If that's the road they're going down, then as Gygax said regarding the superpowering of D&D, "Let them play their little game."


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 1, 2008)

If you think Rogues' inability to sneak attack things in 3E isn't fun, I feel sorry for you.  I hope one day you find a DM who knows how to make the game fun for you.  Many will scoff at this sentiment, but if I am wrong then it was never fun to play D&D for the past 30 years... and yet it seems as if thousands of people did have fun doing it.

The logic that is leading to this _type_ of change is antithetical to the concept of role-playing games.  RPGs are not about balance, plain and simple.  That's not the goal of the game style.  When you start balancing things in this way, you are building a different kind of game.

If you don't believe me, you've been missing out on something that has been magical to hundreds of thousands of gamers for decades. :\


----------



## Jhulae (Jan 1, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> If you think Rogues' inability to sneak attack things in 3E isn't fun, I feel sorry for you.  I hope one day you find a DM who knows how to make the game fun for you.  Many will scoff at this sentiment, but if I am wrong then it was never fun to play D&D for the past 30 years... and yet it seems as if thousands of people did have fun doing it.




Or, maybe they just didn't play rogues...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 1, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I think a big part of it is that the sneak attack damage has been explicitly predicated on striking vitals through each edition up until, it seems, 4Ed.
> 
> Sacred Cow?  Maybe.
> 
> ...



Well, if you're suddenly interested in playing a Rogue, why can it be wrong for the game?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 1, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> If you think Rogues' inability to sneak attack things in 3E isn't fun, I feel sorry for you.  I hope one day you find a DM who knows how to make the game fun for you.  Many will scoff at this sentiment, but if I am wrong then it was never fun to play D&D for the past 30 years... and yet it seems as if thousands of people did have fun doing it.
> 
> The logic that is leading to this _type_ of change is antithetical to the concept of role-playing games.  RPGs are not about balance, plain and simple.  That's not the goal of the game style.  When you start balancing things in this way, you are building a different kind of game.
> 
> If you don't believe me, you've been missing out on something that has been magical to hundreds of thousands of gamers for decades. :\



Imagine playing a wizard (maybe of 10th level) that is about to enter a null-magic zone that covers the full dungeon the party has to explore. Will it be fun for him? I mean, he can still provide flanking benefit or use aid another, can't he, just like the Rogue when they entered the undead-infested dungeon, right?


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 1, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, whether or not the rogue can sneak attack those zombies is irrelavent.  He's still going to run like a little girl because he'd get his ass handed to him if he didn't.
> 
> Only now, when the party decides to turn and fight, he can do more than "aid another".
> 
> ...




The rogue can do a lot more than just aid another - stand off with a bow and pepper the slow moving zombies - run in with sword (you still do damage - use 2w and you'll be making a reasonable contribution), throw oil and a match..... Just 'cause you can't use ONE of your class abilities does not make you 0% effective! 

No problem with redefining some of the immunities, but a blanket 'SA everything' doesn't seem necessary....


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 1, 2008)

Phlebas said:
			
		

> The rogue can do a lot more than just aid another - stand off with a bow and pepper the slow moving zombies - run in with sword (you still do damage - use 2w and you'll be making a reasonable contribution), throw oil and a match..... Just 'cause you can't use ONE of your class abilities does not make you 0% effective!
> 
> No problem with redefining some of the immunities, but a blanket 'SA everything' doesn't seem necessary....




Yeah but what's the point of being the rogue then since pretty much ANY class can do these things.

The argument that "you can do other stuff thus the class isn't useless" doesn't make much sense IMHO since such an argument means "class don't matter" and you might as well get rid of the class structure.

re: Superheroic D&D

Again, Gygax can not complain that D&D is become superheroic when in 1E, the heroes were actually TOUGHER than in 3.x especially at level 10+. Run "Against the Giants" with 1E characters and the same module with 3.x characters of the same level and you'll see what I mean.

As well, why do we ALWAYS ignore the superhero that has existed since 1E? Namely the mage. People don't want "superheroic" fighter but something resembling Aragorn/Conan/medieval-era, yet we're fine with wizards of the same level that literally can bring mountains down.

WHY are we ok with this?

re: D&D shouldn't be balanced.
This rewards system mastery and is actually one of the things that would discourage new players. If I'm a new player and I pick a non-magic user, why should I be inherently gimped?


Happy New Year to everyone as well


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 1, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Yeah but what's the point of being the rogue then since pretty much ANY class can do these things.
> 
> The argument that "you can do other stuff thus the class isn't useless" doesn't make much sense IMHO since such an argument means "class don't matter" and you might as well get rid of the class structure.




well you could argue the rogue with high dex is much better at ranged and grenade than other characters, but if you want a unique ability that you can use regardless then thats your POV, & its a valid point. 

My opinion is that their will be circumstances when you shine, and circumstances when you're the support act and since a tomb-robbing rogue is going to be the busiest PC scouting, trap-finding / disarming (all class specialities) the fact that in combat he's going to be doing what everbody else is doesn't really seem to much of an anti-climax....

and I'm comfortable with the fact that in some, limited, circumstances class will not matter -  as long as you can still contribute / play why do you have to pull out a special ability when a common ability will do?

Happy new year to all btw


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 1, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The rogue isn't reduced to zero effectiveness against undead, he's just less effective. If he has the right equipment and his wits about him, he has the potential to be just as deadly when he hits.



No he doesn't.



> After all, what's to say that the rogue expecting to face corporeal undead doesn't load up with acidic or flaming grenade like weapons- with his high dex allowing him to strike where and when he wishes, he still makes a GREAT contribution in such a situation.



Flasks of acid/alchemist's fire = 1d6 damage. That's not a great contribution. It's pathetic.


----------



## Panamon Creel (Jan 1, 2008)

> Originally posted by Doug McCrae
> Flasks of acid/alchemist's fire = 1d6 damage. That's not a great contribution. It's pathetic.




Especially if the rest of your mid to high level party's fighters and mages are dishing out 30+ hp per damage per attack.  It sucks when your PC is completely nerfed or nearly useless in a fight.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 1, 2008)

Panamon Creel said:
			
		

> It sucks when your PC is completely nerfed or nearly useless in a fight.



Yep.

Fixing this is not 'catering to munchkins'---it is addressing a gaping design flaw.


----------



## Xanaqui (Jan 1, 2008)

*My present thoughts*

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - *Good*. All versions of level drain were annoying both in implementation and in the potential long-term effects to PCs.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - *Neutral*. I'll note that I preferred 3.xE ability score damage to prior editions' save or die mechanic, but there are other ways to approach poison (or perhaps ability score damage is still in).
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - *Good*. I prefer death to be the result of multiple actions, not a single bad die roll.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - *Neutral*. I haven't really used ethical alignments in a long time.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - *Good*, assuming that they keep a class (Rogue) as a sneak attack monkey. Those monkeys get bored fast with immune to crit. creatures.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - *Good*, although I'm a bit skeptical that it will be significant.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - *Good*. Most of the NPC's stats (for the vast majority of NPCs) don't matter in the first place.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - *Good*; mostly to streamline high level PC generation.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - *Good*. Heck, assuming it's done reasonably well, it's why I'll convert. All my recent 3.xE games have had pages of changes to spellcasting, and I have an entire alternate spellcasting system.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - *Undecided*. Frankly, I thought that merging the Illusionist into the Magic-User was one of the better changes in 2nd ed from 1st. However, that doesn't mean that either splitting up the 3E Wizard into different classes, or doing something else is a bad thing; I'll have to learn more.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - *Undecided*. If we get to get rid of Spell Component Pouches (& individual largely irrelevant material components for each spell) I like it. Otherwise, it depends on what they're doing with it.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - *Mildly good*. I kind of like the present 3.xE system, with mild modifications. Frankly, I think that the largest revamp needed is to remove most spells which completely remove the need for skills. In any case, I'll have to see their imlpementation, but for now, mildly good.
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - *Mildly good*. I like Gnomes (my last PC was a Gnome), and I mildly dislike yet another draconic humanoid (I'm pretty neutral to the other changes). However, this is likely to be more offset by what sounds like a much better implementation of the races themselves - it would be nice for race to matter more than marginally for some mid-level PCs.
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - *mildly bad*. Personally, I like multiple pantheons, but they do take up a lot of space, so I can understand why they're getting axed. I'll have to note that of FR material, the god/goddess information is the material I use most - much more than the prestige classes, feats, map, or anything else FR-specific. On the other hand, I likely will be able to use my older material with few changes (since little of it is mechanical).
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - *Undecided*. There were several problems in implementation of prestige classes (LV1 typically being stronger than later levels; having to plan out their acquisition from character creation in most cases; making chaining partial prestige classes typically the best power-gaming option), but they were better than the 2nd ed Character Kits; I'll have to learn more about what replaces them (Paths?)
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - *Good*. My 3.xE feat system is even larger than my 3.xE spell system.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - *Neutral*. It seems like they're spelling out something that's been in the game since OD&D.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - *Neutral*. I prefer "point of light" to "points of light", but really, the default campaign setting has to be pretty atrocious to matter much - I'm going to change it.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - *Good*. Frankly, if it were perfectly backwards compatible, that would mean that there wouldn't be many major changes between 3.xE and 4E, and thus little reason to buy 4E in the first place. I would only consider it "bad" if I considered 3.xE to be extremely well designed.
20. NEW PALADIN SMITES- *Good*. It's nice to see some variety in what Paladins can do, even if Smite isn't necessarily my favorite of their 3.xe class features, and I don't think that I love all of the particular instances.
21. BLEEDING ABILITY- *Mildly Good*. It depends on what they use it for.
22. PARAGON PATHS and EPIC DESTINIES- *Undecided*; as I mention above, I'll have to see how they're implemented. I hope that it's harder to abuse than prestige classes.
23. DIFFERENT CLASSES - *Undecided*. If, as it sounds, they are making the classes more flexible, and more balanced in relation to each other, then this is (overall) good. I will miss several of the classes (Druid and Monk in particular).


----------



## Xanaqui (Jan 1, 2008)

*Sneak attack*



			
				Leugren said:
			
		

> DM: "Sorry, Regdar, I just don't see how it would be at all possible for you to jump more than 4 or 5 feet in full plate; I don't care what the rules say!  You therefore fall into the crevasse and plummet 600 feet to your death... And Lidda, there's just no way you could use that _improved evasion_ ability out in the open like that with nothing to hide behind, so the red dragon fries you to a crisp with his breath weapon."
> 
> Wizard: "I've gotta agree with the DM on this one, guys; it just wouldn't be realistic. While they're dying, I gesticulate wildly and mutter a string of non-sensical words.  This temporarily grants me the ability to fly like Mary Poppins.  I use this ability to glide effortlessly across the crevasse, waving at the fluffy pink _cloud myconids_ as I float on by..."





Seriously, another option (other than make immunity to sneak attacks rare or non-existent) would be to re-make the rogue so that such a PC can have other useful things to do in most combats other than sneak attack (without carefully designing one's PC to be able to do so).


----------



## Henry (Jan 1, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> No other class is relagated to being useless in this way.  It's not a case of being a bit less effective (such as fighting something with DR) or having to use different spells (high SR).
> 
> It's a case of being incapable of doing anything.




I'm not sure why not? SR means you've wasted an entire round's worth of actions, if not more depending on if you don't have many conjuration spells prepped or known. Fighters are by themselves VERY useless against an invisible, flying mage. And with the addition of supplements (for magic items, spells, etc.) a rogue is just as useful as any other class against undead. A rogue could use magic device on a spell-device, he could use the gravestrike or golemstrike spells from Spell Compendium, etc. Just like a Fighter could pick up a detect invisibility potion or a scout's headband from the Magic Item Compendium. A wizard without Spell Compendium access is a VERY different character from a wizard with only core rulebook access, especially when it comes to spell resistant creatures.

In earlier editions of the game, this was more pronounced. A thief couldn't sneak attack things with no vitals -- but a fighter without a magic weapon was useless against creatures with "+1 or better weapon to hit," magic-users were somewhere between very and completely helpless against a creature with magic resistance, and Clerics were restricted to both limited damage spells, and limited damage weapons.

It really comes down to the philosophy of the adventuring party in D&D -- do you want a game that FORCES cooperation between characters, because each one has very different strengths and vulnerabilities, or do you want one that ALLOWS cooperation, where each character works better with a group, but can still function pretty well on its own? As editions of D&D have rolled on, it's moved progressively from the former, to the latter.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 1, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A very common, archetypal setup in the fantasy genre is entirely untenable because of the rules.




What archetypical situation are you talking about?  The rogues ability to do an extra Xd6 damage isn't archetypical.  It didn't even exist prior to 3E.  Getting "back stab" damage multipliers took work in 1E and 2E.  There is no "sneak attack" archetypical ability, at least insofar as it was represented in 3E.


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 1, 2008)

Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Seriously, another option (other than make immunity to sneak attacks rare or non-existent) would be to re-make the rogue so that such a PC can have other useful things to do in most combats other than sneak attack (without carefully designing one's PC to be able to do so).




sensible idea.......


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 1, 2008)

Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Seriously, another option (other than make immunity to sneak attacks rare or non-existent) would be to re-make the rogue so that such a PC can have other useful things to do in most combats other than sneak attack (without carefully designing one's PC to be able to do so).



That's an alternative, but you risk making the Rogue becoming just like any other "martial" combatant. You really need to come up with alternative abilities that have other limitations then sneak attack. 

Maybe throw away sneak attack and replace it with abilities like these:
- Ambush Strike: Full Attack in the surprise round (only meaningful in 3E)
- Backstab: Gain extra attack against flanked opponents. 
- Feint: Feint an opponent to have him make a mistake - examples: negate dex, add sneak attack damage by striking vital organs, gain extra trip or disarm attack, avoid next attack against you


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 1, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> It really comes down to the philosophy of the adventuring party in D&D -- do you want a game that FORCES cooperation between characters, because each one has very different strengths and vulnerabilities, or do you want one that ALLOWS cooperation, where each character works better with a group, but can still function pretty well on its own? As editions of D&D have rolled on, it's moved progressively from the former, to the latter.




Interesting observation - obviously the game has to cope with varying group size, and varying gaming philosophies, and making characters less dependant on the party mix is a solution to this. 
On one hand you don't want individual characters completely helpless in common situations (realtively common in 1E), on the other extreme this philosophy can remove specialists and turn everyone into fairly bland copies of each other. I don't envy the designers trying to square this particular circle since they're not going to be able to keep everyone happy....


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 1, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> What archetypical situation are you talking about?  The rogues ability to do an extra Xd6 damage isn't archetypical.  It didn't even exist prior to 3E.  Getting "back stab" damage multipliers took work in 1E and 2E.  There is no "sneak attack" archetypical ability, at least insofar as it was represented in 3E.



True.  Backstab was nice when it happened, but it wasn't all the time.  I played a lot of B/X, so there was none of that ridiculous exceptional strength, and no Power Attack.  As a result, the fighter's damage output wasn't much higher than everybody else's.  He was consistent, reliable, and had staying power, so he was clearly the best, but the thief's normal attack wasn't so far behind as to feel useless.  And when the wizard was conserving spells, his thrown daggers were a decent fall-back option.  Now, with the fighter's damage output being so high and monster HP being so high, the things that have not increased look pathetic.  

Making sneak attack useful against everything cheapens the rogue's image, in my opinion.  He is skilled at knifing people in the kidneys in dark alleys.  That's what the class ability represents.  If a rogue wants different class abilities, 3E's muticlassing system is great for rogues.  Undead a problem?  Take a level of Fighter or barbarian and get a greatsword, a level of ranger for Favored Enemy, a level of cleric for Grave Strike and divine feats, or a level of sorcerer.  It's not like you're corrupting some archetype of a "pure rogue."  Fighter/rogue is a fantastic combination to represent an adventurer, a swashbuckler, a guild enforcer, a highwayman, a special forces operative, or hundreds of characters from fiction.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 1, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It's not like you're corrupting some archetype of a "pure rogue."  Fighter/rogue is a fantastic combination to represent an adventurer, a swashbuckler, a guild enforcer, a highwayman, a special forces operative, or hundreds of characters from fiction.




Myself, I prefer the martial rogue variant from UA- give up sneak attack for bonus fighter feats. Then again, I hate having to use multiclassing.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2008)

Phlebas said:
			
		

> My opinion is that their will be circumstances when you shine, and circumstances when you're the support act and since a tomb-robbing rogue is going to be the busiest PC scouting, trap-finding / disarming (all class specialities) the fact that in combat he's going to be doing what everbody else is doesn't really seem to much of an anti-climax....



At least as I understand it, the issue is not so much in-game effectiveness, or XP-earning effectiveness, but rather at-the-table relevance. The way that D&D plays means that the real time consumed by combat is almost always far greater than that consumed by scouting, trap finding and trap disarming.

It is possible that 4e's new "skill challenge" mechanics will change this, but this would itself create pressure to make all characters able to  meaningfully participate in such challenges so that their players do not get stuck at the table with nothing useful to do.

Given that D&D is a GAME, I don't see what is munchkin about every player always wanting to be able to participate in a meaningful way. If necessary, flavour text can be rewritten to accomodate metagame priorities (eg instead of being an attack on vitals, sneak attack can be understood as a well-aimed blow that gets past defences - which is how I always interpreted backstab back in the day, which _did_ work against golems and undead).


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jan 1, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Making sneak attack useful against everything cheapens the rogue's image, in my opinion.  He is skilled at knifing people in the kidneys in dark alleys.  That's what the class ability represents.




Well, I think that's what "backstab" represented back in Ye Olden Dayes. 3e moved a bit towards making rogues "equally useful in combat" by making sneak attack more extensive. They're intentionally taking it even further in 4e, so rogues should be on par with fighters and wizards in terms of tactical usefulness. They're doing this by extending the list of creatures that can be "sneak attacked" and also by extending the circumstances in which rogues can "sneak attack." There will be special abilities (I imagine kinda like Improved Feint) that make "combat advantage" (the new "opponent is flat-footed") easier to achieve.

All this does indeed make sneak attack a lot less "special." It seems like in 4e, if you're a rogue who can't set up a sneak attack almost every round, you're not doing your job in combat. I think of this as modeling the idea that a rogue needs to "fight smart" to get his job done. He needs to look for the opportune moment, the hole in the enemy's armor, because he's fighting someone with arms as thick as his thighs and without that advantage he's toast. Fortunately, the 4e rogue is a wily enough combatant to create his own opportunities. 

If you want a "kidney-stabber" rogue, I'll bet that's still an option, through an assassin "paragon path" if nowhere else. But with all the worrying about 4e being "too dark," surely moving the rogue away from the "evil assassin with a grisly knowledge of how to effectively murder humanoids" towards the "adventurer who uses his quick reflexes and quicker wits to turn the tables against his foes" can only be a good thing. ;-)


----------



## rounser (Jan 1, 2008)

> DM: "Sorry, Regdar, I just don't see how it would be at all possible for you to jump more than 4 or 5 feet in full plate; I don't care what the rules say! You therefore fall into the crevasse and plummet 600 feet to your death... And Lidda, there's just no way you could use that improved evasion ability out in the open like that with nothing to hide behind, so the red dragon fries you to a crisp with his breath weapon."
> 
> Wizard: "I've gotta agree with the DM on this one, guys; it just wouldn't be realistic. While they're dying, I gesticulate wildly and mutter a string of non-sensical words. This temporarily grants me the ability to fly like Mary Poppins. I use this ability to glide effortlessly across the crevasse, waving at the fluffy pink cloud myconids as I float on by..."



I know you're trying to mock here, but I'm failing to see you landing a point.

Magic cheats reality.  That's it's thing.  If you don't have it, you'll need some other excuse for stretching credibility.

I understand that the designers are in a pickle, here - that the playing field isn't level, because the cheater is competing with the fair players who at least nod in the direction of physics.  But solving problems like this (without lazy justification which strains suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude) is why the game needs clever design.  It doesn't just involve solving pure crunch problems.

Sometimes, handwaving or genre convention is enough to explain away even glaring examples of unmagical "compromised reality" - other times not.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 1, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> 3e moved a bit towards making rogues "equally useful in combat" by making sneak attack more extensive. They're intentionally taking it even further in 4e, so rogues should be on par with fighters and wizards in terms of tactical usefulness.




The problem here is that "tactical usefulness" translates as "does lots of hit point damage".  Every edition of the game has inflated the hit point scale, which makes being able to do hit point damage -- and lots of it -- supremely important.  An alternative to continuing this trend, which 4E obviously does, is to alter the combat rules in such a way as to make non-damaging actions worthwhile, instead of deciding that the sly sneaky guy who's good with locks and traps should be a front line fighter.


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Imagine playing a wizard (maybe of 10th level) that is about to enter a null-magic zone that covers the full dungeon the party has to explore. Will it be fun for him? I mean, he can still provide flanking benefit or use aid another, can't he, just like the Rogue when they entered the undead-infested dungeon, right?





			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Yeah but what's the point of being the rogue then since pretty much ANY class can do these things.





			
				Panamon Creel said:
			
		

> Especially if the rest of your mid to high level party's fighters and mages are dishing out 30+ hp per damage per attack.  It sucks when your PC is completely nerfed or nearly useless in a fight.





			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> Fixing this is not 'catering to munchkins'---it is addressing a gaping design flaw.



So many examples of still not understanding... Rogues don't have to be designed to be balanced against combat.  RPGs do not have to be designed to be balanced against combat.  The idea of the Thief in D&D was that they were worse than Fighters in combat in every single way.  That's because Fighters were meant to be good at combat.  That is their thing.  Thieves' thing was sneaking, hiding, disarming traps, stealing, etc.  If you want to fight, play a Fighter.  If you want to steal, play a Thief.  This is why you don't need to balance solely for combat.  If you want to be good at combat all the time, play a Fighter.  It's really that easy.  Or did you want to be good at combat and also better than the Fighter at a bunch of skill-based feats?  Why isn't that imbalanced?


----------



## Dormammu (Jan 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's an alternative, but you risk making the Rogue becoming just like any other "martial" combatant. You really need to come up with alternative abilities that have other limitations then sneak attack.



Yeah, really Rogues shouldn't have been Strikers at all.  They'd be much more in flavor of the fiction that inspired them as Leaders or Controllers.  That is, they'd engage in dirty tricks that helped their allies and hindered their foes.  This could even include the occasional well-timed sneak attack, but would definitely not be represented by being a monster cuisinart.  This is one of the couple of ideas infiltrating D&D that can be legitimately sourced to online gaming in my view.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

> Rogues don't have to be designed to be balanced against combat. RPGs do not have to be designed to be balanced against combat.




Agreed 100%.

My example of the acid flinging rogue was just an example of what a particular rogue could do at a particular point in time.  As others point out, as he advances in levels, he becomes more able to UMD.  His scouting ability gives the party the intelligence to optimize their choices for upcoming encounters.

He doesn't need to be able to drop the nastiest beast in _EVERY _encounter with a single blow- its enough that he's capable of doing that in most cases.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 2, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> Rogues don't have to be designed to be balanced against combat.  RPGs do not have to be designed to be balanced against combat.



They do if combat is about 70% (or more) of actual play.

To repeat:

the issue is not so much in-game effectiveness, or XP-earning effectiveness, but rather at-the-table relevance. The way that D&D plays means that the real time consumed by combat is almost always far greater than that consumed by scouting, trap finding and trap disarming.​


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

> They do if combat is about 70% (or more) of actual play.




1) That % varies from campaign to campaign.

2) Even if it were the norm, I'd disagree.  You don't play a Rogue to be a combat monster, you play a Fighter to be a combat monster.

Even in pure combat games like tabletop wargames, there are units that are horrible combatants but still have a use on the board.  Perhaps they provide bonuses to other units, improve C&C, or whatever, but whatever they are, they're not front line combatants.

And yet, they're still important to the game.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 2, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> They do if combat is about 70% (or more) of actual play.




Which may or may not be typical.  Even so, the problem is that the 4E design philosophy, particularly the idea that encounters are the basic unit of play, hardwires the importance of combat into the mechanics and requires that the game design be built so that everyone is equally useful and effective in combat.

Piffle, says I.

The adventure is the basic unit of play.  Everyone needs to be equally useful and effective throughout the course of an adventure.  It is okay, for example, to have a scene that throws the spotlight on the rogue, and one that spotlights the wizard and then another for each the fighter and the cleric.  Some of these can be copmbats, some can be other kinds of ostacles.  And the players of the characters that aren't spotlighted can do their best to support the spotlight character ("Keep those orcs off me while I clear the Hallway of Deadly Devices!"), or maybe even sit back and simply enjoy the show (like what happens many times in character-specific roleplaying encounters).

_*This*_ is why, at this point, 4E doesn't appeal to me (well that and thesetting they are trying to ram down my throat).  D&D has never, ever been for me about combats.  The game -- the actual play of the game -- allows for so much more, building the entire mechanical foundation of the game around fights is just doing it wrong.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 2, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The adventure is the basic unit of play.  Everyone needs to be equally useful and effective throughout the course of an adventure.



Gary thought the campaign was the basic unit of play. Magic-users were only balanced against fighters if the game started at 1st, continued to about 10th and then stopped. That idea didn't work because it's very difficult to ensure play fits that pattern. 3e still suffers from this.

I think the session should be the maximum possible balance unit. You can't be sure the game will last any longer than that.

But making it the encounter gives DMs and players a lot more flexibility. Want one encounter per day (as my current DM prefers)? Now the game works. Want ten encounters in a day? It still works.

Likewise having classes needing non-combat scenes for balance really restricts what you can do. What if you want to run a dungeon bash? Well you can't because there's a bard in the party.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Gary thought the campaign was the basic unit of play. Magic-users were only balanced against fighters if the game started at 1st, continued to about 10th and then stopped. That idea didn't work because it's very difficult to ensure play fits that pattern. 3e still suffers from this.
> 
> I think the session should be the maximum possible balance unit. You can't be sure the game will last any longer than that.
> 
> ...




I think this is a great post.

The unit of play is no longer "over the course of an adventure" but "over the course of an encounter". Hell, I don't even think back in the days of 1E, the unit of play for most people was "adventure" but was a "one night session".

An earlier poster mentioned that in tabletop wargames, not all units are good for frontline combat but what is also true is that the units that ARE good for frontline combat tend also to be VERY poor support classes.

In a tabletop wargame, every unit has a role that it can call its own and some units can fill more than 1 role, but in a well-designed wargame, no unit of the same cost ("level") should fill multiple roles better than any other unit.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jan 2, 2008)

Combat 70% of play!?!?!

Sometimes I wonder if I have been DMing D&D at all for all these years.   

I suppose this is what I most dread about what I am inferring about 4e's design decisions. Combat is all and if that is the way the game is meant to be played I would argue in favor of making damn sure that all classes were combat optimized. To be honest I wouldn't want to ruin everyone's fun by denying them ultimate utility in nearly all combat situations if most people are actually playing D&D this way.

However, I have DM'd plenty of sessions where there was only 1 battle and a large number of sessions where no combats took place instead being replaced with social interactions and various other non-combat related activities. It isn't that combat optimization wasn't important, it was just that other things such as character development, investigation, attending to one's lands and castle, dealing with intrigues, etc. often meant more.

No one spoke of builds...and none of my players speak in those terms even now...but instead created a character concept and then chose the class, feats, background necessary to make said character concept come to life in all aspects of the game and not just in an infinite dungeon environment.

I could never DM a game that was that combat heavy because I would be bored to tears. That much dice rolling would make me feel as if I were playing monopoly or some board game as opposed to a role-playing game. My enjoyment comes from role-playing NPCs, telling stories, creating intrigues and plot hooks, and making the players feel like "hey that place seems real and my character does too."

If that is how folks want to play, have at it. If for some reason the game funneled my DMing style into this mode when I was a younger, more impressionable DM who believed that "official" actually meant more than some other experienced DM's opinion I would have quit DMing or playing D&D long ago.

Hopefully 4e can, with some ease, support playstyles that are often 20%-35% combat.




Wyrmshadows


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Combat 70% of play!?!?!




There's a reason that D&D is known as one of the most combat-heavy RPGs on the market.


----------



## Gort (Jan 2, 2008)

Is it really D&D without combat? Roleplaying doesn't need any combat at all, and roleplaying doesn't really even need any rules. Are you even DMing a game of D&D if there's no use of the D&D rules in your game?

I've seen some (very unsatisfying) games in my time where players joined, made characters who were warriors or mages or so forth, and ended up just sitting around taverns or stumbling around cities aimlessly. Do players who make fighter characters in your game not feel a bit short-changed at such a small amount of combat?


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jan 2, 2008)

Gort said:
			
		

> Is it really D&D without combat? Roleplaying doesn't need any combat at all, and roleplaying doesn't really even need any rules. Are you even DMing a game of D&D if there's no use of the D&D rules in your game?
> 
> I've seen some (very unsatisfying) games in my time where players joined, made characters who were warriors or mages or so forth, and ended up just sitting around taverns or stumbling around cities aimlessly. Do players who make fighter characters in your game not feel a bit short-changed at such a small amount of combat?




Well in a role-playing game, the rules are used to adjudicate situations that require rules. When no rule is needed, you are still playing the game. The rules, existing as a scaffold upon which you lay the the mechanical elements of the story, actions, events, etc. and are there for when you need them and because the ruleset used at that time is Dungeons and Dragons, I can say with great certainty that I am still playing Dungeons and Dragons.

The games where rules are always needed are games of pure mechanics ie. boardgames and the algorhythms of CRPGs. Role playing games have always been a mixture of the mechanical elements and the storytelling/imaginative elements and the ratio of this mixture is determined entirely by events in the campaign. 

Short changed? Hardly. In fact my players love the opportunity to bring their characters to life through interaction with the setting in any variety of ways with combat being only one.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Trainz (Jan 2, 2008)

The good and the bad?

I'm pretty much fine with everything I've heard so far, even if some of it doesn't make 100% sense from my extremely subjective and uninformed point of view. I've enjoyed all iterations of the game so far, and have no *rational* reason to believe they'll screw the pooch this time around.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

> Is it really D&D without combat?




Yep.



> I've seen some (very unsatisfying) games in my time where players joined, made characters who were warriors or mages or so forth, and ended up just sitting around taverns or stumbling around cities aimlessly. Do players who make fighter characters in your game not feel a bit short-changed at such a small amount of combat?




Sometimes even the best warrior is completely ineffective in a given combat.

A while ago, at the Dallas Gameday, der_kluge ran a game in which I was a participant.  I ran a multiclassed Monk/Kensai (w/the feats Monkey Grip & Pole Fighter, a way to Enlarge, and a polearm).  The owner of the hosting venue- Generation X Games in Euless, TX- ran a single class Knight.

Essentially, the final combat was an exercise in roleplay for the knight PC- unlike almost every other PC in the party, he was unable to deal damage at more than arm's reach.

He sure did _seem_ to have fun, though, smiling as his PC ran around, challenging the dragons to single combat and chasing them around the cave as the rest of the party actually had to fight them.


----------



## EATherrian (Jan 2, 2008)

I think other posts above have really said what I've been feeling these last few weeks.  I never play characters built with an eye toward combat, except for my fighters.  Even then the last fighter I played had the main goal of getting as rich as possible to help save his hometown from poverty.  He did as many non-combat things to achieve this goal than he did in combat.  The other major thing is rogues in combat and their utility there-in.  I've NEVER felt useless in combat so long as I can still hit.  Heck, the rogue in D&D is not the DPS the one in WOW is.  The rogue in D&D is the utility, or maybe that's just how I see it through my lens of playing experience.  My last rogue character (I know, no one wants to hear about my characters lol) was based somewhat on Houdini.  I made it so he was usually frightened or uncomfortable fighting, but when it came to traps or devices he was a master.  I actually don't think I even did a sneak attack with him, I felt he had no reason to even no how until level 3-4.  I thought he was a great character, and as time went on in the campaign I had him grow more comfortable with fighting, although he only would sneak attack if completely necessary.  Sorry to use my characters as examples, but I really don't see all these glaring weaknesses so many others seem to see.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 2, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The unit of play is no longer "over the course of an adventure" but "over the course of an encounter". Hell, I don't even think back in the days of 1E, the unit of play for most people was "adventure" but was a "one night session".



I think this is a matter of perspective, on many fronts.

In a short campaign or one-off adventure, the unit of play for the DM is probably the entire campaign/adventure, but is much smaller - a session, an encounter, a day, or similar - for the players.

In a long campaign, the unit of play in my own experience as DM is the adventure, and as player it varies widely - anywhere from the individual encounter to the entire adventure, depending on the situation.

The bigger question is, whose unit of play matters more in design - the DM, or the players?  As DM, I'll look at the game I run in terms of adventures; and if something's out of whack for a session or two I won't care, but if it stays out of whack for longer than an adventure then I'll look at it.  But I'm not going to even try to micro-balance things down to the point where everyone is equally effective in almost every individual encounter - it's a hopeless goal and a colossal waste of time.







> An earlier poster mentioned that in tabletop wargames, not all units are good for frontline combat but what is also true is that the units that ARE good for frontline combat tend also to be VERY poor support classes.
> 
> In a tabletop wargame, every unit has a role that it can call its own and some units can fill more than 1 role, but in a well-designed wargame, no unit of the same cost ("level") should fill multiple roles better than any other unit.



And the same should go for classes in D+D.  Each class has its "thing" that it does well, and put 'em all together and you've got an adventuring party.  However, it *has* to be made clear to all that not every class' "thing" is going to be in demand in every situation: it's a fact of life that sometimes you're the party's fifth wheel.  As long as this isn't constantly happening to the same character, who cares?

Fighters generally can't sneak very well.  Rogues generally can't fight very well.  Seems fine to me.

That said, someone above has pointed out one larger problem that needs a very serious fix at the root design level: numbers creep.  When a foe starts with 50 h.p., hitting it with a thrown dagger for 4 points now and then is a useful contribution.  However, when same foe starts at 150 h.p., the dagger becomes nearly useless as everyone expects to be able to dish out loads more damage.  *This* is where the problem stems from; giving Rogues an always-on sneak attack seems a very makeshift way of trying to fix it, as does giving Wizards some always-on magic to replace their dagger and staff attacks once they run out of spells.

Lane-"if the above doesn't make sense, tell me and I'll try again"-fan


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 2, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Combat 70% of play!?!?!
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if I have been DMing D&D at all for all these years.
> 
> ...



I love D&D combats. They are fun, challenging, and let characters (often PCs, sometimes the NPCs  ) show off. 
I also like it if there is a story to participate in. But I don't want just to particpate in it - I want to particpiate by my character. Which for me means, that his stats (ability scores, skills and so on) come into play. Because otherwise, the game would seem "off-balance" - dozens of rules for resolving conflicts in combat, but none outside of it?



> If that is how folks want to play, have at it. If for some reason the game funneled my DMing style into this mode when I was a younger, more impressionable DM who believed that "official" actually meant more than some other experienced DM's opinion I would have quit DMing or playing D&D long ago.
> 
> Hopefully 4e can, with some ease, support playstyles that are often 20%-35% combat.



Well, I share the hope, and if you're willing to use rules for non-combat situations, I guess D&D 4 will indeed be better (assuming that the social encounter rules don't suck  )

To support a wide variety from play styles (some with 80 % combat, others with 20 %), each "subsystem" needs to be balanced within itself (unless you're willing to leave some character classes out in some play styles). All characters need to be effective in combat. All characters need to be effective in social situations. All characters need to be effective when handling traps. Not always this needs to be automatic, maybe some classes must expend a few precious resources to get there - learning the right spells, talents or feats... 
(For the record, I haven't seen much to convince me that the Fighter will not be second-fiddle in most roleplaying scenarios, but we haven't heard enough about the skill system and the social encounter system for a final verdict.)


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 2, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why not? SR means you've wasted an entire round's worth of actions, if not more depending on if you don't have many conjuration spells prepped or known.




SR is similar to AC in that it's a defensive capability.

Immunity is completely different, which is the problem with most monsters and rogues.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> What archetypical situation are you talking about?  The rogues ability to do an extra Xd6 damage isn't archetypical.  It didn't even exist prior to 3E.  Getting "back stab" damage multipliers took work in 1E and 2E.  There is no "sneak attack" archetypical ability, at least insofar as it was represented in 3E.




Umm, dude, what?  Reread what I wrote. The Archetypal situation was a "Tomb Raid".  Not a sneak attack.  



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Agreed 100%.
> 
> My example of the acid flinging rogue was just an example of what a particular rogue could do at a particular point in time.  As others point out, as he advances in levels, he becomes more able to UMD.  His scouting ability gives the party the intelligence to optimize their choices for upcoming encounters.
> 
> He doesn't need to be able to drop the nastiest beast in _EVERY _encounter with a single blow- its enough that he's capable of doing that in most cases.




Woopee, I get to scout - the rest of the part stands around twiddling their thumbs while I play.  Then, the fight starts and I get to twiddle my thumbs while everyone else does stuff.  So, basically, I get to map, find out stuff, but, when the midden hits the windmill, I'm warming the pines.

Or, better yet, I get to be a second class wizard.  Oooh, please, can I have some more?  

Never mind that the wizard can scout 100 times more effectively than I can (arcane eye, invisiblity spell, whatever) and can blow up stuff much better than I can.

Somebody mentioned peppering arrows into the zombies.  Well, first off, we know that 4e zombies are no longer the slow moving slabs of xp that 3e zombies were.  Secondly, with a DR 5/slashing, my d6 or d8 arrows are pretty much pissing in the wind.

No one answered my original question though.  Why is it ok that I can sneak attack a gibbering mouther, or a bone devil, but not an ooze or a skeleton?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

> Why is it ok that I can sneak attack a gibbering mouther, or a bone devil, but not an ooze or a skeleton?




Asked and answered already- in every edition previous to 4Ed, sneak attack has been couched in language of targeting vital spots, which is not quite synonymous with "weak" or vulnerable spots.  Vitals, at least to me, implies that the creature has organs that are essential to its continued operation.

With negative energy as its sole animating force, a skeleton (really, any undead) has no vitals, unless you're arguing that a rogue should be able to disrupt the skeleton's..."nexus of unlife."

An ooze generally has no true organs either- they generate what organelles they need when they need them and in some sense, the nucleus is an undifferentiated mass of genetic info.  The rogue and everyone else are essentiallly aiming at the same targets- protoplasmic pseudopods reaching out to strike or the center mass.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 2, 2008)

I have no problem with the idea that undead, constructs and so on could have vulnerable points. If anything it fits the source material better - vampires must be struck in the heart, zombies in the head etc.

It's true that the 3e description of sneak attack refers to vital spots which does indeed suggest living targets only. Newsflash, 3e <> 4e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

The discussion isn't whether its different, but whether its a good change or not.

I'm firmly in the "Not good" camp.

As for striking vampires in the heart...its not just striking them in the heart, its doing that _with a wooden stake_- it represents the breaking of a magical spell or curse, kind of like the conditions under which a classic magical relic can be destroyed.

Zombies being vulnerable to head shots is purely from modern cinema (discounting, of course, the RW "zombies" poisoned by the tetrodoxin mix used by certain unscrupulous types in the Carribean).  Look at supernatural zombie legends and you'll find that it was _salt_ that was their bane.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 2, 2008)

I said it fits the source material better, not perfectly. Also D&D zombies come from George Romero, not Haitian voodoo.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

> I said it fits the source material better, not perfectly. Also D&D zombies come from George Romero, not Haitian voodoo.




1) True, but _fast _zombies are definitely post-Romero.

2) If we're going to talk about "source material" that a) opens up a LOT of books, movies, legends etc., and b) returns us to the assertion that "vital areas" has always meant organs as targets.  The vampire's heart is not a true vital area- its an area you must strike with force and with a specific kind of material.  You're not so much striking a vital area as dispelling an unnatural force or breaking a curse.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 2, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 1) True, but _fast _zombies are definitely post-Romero.
> 
> 2) If we're going to talk about "source material" that a) opens up a LOT of books, movies, legends etc., and b) returns us to the assertion that "vital areas" has always meant organs as targets.  The vampire's heart is not a true vital area- its an area you must strike with force and with a specific kind of material.  You're not so much striking a vital area as dispelling an unnatural force or breaking a curse.



But why can't a Rogue apply the same training he used for striking the heart of living creatures to strike the heart of a unliving creature? Even if he has to use a stake to do it effectively?

Though this is, in the end, beside the point. The question is if sneak attack has to be related to vital organs or not. Some say yes, some say no. Nobody is right or wrong in that matter, but D&D 4 will apparently not rely on vital organs to justify sneak attacks. (Though maybe this is wrong - maybe they are actually just adding "vital" parts to most creatures. And maybe Oozes and pure elementals will still be immune to sneak attacks. But most creatures - including undeads, constructs and many elemental species won't)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

> Some say yes, some say no. Nobody is right or wrong in that matter




Actually, those who say "Yes" have a firm justification in 30 years of D&D history.  Those who say "No" have a firm justification in the upcoming edition.


> Though maybe this is wrong - maybe they are actually just adding "vital" parts to most creatures.




Which _could _be a good thing, I'll admit, though I'd have to see the whole 4Ed sneak attack mechanic to judge fully.


> And maybe Oozes and pure elementals will still be immune to sneak attacks. But most creatures - including undeads, constructs and many elemental species won't




Of that list, the only thing I'd say might be worth changing over being vulnerable is the last.  After all, it would be disingenuous of me to assert the whole "vital organs" interpretation without also admitting there are several species hailing from the elemental planes that are, essentially, elementally templated versions of denizens of the PMP or who otherwise _DO _have discernable vital organs.

Who knows, perhaps vulnerability to sneak attacks will be based on a species by species basis...or upon each individual rogue's studies (represented by some kind of skill check) and not simply a blanket "everything is vulnerable" rule, but rather an "everything is potentially vulnerable if you've done your homework" rule.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 2, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But why can't a Rogue apply the same training he used for striking the heart of living creatures to strike the heart of a unliving creature? Even if he has to use a stake to do it effectively?
> .....
> Though this is, in the end, beside the point. The question is if sneak attack has to be related to vital organs or not. Some say yes, some say no. Nobody is right or wrong in that matter, but D&D 4 will apparently not rely on vital organs to justify sneak attacks. (Though maybe this is wrong - maybe they are actually just adding "vital" parts to most creatures. And maybe Oozes and pure elementals will still be immune to sneak attacks. But most creatures - including undeads, constructs and many elemental species won't)




You can put me in the 'good idea' camp. I find it difficult to believe that a sneak attack is necessarily an organ strike. If a 10th level rogue sneak attacks a 10th level fighter (say 65 hit points) for average damage (say 40 points of damage), he has clearly done some damage. If it were an organ strike, wouldn't it have killed the fighter, not just reduced him to below half hit points? I have always rejected anything but a killing or incapacitating blow as a shot to the vitals. 

A sneak attack targets weak points. Undead and constructs have weak points, even if they don't have vitals.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2008)

When you take into account the extremely abstract nature of HP in the game, reducing a warrior from 65 to 25 HP with one blow _IS_ incapacitating.

He's gone from being able to fight "all day" to wondering if he can take the next blow...

Heck, it almost triggers the death by massive damage rule.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 2, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As for striking vampires in the heart...its not just striking them in the heart, its doing that _with a wooden stake_- it represents the breaking of a magical spell or curse, kind of like the conditions under which a classic magical relic can be destroyed.



Going off topic, but this is something I've always wondered -- why did D&D come to embrace the importance of the wood?

Of the various vampire legends, some did require a wooden stake and some did not.  But most stakes would be made of wood in a pre-industrial period, so if the tradition was trying to convey the sense of either "pinning it to the ground" or "using a weapon large enough to entirely destroy the heart," a wooden stake would work for those reasons.  It's possible that some traditions were specifically focused on the fact of it being wood, and others on the fact of it being a stake.  

In Dracula, there is no discussion of wood being necessary -- only "a stake" is mentioned. 
[about Lucy]  "I shall cut off her head and fill her mouth with garlic, and I shall drive a stake through her body."
[about Dracula] "...find this great UnDead, and cut off his head and burn his heart or drive a stake through it, so that the world may rest from him."

So it looks like decapitation plus destruction of the heart are essential.  It seems that a large knife works as well a stake.  The Count himself is killed by decapitation with a Kukri and a Bowie knife in the heart; the sunlight was not a factor ("the eyes saw the sinking sun, and the look of hate in them turned to triumph").


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 2, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But why can't a Rogue apply the same training he used for striking the heart of living creatures to strike the heart of a unliving creature? Even if he has to use a stake to do it effectively?



Because the rogue's training is to hit the kidneys, the lungs, an artery, or any of a number of vital areas that present themselves as targets.  He's an opportunist.  A typical human has numerous weak spots, any one of which might be exposed.  If the vampire only has to protect his heart (in addition to the protection provided by extra-hard flesh and breastbone), the rogue's job is a lot harder.


----------



## rounser (Jan 3, 2008)

> In Dracula, there is no discussion of wood being necessary -- only "a stake" is mentioned.



I'd venture that it certainly implies wood - maybe my archaic term knowledge isn't up to speed, but in the modern world, whoever heard of an "iron stake"?  There's other words for that, such as nail, spike, rod, or piton.  Or tent peg.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I'd venture that it certainly implies wood - maybe my archaic term knowledge isn't up to speed, but in the modern world, whoever heard of an "iron stake"?  There's other words for that, such as nail, spike, rod, or piton.  Or tent peg.




Yes, stake implies wood. However, Bowie knife in the chest doesn't imply anything but a sharp piece of steel through the heart. So, no need for wood.


----------



## rounser (Jan 3, 2008)

> However, Bowie knife in the chest doesn't imply anything but a sharp piece of steel through the heart. So, no need for wood.



Unless of course, Draco is faking it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> Unless of course, Draco is faking it.




It's thinking like that which gave us a multitude of spinoff movies!

(Then again, some of those cheese-tastic Hammer films are some of my guilty pleasures.)


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 3, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I'd venture that it certainly implies wood - maybe my archaic term knowledge isn't up to speed, but in the modern world, whoever heard of an "iron stake"?  There's other words for that, such as nail, spike, rod, or piton.  Or tent peg.



There are some references to "iron stakes," such as used to mark boundaries of plots of land.  But the issue as I see it is this:
1) If the fundamental property that makes the stake effective is its wooden-ness, then you have players thinking that arrows with the heads removed will be more effective against vampires than arrows with the heads on.  Any piece of wood is used, any stick is considered a stake.
2) If the fundamental property is its physical form (sharp, fairly thick, and capable of really destroying the heart), then an iron spike would work or even a large knife, but an arrow might not be massive enough.
3) If the fundamental property is its symbolism (a stake is used to anchor things to the ground, which is where dead bodies should stay), then iron spikes or tent pegs would likewise be effective, but the knife wouldn't.

Most D&D players I know think that 1) should be the reason that stakes work.  Bram Stoker suggests that it's 2) in his novel, and personally that's what I'd go with in the next game I run.  I think 3) is an interesting concept, though I don't see much support for it.


----------



## Voss (Jan 3, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> I'd venture that it certainly implies wood - maybe my archaic term knowledge isn't up to speed, but in the modern world, whoever heard of an "iron stake"?  There's other words for that, such as nail, spike, rod, or piton.  Or tent peg.




Having worked on a farm, let me tell you that it has come up.  Putting up temporary fencing with wooden stakes would be even worse than it already is.

Also:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=iron+stake&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


----------



## rounser (Jan 3, 2008)

> Having worked on a farm, let me tell you that it has come up. Putting up temporary fencing with wooden stakes would be even worse than it already is.



Okay, I stand corrected.  

And I assume it's got surveying or building origins - e.g. "staking out a territory".  Stakes when not being stuck into vampires go in the ground, yeah?

EDIT: Yup...


> stake1      /steɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[steyk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun, verb, staked, stak·ing.
> –noun 1. a stick or post pointed at one end for driving into the ground as a boundary mark, part of a fence, support for a plant, etc.
> 2. a post to which a person is bound for execution, usually by burning.
> 3. the stake, the punishment of death by burning: Joan of Arc was sentenced to the stake.
> ...



So after you've staked your vampire, you can build a fence on him.  (Unless a bowie knife was used.)


----------



## Voss (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually... its worth noting that many of those stakes are... not small.  They're certainly not the tiny little things that Buffy is running around with.  I suspect that if you really go back and look at the mythology of the vampire, people are staking them to the ground with some fairly large implements and bloody big hammers.  

More like nailing the creature down and tying it back to the earth, through the medium of its cursed heart.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 3, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually... its worth noting that many of those stakes are... not small.  They're certainly not the tiny little things that Buffy is running around with.  I suspect that if you really go back and look at the mythology of the vampire, people are staking them to the ground with some fairly large implements and bloody big hammers.
> 
> More like nailing the creature down and tying it back to the earth, through the medium of its cursed heart.



"Arthur placed the point over the heart, and as I looked I could see its dint in the white flesh. Then he struck with all his might.

The thing in the coffin writhed, and a hideous, blood-curdling screech came from the opened red lips. The body shook and quivered and twisted in wild contortions. The sharp white champed together till the lips were cut, and the mouth was smeared with a crimson foam. But Arthur never faltered. He looked like a figure of Thor as his untrembling arm rose and fell, driving deeper and deeper the mercy-bearing stake, whilst the blood from the pierced heart welled and spurted up around it. His face was set, and high duty seemed to shine through it. The sight of it gave us courage so that our voices seemed to ring through the little vault.

And then the writhing and quivering of the body became less, and the teeth seemed to champ, and the face to quiver. Finally it lay still. The terrible task was over."

Horrifying, as it should be.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 3, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> When you take into account the extremely abstract nature of HP in the game, reducing a warrior from 65 to 25 HP with one blow _IS_ incapacitating.
> 
> He's gone from being able to fight "all day" to wondering if he can take the next blow...
> 
> Heck, it almost triggers the death by massive damage rule.




No, it's not. The fighter in question has been wounded severely, but not incapacitated. He has no penalty to any of his actions. His movement rate is not impaired. If he then kills the rogue before he can get hit again, he will not die, even without healing. If the sneak attack were an attack to an organ, he would be impaired in combat, his movement would be reduced and he would die without magical healing.

To pick a more extreme example. Assume that the rogue sneak attacks a 200 hp dragon. The 40 points of damage he deals can in no way be assumed to be an organ hit. It's only 1/5th of the dragon's hit points.

My point is that the assumption that sneak attack equates to an organ strike or a strike to the vitals doesn't work from a logical point of view. The damage on a sneak attack can be single digits. Against a triple digit opponent, this cannot conceivably be a strike to the vitals. The only logical way to look at sneak attack is as a precision strike that damages weak points. Even if a construct doesn't have vital organs, it has joints, a neck and most likely fractures within the stone that could result in massive damage from such a hit. Just ask any beginning sculptor or stonemason (assuming you can find such a person in this modern world).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 3, 2008)

> 2) If the fundamental property is its physical form (sharp, fairly thick, and capable of really destroying the heart), then an iron spike would work or even a large knife, but an arrow might not be massive enough.




Then a Hollow Point slug from a large caliber weapon should work just as well, but we've seen the modern vampire stories and know _that's_ not the case.



> > When you take into account the extremely abstract nature of HP in the game, reducing a warrior from 65 to 25 HP with one blow IS incapacitating.
> >
> > He's gone from being able to fight "all day" to wondering if he can take the next blow...
> >
> ...




Again, that's due to the highly abstract nature of damage mechanics in D&D.

Otherwise you'd have rogues (and really, fighters as well) hamstringing opponents, slicing tendons in their wrists or even femoral arteries in the legs or carotid & jugular of the neck and dropping opponents with single blows.  The accumulation of strikes would hinder att and dam mods, initiative, AC, etc.

In every combat.

Instead, there are no crit location tables and almost no way to cripple someone in that fashion.

That loss of 61% of his hp in a single blow represents a great degradation in the fighter's capability, especially if you consider that is approximately what the fighter should expect to lose in 2 encounters (or so I'm told).

And as it so happens, I just thought of a RW example.  I recently watch a mixed-martial arts bout in which one of the guys was struck in the lower right side of his torso.  Despite his training, he had obviously suffered a major blow- his defense on that side dropped immediately, followed by his left hand covering the spot of the blow. He winced in visible pain as he retreated and doubled up.  Here was his opponent's chance- he charged in to finish the bout...and before he could administer the "coup de grace," he was K.Oed by a right to the jaw.  The winning boxer collapsed seconds after the ref declared the bout.

Clearly, the man had been struck in a vital area- perhaps a broken rib, perhaps even that rib piercing an organ- but he still had the ability to put away a similarly proficient opponent (they were, in fact, training partners) with a single blow despite being seriously debilitated.



> Even if a construct doesn't have vital organs, it has joints, a neck and most likely fractures within the stone that could result in massive damage from such a hit. Just ask any beginning sculptor or stonemason (assuming you can find such a person in this modern world).




I've done some sculpting in my past as part of getting an Art/Art History minor.

Most artistic interpretations of constructs such as stone or iron golems _lack_ visible joints- texture and sculpting features exist that may resemble armor, but not true joints.  I would assume that the magic that animates them prevents them from cracking or bending with metal fatigue when their limbs flex or their necks turn, etc.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 3, 2008)

I think there's also the "how often is the rogue useless" that also needs to be considered.

A MU is never useless in that its class abilities ("spellcasting") will always provide options, while a fighter is only useless if ihs weapon is taken away (and if he's an unarmed fighter, that goes away as well).

Compare this with rogue. Want to play one in Ravenloft? Or the typical "dungeon where a lich makes its home"? scenario.

That's WAY too often IMO,


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Compare this with rogue. Want to play one in Ravenloft? Or the typical "dungeon where a lich makes its home"? scenario.
> 
> That's WAY too often IMO,




How is the rogue useless in these situations.

Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that _*really*_ matters.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> How is the rogue useless in these situations.
> 
> Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that _*really*_ matters.



That's unnecessarily snarky when addressing someone who has a valid point, even if you disagree 

The rogue's class abilities all focus tangentially on (stealthy) combat, trapfinding, and stealth. In trapfinding, _only_ the rogue gets to do anything, so that's not exactly fun for the whole party; against a large number of enemies, the rogue's sneak attack is useless and thus in combat, he's basically a helpful NPC -- flanking bonus here, aid another there, but nothing actually unique. That leaves stealth and subterfuge, at which the rogue excels.

Great!

But that's one minor thing at which the rogue is best, topped by the wizard and cleric anyway. It doesn't seem unreasonable to bring the other two abilities up to par.

Or, to put it another way: Even if combat isn't the be-all, end-all, it's still a fairly big part of the game; it's not a well-designed game if it's predicated on long swaths of individual suckage.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> How is the rogue useless in these situations.
> 
> Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that _*really*_ matters.



Indeed. Unless, off course, scouting around and talking with locals is all that matters and takes up most of the time. (And is actually resolved with dice rolls, and you really play a "social"/"scout" Rogue instead of an athletic and pick-pocketing one.)


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> That's unnecessarily snarky when addressing someone who has a valid point, even if you disagree




That presumes a valid point. 



> Even if combat isn't the be-all, end-all, it's still a fairly big part of the game; it's not a well-designed game if it's predicated on long swaths of individual suckage.




True -- but the poor design is on the part of the DM, not the game.  If one is going to run a game (whether a campaign or a one shot) with undead as the primary enemy, and a player expresses interest in playing a rogue for the length of that game, it is incumbent upon the DM to either

a) Inform the player that one of the rogue's special abilities is going to be severely limited
b) provide the rogue player with an alternative (such as a variant class feature)
and/or c) ensure that the rogue character is useful outside of combat with undead.

Notice I said "length of the game", by the way.  An adventure in a long term campaign in which the primary enemy is undead, for example, shouldn't require the DM to bend over backwards.  And while we are only talking about the rogue here, it applies across the board: antimagic zones for casters, incorporeal or otherwise physically immune enemies for fighters.  Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Notice I said "length of the game", by the way.  An adventure in a long term campaign in which the primary enemy is undead, for example, shouldn't require the DM to bend over backwards.  And while we are only talking about the rogue here, it applies across the board: antimagic zones for casters, incorporeal or otherwise physically immune enemies for fighters.  Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game.




This is where I disagree with you. Unlike the rogue and undead, "to nerf a PC" requires that the DM purposely set out to do so. Really, look at the amount of adventures published and the popularity of undead specifically and compare that with how often "antimagic zones" appear. 

As for the incorporeal/physically immune case, that ALSO screws the rogue over already. So why should the rogue suffer twice?

Personally, I totally understand why the designers think there's something wrong with a class when basically in an adventure, an equivalent-level NPC class could do just as welll (In fact, a warrior is probably a better class in those scenarios than a rogue).


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is where I disagree with you. Unlike the rogue and undead, "to nerf a PC" requires that the DM purposely set out to do so. Really, look at the amount of adventures published and the popularity of undead specifically and compare that with how often "antimagic zones" appear.




This keeps coming up, and no one has yet to actyually show how often these things appear relatibve to other things.



> Personally, I totally understand why the designers think there's something wrong with a class when basically in an adventure, an equivalent-level NPC class *could do just as welll* (In fact, a warrior is probably a better class in those scenarios than a rogue).




Emphasis mine.  Only as it pertains to "inflict hit point damage".  the rogue has a great number of skills and abilities that can make them very useful to the whole party on the battlefield even without their sneak attacks.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> This keeps coming up, and no one has yet to actyually show how often these things appear relatibve to other things.




Are you seriously suggesting that there is an obligation to _prove_ that undead are more common than anti-magic zones?


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game.



I agree with this sentiment.

But I think it is bizarre to claim that "rogues are useless versus undead" is using nerfing "judiciously."

As evidence, I submit that in your attempt to defend rogue's inability to usefully fight undead, you have been forced to take the position that it is ok if "party of heroes saves kingdom from undead menace" isn't something D&D can do well without special treatment from the DM.

I think that's absurd on the face of it, and essentially makes your argument disprove itself.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Are you seriously suggesting that there is an obligation to _prove_ that undead are more common than anti-magic zones?




No.  I am suggesting that one of the arguments for making the rogue's sneak attack ability available versus all types of enemies is the assertion that non-critible enemies are so common that the rogue is unfaily punished compared to other classes' situational limitations.  It is an easy thing to say, but is it true?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> No.  I am suggesting that one of the arguments for making the rogue's sneak attack ability available versus all types of enemies is the assertion that non-critible enemies are so common that the rogue is unfaily punished compared to other classes' situational limitations.  It is an easy thing to say, but is it true?




It is as easy to say and as true as "The sky is blue," or "Water is wet."  

It is easy to say precisely because it is so obviously true.

The only situation more common is in regards to the paladin's warhorse, an ability which is so often completely unsuitable to typical play that the ability truly might as well not exist.

But the warhorse is an insignificant portion of the paladin's power as compared to sneak attack.

EDIT: It also bears mentioning that the rogue's problem isn't simply un-crittable targets. It includes unflankable targets as well as the difficulty already inherent in setting up a sneak attack in the first place. The rogue's viable sneak attack opportunities are already a small enough subset of typical play without further creature type limitations.

EDIT 2: I also agree with Cadfan, re: your statement that "Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game." Absolutely agree with you there. I don't think all PCs have to be all things at all times in order for the game to be fun. It's a tendency in 4e that I am dreading.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT 2: I also agree with Cadfan, re: your statement that "Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game." Absolutely agree with you there. I don't think all PCs have to be all things at all times in order for the game to be fun. It's a tendency in 4e that I am dreading.




Same.  I like specialized abilities that are unique to certain classes.

Let's take two "comparable" abilities:

The first is relatively weak but can be used fairly often and against a wide range of targets.
The second is very powerful but limited as to when it can be used.

Sneak attack obviously falls in the second category.  

I see both as viable design parameters and from a "power" vs "frequency" standpoint, both abilities could be perfectly balanced.

While I don't have a huge issue with sneak attack as-is (and never felt the rogue was "hindered" in spite of its limitations), I can see some kind of variation of the ability that the rogue could select (maybe as a special ability at level 10 or higher) that could be used against non-crittable/flankable creatures.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> How is the rogue useless in these situations.
> 
> Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that _*really*_ matters.




This attitude is borderline ridiculous. Of course combat isn't the only thing that matters, but it does take up a *significant amount * of the time at the gaming table. Taking away the only ability that makes a class viable in combat may be acceptable occasionally, but having entire categories of foes (extremely popular foes at that) that are completely immune to that class ability is very poor game design. When it's predicated on unreasonable definitions of what can and can't be affected by a sneak attack, it is an even worse design.

I see people (in this forum, although nowhere else) laugh at the concept that a game should be fun for all players involved. I don't understand it.

Personally, I have never used an anti-magic field, or a rust monster, or any other trope designed to add nothing to the game while making certain characters sit out the adventure. When the alternate build for rogues appeared allowing them to give up trap sense in exchange for getting half their sneak attack dice versus undead and constructs, I had three reactions. 

1) I said, _about time_.
2) I kicked myself for not thinking of it first.
3) I houseruled a half sneak attack versus undead and constructs as a class feature for all rogues, without taking away trap sense.

Until 4e comes out, I will be using this rule. The day can't come soon enough for me.


----------



## Rallek (Jan 3, 2008)

You know I played my share of rogues way back in the 2nd ed days. I had a blast with them, as I recall. I never got backstab damage versus undead, constructs, or a whole boatload of other enemies. Heck, I even failed to backstab the vast majority of plain vanilla humans and orcs that the party got into combat with. I never really felt short changed because I did less damage than the fighter, or because I had fewer hp than the cleric. I even failed to properly begrudge the wizard his ability to use spells. 


I even failed to notice that we couldn’t do “tomb raiding”. In my defense I could have been thrown off by the fact that we actually did a fair bit of tomb raiding style adventures. I seem to recall finding traps that could have killed or seriously crippled our (the party’s) frontline fighter or, gods forbid, the cleric. Some of them I disarmed, a large number I simply found a way around. I picked locks to open doors because we were sure that there were terrible things in here with us, and the sound of the fighter bashing the door down would likely be heard by them as a dinner bell of sorts. The wizard could have popped the locks with a knock spell, but he didn’t have any memorized at the time. Since there was a thief in the party, he felt an acid arrow or the like would serve better in case (read: when) something went wrong. Besides, a single knock spell can only open two locks, and any door that is really hiding something would have at least three locks, right? He could have cast knock twice in that case, but 2 2nd level spells to open a door seems a touch... wasteful.


Now that I think about it, I didn’t even feel the obviously unfun nature of my plight when the big fight with the master of the tomb and his undead minions finally went down. As the fighter drew his blade and charged, the cleric held forth his holy symbol and made a turning attempt, and the mage began hurling all of the spells he didn’t waste trying to out thief/scout me, I was busy working my way over to the large statue/idol of the terrible demon/god that this unholy place was consecrated to. We had heard that the eyes were a large pair of flawless rubies, and as my gaze traveled the 12 or so feet up to this thing’s head, I saw that it was true. As my companions fought for their lives (and to keep the enemies off of me) I used my uncool and very, very unfun thief abilities to climb up, find and disarm some traps, and manage to pry the eyes loose. I used my lame tumble non-weapon proficiency to avoid damage as I jumped off of the now animated statue, and proceeded to yell “I’ve got them!!” and make tracks out of there.


Eventually some of the monsters caught up with us, though we had managed to stop the statue, namely by using some of those traps I had unfunly found, and uncooly routed us around rather than disarm. In my ignorance I managed to enjoy the combat I was forced into even though my short sword damage didn’t compete with that being handed out by the fighter and cleric of the party. I even found it kind of exciting… lame, I know.




That’s just one example of a “tomb raid”, not to mention of all the times I used a rogue to fast talk our way past a guard, pick-pocket some coin for an inn room or meal when the party was broke and starving, or plant some choice evidence on an NPC who thought that he was too clever to get caught. 


In short I find arguments that thieves need to deal out the big damage in straight-up combats in order to be fun to be untrue on their face.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> No.  I am suggesting that one of the arguments for making the rogue's sneak attack ability available versus all types of enemies is the assertion that non-critible enemies are so common that the rogue is unfaily punished compared to other classes' situational limitations.  It is an easy thing to say, but is it true?




Undead, Constructs, Elementals, Oozes, Plants are all immune by their creature type.

Versus Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants, Dragons, Animals, Vermin, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, Outsiders whose subtypes don't alone make them immune to sneak attacks.

Add on opponents with concealment (such as in poor lighting), fortification armor, uncanny dodge, blindfighting/blindsense/blindsight, and unflankable creatures and it gets reduced even further.

Undead and constructs come up a lot IME. Often they are chosen by designers because they can plausibly be left in dungeons and such as guardians for long periods of time without food or upkeep. Also created undead minions are common because they can be made by relatively low level NPC spellcasters.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 3, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Undead and constructs come up a lot IME. Often they are chosen by designers because they can plausibly be left in dungeons and such as guardians for long periods of time without food or upkeep. Also created undead minions are common because they can be made by relatively low level NPC spellcasters.



 Right.  In addition, you can end up with an adventure theme such as "hunt down the evil Necromancer."  Guess what most of those combats are against?  

Having played a Rogue in a campaign where almost all we fought were undead and constructs, I can say it gets frustrating to have a class ability you never get to use.  That being said, I also do not feel that every creature needs to be susceptible to sneak attack in order to be fun.


----------



## fuindordm (Jan 3, 2008)

From what it sounds like, they're planning on solving this problem at the monster level rather than the PC level, which is just fine with me.

The rogue will get a sneak attack. The ability description will probably just point out that the creature to be attacked must have obvious vulnerable points.

As a default, all undead and constructs will have vulnerable points. Only a few (animated statues, ghosts...) will be immune to sneak attacks and critical hits.

I too had fun with rogues in earlier editions, but I have more fun with rogues in 3rd edition.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 3, 2008)

Rallek said:
			
		

> You know I played my share of rogues way back in the 2nd ed days. I had a blast with them, as I recall. I never got backstab damage versus undead, constructs, or a whole boatload of other enemies. Heck, I even failed to backstab the vast majority of plain vanilla humans and orcs that the party got into combat with. I never really felt short changed because I did less damage than the fighter, or because I had fewer hp than the cleric. I even failed to properly begrudge the wizard his ability to use spells.





Clearly you were playing the game the wrong way, with the wrong attitude, and thus are guilty of wrongbadfun.  Of course, I note that you are referring to an edition where combats were relatively fast, and where there was no Take 10/Take 20 to let you find any trap that is findable.  You were also apparently playing in an exploration-style game.  This is also wrongbadfun in 3e, although not (apparently) in 4e.

RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 3, 2008)

> In short I find arguments that thieves need to deal out the big damage in straight-up combats in order to be fun to be untrue on their face.




Agreed, 100%


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.  Only as it pertains to "inflict hit point damage".  the rogue has a great number of skills and abilities that can make them very useful to the whole party on the battlefield even without their sneak attacks.



Which skills? Which skill helps the Rogue affect the outcome of a typical (maybe undead-related?) combat? Most skills only help the Rogue to get into a good attack position or allow him to make attacks. Next to none help him aid another character or hinder an NPC.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Most skills only help the Rogue to get into a good attack position or allow him to make attacks.




I think we are thinking of the same skills, just in different ways.  the ability to maneuver around the battlefield (Tumble), misdirect enemies (Bluff) and disappear and reappear under concealement (Hide) all allow the Rogue to aid his party even when his sneak attack isn't available.  D&D 3.x is a very tactical game where the battlegrid plays a big role and therefore control of movement and positioning is important.

Again, though, as long as "help the party" or "be useful" of "have fun" is defined solely as being able to dish out huge amounts of damage, there's no way to argue against this (relatively new) position that rogues suck unless they can sneak attack.


----------



## Leugren (Jan 3, 2008)

Rallek said:
			
		

> You know I played my share of rogues way back in the 2nd ed days. I had a blast with them, as I recall.




It's wonderful that you and other imaginative souls like you can find so much pleasure in playing a clearly underpowered class.  If you loved the rogue in 2nd ed., there's no telling what you could do with an Expert or even a Commoner in 3e!  I apparently lack your imagination, because I really don't enjoy playing "organic" characters that are constantly being upstaged in combat by characters of other classes.   Currently, my sole recourse is to choose a different class. Unfortunately, I happen to like the archetype that a rogue represents.  In my head, I'm imagining a character like the Gray Mouser.  I don't want to be forced to play a wizard or a cleric to get my share of the spotlight!  

*Solution:* To give different types of players the greatest number of options, ensure that the classes are well-balanced both in combat and out of combat.  Do not assume that an out-of-combat ability can be used to balance and in-combat ability and vice versa.  Those players who love to play "organic" characters can simply opt not to use the full capabilities of their characters.    Now _everyone_ can play the type of character that they want; it's a  win-win!


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 3, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> the ability to maneuver around the battlefield (Tumble), misdirect enemies (Bluff) and disappear and reappear under concealement (Hide) all allow the Rogue to aid his party even when his sneak attack isn't available.




So, I can run away from a fight (Tumble), feint when it's not helpful at all (Bluff) or hide from the fight (Hide), all of which do exactly what to help my party?


----------



## Rallek (Jan 3, 2008)

Leugren, do you take a few levels of mage first to represent the mouser's training during which he earned his name? If so, you can use scrolls and wands and other assorted mystic goodies well before your general rogue's UMD would kick in reliably. So I'd go for using some of those toys, along with the occasional spell or two.


In addition I'm going to call BS on the argument of "my character concept is X literary figure, and the base class is too weak!" in general. So all rogues are now the gray mouser, all barbarians have to be Fafhrd, but they also have to be Conan, Kull, and Beowulf. All sorcerers are Elric, and Merlin, and Harry Potter too... and so on. How does one "balance" the Gray Mouser vs. Conan, or Elric vs. Merlin? 

Hmmm.... how many skill points does the "Legolas" class get, and is that overpowered compared to my "Cloud Strife" damage bonus?


We can't look to figures from books/movies/games, and try to model them in generic D&D. Why? Because they are from specific settings, with their own internal rules and unique tropes, and often they are mutually incompatible with other specific settings. That's why we're not talking about the unique character of the Gray Mouser, with his own setting specific rules, and history, we're talking about a generic Dungeons and Dragons rogue. Can you use that as a base to build a "Mouser" class? Absolutely, and if that's a concept that you really want to play sit down with your DM and work it out. That's the strength of D&D, by keeping it relatively generic we perserve the flexibility of individual DMs and players to make it their own in the way that best works for them. 


Your Gray Mouser and my Fafhrd may fit wonderfully together, and they may rock Nehwon homebrew world number 7 to its very foundations, but they might not fit so snuggly in Hyborea rip-off number 113. So why not leave the options as open as possible by keeping the class a bit more generic? Wouldn't that also qualify as "win-win"?


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, I can run away from a fight (Tumble), feint when it's not helpful at all (Bluff) or hide from the fight (Hide), all of which do exactly what to help my party?




Alternatively, you could maneuver yourself into position so as to hinder the movement of enemies.  Or you could engage an enemy, going full defensive, so that same enemy doesn't kill the wizard or cleric.  You could do any number of things besides pouting that you can't keep pace with the fighter on a per-round damage measuring contest.


----------



## Rallek (Jan 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully, and to a lesser extent Mourn....



Ok, list of very sloppy, off-the-top-of my head generic ways that a rogue can help a party in a fight...


Well the first thing that I can think of is UMD, but that might be seen as cheap, as MDs are so varied and diverse that UMD is probably applicable in just about every situation, also you have to hit a DC of 20 (I think) to get that wand to work, and we might be talking about lower level thieves… still first thing that springs to mind is UMD.


Second idea, if dealing with slow and plodding zombies, use rope and grapple to trip them, or hook a leg and give it a violent yank… of course that’s not a skill so much as an attack action, so while I think it is another viable option, it might not answer the skill query at hand. So moving on.

Use the climb skill to reach an elevated position and then snipe with bow/crossbow/or heave flasks of nastiness at enemies. If no ledges or other elevated features are available use your climbing gear or rope use to attempt to secure yourself to the wall and then proceed with snipe/throw actions.


If the climb check fails, use tumble skill to try and get less hurt by the fall.


If the zombies didn’t just appear where I am, then I’m going to say that I could have used listen and/or spot to allow my party to get the upper hand on the encounter as a whole.

If I’m in a tomb or dungeon, and I’ve used my search to find some traps, then I’ll use my tumble, balance, and jump skills to try and maneuver the undead or any other generic enemies into the traps that I’ve discovered on my way here. 


hmmm more ideas…. use flaming oil as a lesser kind of battlefield control. Only useful at low levels perhaps… but at higher levels I have a decent shot of UMDing something handy.


Depending on the area I’m in try to take advantage of conditions, bringing down a section of roof, or ruined wall onto my enemies and trusting to tumble/balance/jump to get me mostly out of harms way, along with my various evasion abilities….


Anyway to work a flaming cart or barrel into this? I’ve always loved rolling the burning barrel of tar down stairs at things… same idea with the cart really, though that’s more of an “in the village” thing.


Well to do this right, I’d need to know more about where the encounter is happening, where I am, how I got there, and all that.


still and all though, I think that I can "help" without ever landing a blow, even if I'm just tumbling over to dump a potion down the throat of the recently fallen (insert injured party member here).


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 3, 2008)

re: Rallek

Other than UMD you listed, EVERY thing you suggested is class independent of the Rogue. You could easily use a NPC class to do the job just as well (other than TRAP-finding).

Seriously, an ADEPT brings more to the party than a rogue does.

I am honestly stunned that people seem to have such a hard time understanding what is wrong with the rogue. Using the 2E thief as an example of a good class as well is also surprising. My time on rec.games.frp.dnd, the 2E thief was WIDELY acknowledged as a poorly designed class.

I have no problem if the frequency of "uselessness" for a rogue is the same for a fighter or a wizard. Currently, it is nowhere that seldom.


----------



## Rallek (Jan 3, 2008)

AllisterH -


Indeed this is the case. That's kind of the point, just because the rogue doesn't have a specific "hinder enemies" class feature, that doesn't mean that it can't use other skills and class features to hinder enemies. There is more (in my experience) to running a good character of any stripe than just using encounter appropriate class exclusive ability X. YMMV, of course.


As far as being "poorly designed" in 2e, if by that you mean its combat ability was well behind that of the other classes, you are again 100% right. This was kind of the second half of my point, combat balance isn't always the end-all and be-all of "fun to play". Then again perhaps the groups I've played with are an aberration, and  the rogue has always been badwrongfun. 


As far as useless in combat goes, well I look at it this way. Imagine that the rogue doesn't just do less damage without sneak attack, but that he can't attack at all, in any way. Further, let us imagine that the rogue can't even assist others by using potions or triggering traps and the like when he is denied sneak attack. In fact, let's go ahead and just say that the rogue is actually mechanically incapable of acting at all during combat with any enemy that can't be sneak attacked. So a party of 5 PCs fights a group of 5 zombies, instead of doing nothing for 9 turns out of 10 every round, I do nothing for one additional round.... hmmm I could live with that.


Of course the rogue can act, just not with the same combat effectiveness as other classes. I guess if I have to be less effective 1 turn in 10 every combat where I don't get sneak attack, I can live with that... and to be honest I really can't see why that is such a radical idea.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

Leugren said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I happen to like the archetype that a rogue represents.



Can you expand upon this?  I'm not sure what archetype the rogue class by itself represents.  Many rogue-type characters from fiction have at least a modest amount of combat training, and so I would represent them as RogX/FtrY.  That is, a rogue who can fight well.  A "pure rogue" would be, I don't know, Bilbo Baggins or something.  Or that guy from Conan the Destroyer. 

Amanda from Highlander?  Batman?  Indiana Jones?  Any one of them can do decently well in a stand-up fight.  A multiclass fighter/rogue fits that archetype much better than the straight rogue class does.  Okay, so is anything wrong with that?  Is something offensive about multiclassing?   Rog/Ftr is, I think, the way to represent the archetype of "sneaky agile adventurer who can handle themselves in a fight."


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

The discussion of the uselessness of the rogue has gotten me thinking. I'm wondering if the issue doesn't turn on the frequency with which undead and constructs are encountered in the game. My games tend to be very heavy with undead. I like them. I find them cool.   

In my games, what dungeons there are tend to be populated with undead and constructs. For my money, they make a lot of sense in a dungeon-like setting. Because of the frequency with which the party encounters undead, the combat weakness of the class becomes more obvious.

Also, I am unable to find my 1e/2e books right now, and it's been a long time since I played either of those versions. Here's my question: could rogues backstab undead in 1e and/or 2e. I don't remember that they couldn't. Is this phenomenon new to 3e? If so, does that make those of us who want rogues to be able to do it the real grognards?


----------



## Rallek (Jan 4, 2008)

As I recall in 2e....


You could only backstab things that were generally humanoid, they specifically discount beholders and the like. The creature in question must have a discernible "back" which rules out jellies and the like. I would think that the humanoid requirement would hit that one, but they felt they needed more definition, I guess.

Oh, and the thief has to be able to reach a significant area of the target, for example to backstab a giant, the thief would have to be elevated so that they could reach such an area, an ankle stab won't do the job.

The target must also be unaware that an attack is forthcoming.

So technically I guess undead and constructs would be backstab-able, though my DM must have house ruled "no", as I don't recall every doing it to such a critter.


Oh again, you only got backstab damage for the first attack, even if you got more attacks on your action, only the first counts for the multiplier.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> As evidence, I submit that in your attempt to defend rogue's inability to usefully fight undead, you have been forced to take the position that it is ok if "party of heroes saves kingdom from undead menace" isn't something D&D can do well without special treatment from the DM.




I wanted to come back and revisit this, because I think it is important regardless of what edition we are talking about.

The DM gives "special treatment" to every situation.  That's his job.  Of the many, thankless* duties of DMing, the most important is taking his players and their characters into consideration when choosing (if he using pre-published scenarios) or creating (if not) adventures.  The assumption is that the DM is always looking for things -- creatures, setting elements, encounters, NPCs -- that will not jive with his players/characters because of preferences, playstyles, experience and/or expectations.  That the DM has to consider the rogue player especially when deciding what to do the the ravening oard of undead campaign should be no surprise or concern, because the DM should also be considering the fighter (he's using a falchion with improved crit; that ain't going to fly), the wizard (there goes all the mind affecting spells Bobloves so much) and the cleric (man, Linda is going to run the table with here super-charisma and extra-turning).  The same goes for any campaign, andy adventure.

But to respond to your example more specifically, I'd say this: the "versus undead" campaign theme is only unviable for the rogue PC is the following are true:
a) the PCs only fight undead (which would be odd, even in a themed campaign -- what, these guys don't have necromancers or cultists or charmed thralls?)
b) the campaign is centered entirely around combat (as opposed to, say, raiding the tombs of the Lich Kings while they march across the earth, looking to capture their phylacaries)
and c) the DM is so married to his vision of what should happen at the table that he stalls or outright denies any attempt by the players to alleviate the problems of being forced to fight nothing but undead (a), and fight constantly at that (b).

*


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But to respond to your example more specifically, I'd say this: the "versus undead" campaign theme is only unviable for the rogue PC is the following are true:
> a) the PCs only fight undead (which would be odd, even in a themed campaign -- what, these guys don't have necromancers or cultists or charmed thralls?)
> b) the campaign is centered entirely around combat (as opposed to, say, raiding the tombs of the Lich Kings while they march across the earth, looking to capture their phylacaries)
> and c) the DM is so married to his vision of what should happen at the table that he stalls or outright denies any attempt by the players to alleviate the problems of being forced to fight nothing but undead (a), and fight constantly at that (b).



I'd add this:
d) the rogue is so focused on Sneak Attack that he is totally ineffective in any other means of combat.

And d) isn't a necessary condition of playing a generally rogue-ish PC.  The high-Dex TWF dagger-throwing specialist vs. zombies does pretty well, as does Rog6/Ftr2 with 14 Str, a greatsword, and Power Attack.


----------



## Digital M@ (Jan 4, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> re: Rallek
> 
> Other than UMD you listed, EVERY thing you suggested is class independent of the Rogue. You could easily use a NPC class to do the job just as well (other than TRAP-finding).
> 
> ...




Fighters do nothing outside of combat.  They have so few skill points they can do nothing, not even walk across a rope bridge on a windy day without the risk of falling to their death.  In dungeons, I sit at the table for long periods of time as I wait for the rogue to scout ahead, search for traps, disarm traps, search rooms and move around virtually undetectable.  It is not all sexy, but it can take so long, I would rather bash a door open, take the trap damage and keep moving.  To me, the waiting is as tedious as buying common supplies in town after town.  A fighter has no leadership since the skills do not support it, so they have no role for taking a lead in conversations.  Rogues have all of the skills for leading and scouting and some great combat skills.

IMO, I would be happy with extended creature list for sneak attack, but less extra damage.  I also believe the arguments for hitting weak points in constructs for extra points and the like is very weak.  Where the hell do you think the fighter is aiming for on a construct?  KNowing knees are a weak point does not enable someone to do more damage.  If the ability came at a higher level where experience and knowledge impacted it, I would enjoy it more.  As is rogues seem the most busy character in every campaign I have ever played in.

In 4E other classes can find and disarm traps, but better than the rogue?  NO, if the party has a rogue, they will still do all the same stuff.  People keep saying balance in and out of combat, but how do you balance all of the out of combat stuff?


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> Fighters do nothing outside of combat.  They have so few skill points they can do nothing, not even walk across a rope bridge on a windy day without the risk of falling to their death.  In dungeons, I sit at the table for long periods of time as I wait for the rogue to scout ahead, search for traps, disarm traps, search rooms and move around virtually undetectable.  It is not all sexy, but it can take so long, I would rather bash a door open, take the trap damage and keep moving.  To me, the waiting is as tedious as buying common supplies in town after town.  A fighter has no leadership since the skills do not support it, so they have no role for taking a lead in conversations.  Rogues have all of the skills for leading and scouting and some great combat skills.




You are assuming that the fighter will have no abilities outside of combat in 4e. I am hoping they do. One of the reasons I don't play rogues in 3e is the lack of effectiveness in combat (especially in the types of campaigns that are popular in our group). One of the reason I don't play fighters is that they have so few capabilities outside of battle.

The only fighter I was able to enjoy in 3e had the able learner feat, 14 INT and was human. He had some valuable non-combat skills, but I had to craft a very specific build to do it. If only there had been some feat my rogue could have taken that would have made him better against undead and constructs....


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> And d) isn't a necessary condition of playing a generally rogue-ish PC.  The high-Dex TWF dagger-throwing specialist vs. zombies does pretty well, as does Rog6/Ftr2 with 14 Str, a greatsword, and Power Attack.




This build may scream rogue to you, but not to me. To me, a rogue is a finesse fighter, not a power-attacking greatsword wielder. But everyone is welcome to their own tastes.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Rallek said:
			
		

> As I recall in 2e....
> 
> 
> You could only backstab things that were generally humanoid, they specifically discount beholders and the like. The creature in question must have a discernible "back" which rules out jellies and the like. I would think that the humanoid requirement would hit that one, but they felt they needed more definition, I guess.
> ...




This was my recollection as well. I don't think any rogue I ever played in 1e or 2e was denied backstab against undead.

EDIT

Sorry about 3 posts in a row. This thread must have been a little slow at the time.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Just for giggles, I counted up encounters in Forge of Fury.  Of the 27 combat encounters in the adventure, 6 were with uncritible enemies.  There are also 6 traps or locked doors in the adventure (I left out the yellow mold "trap" and any doors that couldn't be opened with Open Locks).

Obviously, the rogue is useless in the typical 3E adventure.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> In 4E other classes can find and disarm traps, but better than the rogue?  NO, if the party has a rogue, they will still do all the same stuff.  People keep saying balance in and out of combat, but how do you balance all of the out of combat stuff?



It sounds like the model is "Everybody will do everything."
Everybody will have stuff to do when a trap comes up.  Everybody will have stuff to do in diplomatic encounters.  Everybody will have stuff to do in every round of every fight.  That's because letting your friends have a chance to shine is, apparently, "unfun." 

I am looking forward to seeing how this works in practice.  Will it slow the game down?  Will some PCs' actions still be the real relevant ones, and the rest just picking their actions and rolling their dice to feel useful?  Or will it really engage players?


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> This build may scream rogue to you, but not to me. To me, a rogue is a finesse fighter, not a power-attacking greatsword wielder. But everyone is welcome to their own tastes.




To some, the rogue isn't a front line combatant at all.  I think Brother MacLaren was offering a viable alternative build for those that think the rogue should be one.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 4, 2008)

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> In 4E other classes can find and disarm traps, but better than the rogue?  NO, if the party has a rogue, they will still do all the same stuff.  People keep saying balance in and out of combat, but how do you balance all of the out of combat stuff?




I am personally of the opinion that every class should come with non-combat abilities of merit, with a substantial challenge type that is made easier through it.

If nothing else, I'm hoping that traps will be designed such that fighters can do the "Let's do this MY way!" *SMASH* route without just getting mauled.

I would be quite happy if, say, a trap had big heavy massive gears best dealt with via war mallet.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Just for giggles, I counted up encounters in Forge of Fury.  Of the 27 combat encounters in the adventure, 6 were with uncritible enemies.  There are also 6 traps or locked doors in the adventure (I left out the yellow mold "trap" and any doors that couldn't be opened with Open Locks).
> 
> Obviously, the rogue is useless in the typical 3E adventure.




A single anecdote obviously proves the point. I had forgotten that every adventure had the same encounter break down as Forge of Fury.

This argument has become ridiculous. We are never going to agree on this point. I've never claimed that rogues were useless in the typical 3e adventure (talk about a strawman argument). I do believe that it's not fun to be reduced to d6+1 points of damage in every encounter with undead, constructs, oozes, plants, elementals, etc.... If you think it's fun, more power to you. I'm seriously glad you're having fun. It's not for me, and thief was my favorite class in 1e.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> This build may scream rogue to you, but not to me. To me, a rogue is a finesse fighter, not a power-attacking greatsword wielder. But everyone is welcome to their own tastes.



The various classes are sets of abilities, not archetypes, at least as I see them.  By combining them and selecting appropriate feats, you can reflect an archetype that you like.  I was certainly not envisioning Power Attacking with a greatsword as this rogue's normal modus operandi -- but it would be a fall-back tactic for when their usual methods aren't as effective.  It seems entirely in character for a rogue to develop fallback plans rather than relying on the same trick every single time.  Because for all the different archetypes that the rogue class can be used for, one thing they have in common is resourcefulness.

One of 2E's best features was the concept of kits (if not the implementation).  Each class was shown to represent many archetypes with only very minor variations in most cases.  Not one archetype; a dozen or more.  This was an especially outstanding idea for the bard class, showing that it was far more than Sir Robin's Minstrel.


----------



## Gort (Jan 4, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Everybody will have stuff to do in every round of every fight.  That's because letting your friends have a chance to shine is, apparently, "unfun."



It is, when the bit that your friend (say, combat) gets to shine in takes a ton of time and is massively detailed in the rules with lots of different approaches, while your bit (say, trapfinding and disarming) is two dice rolls.

Did you ever play the earlier editions of Shadowrun? Those had massive amounts of "everyone sits around while the decker has his own adventure lasting two hours" and "oh, you're in a car? Well, the rigger gets to play his game now".

I was desperate for some combat in that game, cause at least everyone got to participate.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Just for giggles, I counted up encounters in Forge of Fury.  Of the 27 combat encounters in the adventure, 6 were with uncritible enemies.  There are also 6 traps or locked doors in the adventure (I left out the yellow mold "trap" and any doors that couldn't be opened with Open Locks).
> 
> Obviously, the rogue is useless in the typical 3E adventure.



Umm.  I'd bet money that one of the prime concerns in 3e adventure design is making sure to pussyfoot around the rogue's incompetences.  The fact that official published adventures don't screw the rogue isn't very useful information once you realize that the designers probably stopped and thought, "Hmm, how can we make sure we don't screw the rogue?  Oh yeah, battling the lich king's horders of undead is right out.  I'll write an adventure about something else."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I do believe that it's not fun to be reduced to d6+1 points of damage in every encounter with undead, constructs, oozes, plants, elementals, etc.... If you think it's fun, more power to you.



Yeah, this is what it comes down to. For some people 1d6+1, or aid another are an acceptable minimum. For me, they're not. It's just a matter of taste.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

*Useless Rogues - Again*

I was really going to leave this subject alone, but while discussing my characters from previous editions in another thread it hit me like a bolt out of the blue.

Why did I love playing thieves (and bards) in earlier editions of D&D, but I find them weak and unsatisfying in 3e? In all editions bards were pretty much limited to d6 damage (plus a few points for magic and/or strength). Rogues were similarly limited when denied their backstab. The disconnect has to do with the difference in damage between rogues/bards and fighters in the different editions.

In 1e and 2e fighters did more damage than rogues, but it was only by a few points. An average rogue with a +2 shortsword did d6+2 points of damage. The average fighter with even an 18/00 STR with a +2 longsword did only d8+8 damage (with weapon specialization). The difference in damage was only 7 points on the average. In 3e, fighters do so much more damage than other martial characters that they overshadow them in combat, especially against creatures with DR.

In 1e and 2e, we thieves and bards didn't hit as often in combat, but we could do the same crappy damage when we did. We didn't feel overshadowed by the fighters, paladins and rangers because we were all in the same boat - being overshadowed by the wizards!

I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me until just now. I'm not usually this slow on the uptake.

When 3e came out, martial types with good BAB got a significant boost in power. They still couldn't compete with wizards, but they did more than rogues and bards. Rogues looked promising, with this new sneak attack and more ways to use it than backstab. Then the rules disallowed its use against some of the most common monsters in the game.

DR exacerbated the problem. In earlier editions, if a monster required a +2 weapon to hit it, you either had it or you didn't. In 3e (especially 3.5), DR could mean hitting a creature over and over again without ever doing any damage. It became very frustrating.

To make matters worse, combat (even at mid-levels) in 3e can take forever. I don't know about anyone else, but our group never took so long in 1e and 2e to finish a fight that we did in 3e. The net effect of this was to increase the amount of time at the gaming table dedicated to fighting, almost of necessity reducing the amount available for exploring, social interaction and other things the rogue and bard were so good at.

I could go on, but I think I now understand my personal issues with 3e rogues and bards. I've seen fighters (although not usually fighters with power attack and a two-handed weapons) look on in envy at the amount of damage a 3e rogue can do when they get their sneak attack. But there are so many different circumstances in 3e in which rogues lose their sneak attack (creature type, concealment, barbarians   , creatures that can't be flanked, etc...) that it really feels excessive.

I am a player/GM who puts much more emphasis on role-playing than on combat as story elements, but 3e combat mechanics really eat up the time. It isn't being less than optimal in some fights that is the problem, it's being well-nigh useless for such a long period of time when the right circumstances roll around.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 4, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> One of 2E's best features was the concept of kits (if not the implementation).  Each class was shown to represent many archetypes with only very minor variations in most cases.  Not one archetype; a dozen or more.  This was an especially outstanding idea for the bard class, showing that it was far more than Sir Robin's Minstrel.




I agree with you on kits. 

Now, the PHB (both 3.0 and 3.5)  includes a small section on customizing characters which is basically creating kits. Unfortunately, with one or two exceptions (e.g. the urban ranger), WOTC pretty much wasted opportunities to do anything with the concept until Unearthed Arcana- and it still took until Complete Champion to receive official versions for  spellless variants of paladins and rangers which have been floating around the net since early 3.0 despite requests from players.


----------



## haus48 (Jan 4, 2008)

I have to admit, I do like the removal of save vs die and energy drain.  I also think that the rules are going to be more balanced and overall it will be a much better game, as much as I hate to admit that.  

The biggest thing I do not like it what I see as a change in the marketing and business structure of the game.  3rd edition was all about making the core books as broad as possible to oh my goodness, sell more core books.  In 4th edition they are changing the business model to selling the core books and splat books to oh my goodness, sell more miniature and the digital gaming table.  Why put all the spells/classes/races in the players handbook, it is nothing special in terms of the business model.  They want you to keep buying miniatures (where I think we all agree the make a better profit on) and the digital initiative ($10 or so bucks a month for the digital gaming table, every DM and player will be paying monthly, if they don't buy a book after the PHB or not).  I have to admit it is a great business model, but for a game I love I just got used to the freedom and individuality of having 3rd party publishers being supported by Wotc (hey they were a vital part of the business model) to the new model of being edged out of the big money pool.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 4, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> That's because letting your friends have a chance to shine is, apparently, "unfun."



I like this kind of "shining": 
Fighter: "Wohoo! 65 points of damage against the Giant and he is tripped, get him, Stabby McStab!"
Rogue: "Haha, take this, stinking bastard of a giant! 80 points of sneak attack damage! That did it!"
Giant: "Aaargl!"

Bard: *dreamy eyes* "Okay, I have "persuaded" the princess to help our cause to drive back the Giants. But Slashy Montoya has to deal with the Kings General, he only respects strength, not charms..."
Fighter: "Okay, General Visier'ltra, this is how it is. I've already taken on two dragons and an orc tribe. So, which side do you want to be on - that of my forest elves friends, or the losing side?
...
King: "After careful deliberation with my council, I am willing to lend you 30 of my finest warriors under the lead of General Visier'ltra to aid the forest elves against the invading giant hordes."


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I am a player/GM who puts much more emphasis on role-playing than on combat as story elements, but 3e combat mechanics really eat up the time. It isn't being less than optimal in some fights that is the problem, it's being well-nigh useless for such a long period of time when the right circumstances roll around.




I understand this complaint, but I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a good solution.  If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two (and those archetypes matter, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck around for so long -- and I am not referring to the 30 years of D&D).  One of my key complaints with 4e is the casting of roles that are enterily mechanical, rather than having anything to do with archetypes ("The rogue?  A striker, you say? Um, no.")

I don't think you are likely to see less of your average play time be combat in 4E than 3E -- probably quite the opposite since both traps and social interactions have been adjusted to be sufficiently "combat like" to qualify as such.  So, it makes sense for you to think that removing any elements that might hinder your action in combat to be a good thing, as it keeps you active and playing.  And in a way you are right, but only insofar as such changes are needed because the emphasis on crunchy combat goes up and up.

Rather than "fix" 3E combat by making all awesome, all the time, 4E could have fixed it so it didn't last as long (deflate hit points across the board, back to 1E levels), reduced the time needed to look up rules (put more power back in the hands of the DM), and sped up the actual process of maneuvering minis around thebattlemat (no more 10' diagonals; simplified AoOs; etc...)  As it is, the "fix" is as likely to unsatisfying as the "problem" was, but it will be full of special effects and random crit-heals.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> In 1e and 2e fighters did more damage than rogues, but it was only by a few points. An average rogue with a +2 shortsword did d6+2 points of damage. The average fighter with even an 18/00 STR with a +2 longsword did only d8+8 damage (with weapon specialization). The difference in damage was only 7 points on the average.



BECMI offered much closer parity than did 1E or 2E.  



			
				kennew142 said:
			
		

> We didn't feel overshadowed by the fighters, paladins and rangers because we were all in the same boat - being overshadowed by the wizards!



I did not see martial types being overshadowed by wizards in either BECMI or 2E, because of the very slow speed of leveling after 7.  IME, most actual gameplay took place around levels 4-7.  And most players avoided the single-classed wizard IME because of their fragility -- elven fighter/mages were a more popular choice, but would lag behind in spellcasting and would not have the HP of a straight fighter.  The biggest check on wizards' domination of the game was _supposed to be_ their high mortality rate.  Starting PCs above level 1, or DMs avoiding killing PCs, would distort the picture here.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two




Giving the rogue the ability to sneak attack any kind of enemy does not make the rogue a better combatant than the fighter. The rogue is already balanced against the fighter with the assumption that sneak attack is "ON."

Classes are not balanced against the expectation of Encounter X or Encounter Y or X% of this type and Y% of that type. That's not how design works. The _monsters_ pay a premium in terms of CR for the ability to ignore crits or sneak attacks.

The rogue does not suddenly become "broken" if the adventure includes nothing but goblins, orcs, and other soft targets that can be sneak attacked. 

By extension, the rogue is not "broken" if you just give him the ability to sneak attack anything, _however_ an individual monster's CR might be a smidge lower than reported. And by "a smidge," I mean, "Not enough to even adjust CR by 1 point."

EDIT: The limitations on sneak attack have nothing at all to do with game balance and everything to do with sacred cows left over from 1e backstab "verisimilitude."


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Reynard
> Just for giggles, I counted up encounters in Forge of Fury. Of the 27 combat encounters in the adventure, 6 were with uncritible enemies. There are also 6 traps or locked doors in the adventure (I left out the yellow mold "trap" and any doors that couldn't be opened with Open Locks).
> 
> Obviously, the rogue is useless in the typical 3E adventure.




Even just taking this example.

That's about 1/4 of the encounters that the rogue cannot use his main combat ability.  

26 encounters takes about 16 hours to play out.  Give or take.  I'm not familiar with the levels of Forge of Fury, but, 30-40 minutes per combat isn't out of line in many groups.

That's FOUR HOURS of sitting around twiddling your thumbs.  Yup, you get to make that up by making 6 Disable Device checks.  Woo hoo.

No other class does this.  NONE.  No one sits around for 4 hours during combat and cannot do anything related to their class.

As Doug Mccrae so rightly points out, it comes down to what you consider an acceptable minimum.  To me, I'm far too busy to waste my time watching everyone else play for four hours.  In return, I get about 20 minutes of star time.  

How the heck is that a fair trade?

Oh, and by the way, it was never answered why I can sneak attack a bone devil but not a skeleton.  It was waved off, but, never answered.  Why do bone devils have vulnerables, but skeletons don't?  Same with Chaos Beasts or gibbering mouthers.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> By extension, the rogue is not "broken" if you just give him the ability to sneak attack anything, _however_ an individual monster's CR might be a smidge lower than reported. And by "a smidge," I mean, "Not enough to even adjust CR by 1 point."
> 
> EDIT: The limitations on sneak attack have nothing at all to do with game balance and everything to do with sacred cows left over from 1e backstab "verisimilitude."




I don't think much of "balance" between character types, but even so let's look.

5th level fighter: 18 str + greatsword + weapon spec. + power attack (2 pnts*)=2d6+12(avg 19)
5th level rogue:rapier + sneak attack (3d6)=4d6(avg 14)

Edge to the fighter.

10th level fighter: 20 str + greatsword + weapon spec + power attack (3 pnts*)=2d6+15 (avg 22)
10th level rogue: rapier + sneak attack (5d6)=6d6 (avg 21)

Dead even.

20th level fighter: 22 str + greatsword + weapon spec + gtr weapon spec + power attack (5 pnts*)=2d6+23 (avg 30)
20th level rogue: rapier + sneak attack(10d6)=11d6 (avg 38)

*the fighter is power attacking for the difference between BABs.  Assuming parity in strength vs dex (finesse), this gives each an equal chance of hitting.

I left out various magics, as it is just as easy for a rogue to get a shocking burst weapon as it is a fighter.  The same with ability boosters.  There is a small but steady increase, then, of the rogue's "combat ability" (if we define that as the ability to deal damage) versus the fighter's.

Now, where the fighter shines is Crits.  A crit doesn't appreciably increase the rogue's damage, but it has a powerful effect on the fighter's.

EDIT: I was going to make some sort of argument, but looking at the actual numbers, with the knowledge that the fighter is going to actually be power attacking for more than the values I listed, tells me that the rogue would be fine with a constant ability to sneak attack.  See, thinking things through can change one's mind, even on the internet.

EDIT, the Sequel: Although, the rogue doesn't have to do anything to get this benefit.  it is a class feature.  The fighter has to direct at least some resources (feats) toward a damage optimization build.  Hmmm...


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's FOUR HOURS of sitting around twiddling your thumbs.




Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Even just taking this example.
> 
> That's about 1/4 of the encounters that the rogue cannot use his main combat ability.
> 
> ...



It's also important to note that it's not as if other characters will suddenly lose out and become less effective if the Rogue can sneak attack. The Fighter still deals his awesome amount of damage (and probably hits more often then the Rogue, too!).
He can still take a lot of heat. The Wizard can still dominate weak-minded monsters and blast away enemy hordes. The Cleric can still buff himself up to crush his enemies, and restore the health of his comrades. 

On the contrary, the Rogue now is someone that can reliable make the life easier for Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, because he helps taking out the monsters quicker...

So, it boils down to the question: Can someone conceive sneak attack as something other than striking at vital, living organs? Can it be striking sensitive (but not always bleeding) parts, can it be a representation of the element of surprise instead?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.




Yes, but, the ideas that have been discussed are either:

a) pointless - such as "Aid Another" or
b) not specific to the rogue

As such, none of them are actually anything more than bandaids and all of them are HIGHLY situationally dependent.



> EDIT, the Sequel: Although, the rogue doesn't have to do anything to get this benefit. it is a class feature. The fighter has to direct at least some resources (feats) toward a damage optimization build. Hmmm...




True, but, the rogue is still balanced against that because sneak attack is not automatic.  It requires either a flat footed target or flanking.  Flanking means the rogue has to get in close to the opponent, which can almost always kill him in a single round.  

Yes, the rogue will likely sneak attack at least once every combat, but, it's unlikely he'll sneak attack every round.

One other thing you forgot to mention is the number of attacks.  The fighter is getting one more attack most of the time over the rogue.  That will change the total damage numbers considerably.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> EDIT: I was going to make some sort of argument, but looking at the actual numbers, with the knowledge that the fighter is going to actually be power attacking for more than the values I listed, tells me that the rogue would be fine with a constant ability to sneak attack.  See, thinking things through can change one's mind, even on the internet.




I was trying to save you the effort... 



> EDIT, the Sequel: Although, the rogue doesn't have to do anything to get this benefit.  it is a class feature.  The fighter has to direct at least some resources (feats) toward a damage optimization build.  Hmmm...




The fighter has bonus feats to spare specifically to direct towards combat optimization. The rogue gets sneak attack every other level, the fighter gets feats. It's a wash.

The rogue trades defense, hit points, BAB, usually at least one round's full attack getting into flanking position, and that position is in harm's way.

Trust me. It's fine.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.



Though I really haven't seen much that convinced that this is even possible. (Though I might have just missed a part). Flanking and Aid Another might be helpful, but it doesn't convince me. A Commoner could do the same, being a Rogue doesn't mean anything here.

Skill application in combat rarely helps your allies, usually only yourself. 
Exceptions I can think of:

Intimidate: Won't work against undead and constructs.

Knowledge: One skill check to give valuable information on a monster. Useful, but Rogues only have Knowledge (Local) - no Undeads or Constructs.

Use Magic Device: Let's you use many magical items. Counterpoints: Weak on the offensive (low caster level & saves), expensive (significant part of your wealth needs to be devoted to this). 
Still one of the best things to do. (But beware: If there's a Wizard and a Cleric in your group, few spells would offer any meaningful benefits, since these spells will already be around!). Nice (core) spells: Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Mage Armor (incorporeal undead?), Bear's Endurance, Glitterdust, Melf's Acid Arrow (good vs. Constructs). 

Perform: (Iron Heroes only) Grants benefits like of the Bards Inspire Courage. 

Counterpoint to all: Why would a Rogue need to have any of these skills? It's not part of his class description, only of his options. It's like requiring that every fighter has Weapon Focus or the Ride skill, and every Wizard can cast Fireball or Invisibility.


----------



## Jayouzts (Jan 4, 2008)

*Critical Hits*

I know the rogue will be able to use his sneak attack against all creature types, but will critical hits apply to all creature types as well. (This assumes, of course, critical hits as we know them will be around).


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One other thing you forgot to mention is the number of attacks.  The fighter is getting one more attack most of the time over the rogue.  That will change the total damage numbers considerably.



Not with TWF, which is a much better option for the rogue than for the fighter.

In MarauderX's game, the very non-optimized Rog17/Clr3 routinely out-damages everyone else, with 8 attacks per round (6 base, Haste, Opportunist, and 4 of those at his top attack bonus) for 10d6+10 damage each.
The Brb/Brd and Ftr can do powerful Leap Attacks (with Shock Trooper in the fighter's case), but that's just one attack per round.  
The arcane trickster with Disintegrate does 45d6 or so, still falling short of the rogue's normal damage.
My druid can do damage to a group, but not 200+ pts to a single target like the rogue can do.

The rogue also has the HP to fight in melee, and if he had Elusive Target (he has no non-core feats) he'd be even better at that.  Figure that a Rog20 with 14 Con and a +4 Con item has about 150 hp, whereas a similar Ftr20 has about 190.  It's not that big of a difference.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I was trying to save you the effort...
> Trust me. It's fine.




No offense, but no.  Working things out is far better and worth the effort.



> The rogue trades defense, hit points, BAB, usually at least one round's full attack getting into flanking position, and that position is in harm's way.




Yeah.  One would have to be careful of the TWF rogue though -- once in flanking position, he far outsstrips the fighter's damage potential.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though I really haven't seen much that convinced that this is even possible. (Though I might have just missed a part). Flanking and Aid Another might be helpful, but it doesn't convince me. A Commoner could do the same, being a Rogue doesn't mean anything here.




I wasn't really speaking to using the rogue's specific abilities, just not sitting there twiddling thumbs.  Remember, kids, trip works against anything on two legs (that's why you always carry a flail).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Yeah.  One would have to be careful of the TWF rogue though -- once in flanking position, he far outsstrips the fighter's damage potential.



Yes. I think that's a valid concern - for 3.x at least. I can only hope that TWF in D&D 4 will work better (in the sense of "fairer"/"balanced"). If iterative attacks are gone, extra attacks from two weapon fighting need a strong balancing mechanismn.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I don't think much of "balance" between character types, but even so let's look.




I guess I just fail to see why you wouldn't.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.




If you could play a class that has useful combat abilities that do damage over one that doesn't, why wouldn't you?  Or, more importantly, if you were a designer, why wouldn't you make all the classes useful?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I wasn't really speaking to using the rogue's specific abilities, just not sitting there twiddling thumbs.  Remember, kids, trip works against anything on two legs (that's why you always carry a flail).



It works even against foes with more than 2 legs, but barely so. 
Against undeads (of the non-incorporeal variant) it might work well. Constructs are often too large. But I think the biggest problem will be the mixture of high strength and large size that many foes have. I am not saying it won't work, but it's far from reliable.
I played a Fighter that relied a lot on Trip (but it wasn't his only trick). It worked okay, I think, but he had Improved Trip and some other feats that made tripping more common (Defensive Throw, I think). And he had the strength to pull it off. 

It might be pretty humilating for a Rogue if he has to drop his weapons and needs to pick them up again a few times in combat. I am not convinced it's a net positive feeling for the Rogue...


----------



## jonrog1 (Jan 4, 2008)

I have to say, Wulf is one of the maybe one and a half indie designers who, when he says "trust me it's fine" when it comes to the math ... you trust him and it's fine.

On the rogue "sneak attack" line, I fall into the "poorly named sacred cow" camp.  Call sneak attack something else, to drag it even farther, conceptually and even linguistically from "backstab", and you'll just see it as the rogue's way to do damage _in certain situations_ rather than according to certain victim biologies.  One of the reasons I always liked the "Opportunist" ability.  And considering how one of the main points of the 4th Ed was to get the play to stay in a "power envelope" so to speak of the "sweet spot", I'm surprised no one's thought that perhaps instead of super-powering rogues, they may well be de-powering everybody else.

Oddly -- or not, I'm a writer, I should know better -- naming not just the feats but the abilities properly in order change how they're viewed in an overall framework in the players' minds, may be a job almost as important for the game designers as crunching the math.  Look how long they've been trying to de-link "hit points" from a literal understanding of physical damage.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> No offense, but no.  Working things out is far better and worth the effort.




Far be it from me to discourage you from admitting that you hadn't previously given it any rational thought.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Far be it from me to discourage you from admitting that you hadn't previously given it any rational thought.




And now you have discouraged me from disussing anything with you, because even when someone admits that they were wrong, you still have to get a last jab in.

And people wonder why the 4E forum is starting to look like rpg.net


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 4, 2008)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> Oddly -- or not, I'm a writer, I should know better -- naming not just the feats but the abilities properly in order change how they're viewed in an overall framework in the players' minds, may be a job almost as important for the game designers as crunching the math.  Look how long they've been trying to de-link "hit points" from a literal understanding of physical damage.



You're on to something here. Look at the amount of houseruling that's done to make the rules fit the names.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> And now you have discouraged me from disussing anything with you, because even when someone admits that they were wrong, you still have to get a last jab in.




My bad. I misinterpreted your willingness to sling snark as an ability to take it.

I'll be happy to go back and edit it out of my post if you like.

It was meant to be more of a punch in the arm than a knee to the groin.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Yes. I think that's a valid concern - for 3.x at least. I can only hope that TWF in D&D 4 will work better (in the sense of "fairer"/"balanced"). If iterative attacks are gone, extra attacks from two weapon fighting need a strong balancing mechanismn.




I'm cool with sneak attack damage applying all the time but TWF does change the equation slightly.  Rogues can start putting up massive damage at higher-levels with TWF (although you could argue that more things are immune to SA damage at higher levels...)

Anyway, if you allow sneak attack all the time, I think it works nicely along with removing iterative attacks and granting a damage bonus equal to one-half the character's BAB.  

Sneak attack and removing iterative attacks are two separate issues but I think they compliment each other in the same combat system if for no other reason than removing the scenario of the TWF rogue spending 10 minutes to roll 8 attacks and 60+ d6's during his turn.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> My bad. I misinterpreted your willingness to sling snark as an ability to take it.




I think you misinterpretted my "no offense, but no" as snark when I was totally seriour -- on both sides of that comma -- I didn't mean any offense in saying "no" I won't take your word for it.



> It was meant to be more of a punch in the arm than a knee to the groin.




I see that now -- my bad.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I see that now -- my bad.




I once threw a hedgeapple at my buddy, a long, looping hail mary shot about 50 yards across the playground. Just before it hit him in the back I felt bad, yelled, "Look out!" and he turned around and caught it in the groin.

He was not amused, and (once he collected himself) an ass-whipping ensued.

Same kind of thing. My fault.

EDIT: For the life of me I don't understand why the school left that hedgeapple tree standing in the first place. The hedgeapple is perfectly sized for throwing, and it's full of a thick, white, sticky, foul-smelling and caustic goo that gives them an unnatural heft. What did they _think_ we were going to do with dozens of hedgeapples lying all over the playground?


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 4, 2008)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> On the rogue "sneak attack" line, I fall into the "poorly named sacred cow" camp.  Call sneak attack something else




I agree.  I think it should be renamed "Kick In the Groin" damage.

EDIT:  Or for ranged attacks, "Hedgeapple in the Groin".


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: For the life of me I don't understand why the school left that hedgeapple tree standing in the first place. The hedgeapple is perfectly sized for throwing, and it's full of a thick, white, sticky, foul-smelling and caustic goo that gives them an unnatural heft. What did they _think_ we were going to do with dozens of hedgeapples lying all over the playground?




But would it fit in a sling?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But would it fit in a sling?




Staff-sling, maybe, but they went out with 2e.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 4, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I'm cool with sneak attack damage applying all the time but TWF does change the equation slightly.  Rogues can start putting up massive damage at higher-levels with TWF (although you could argue that more things are immune to SA damage at higher levels...)
> 
> Anyway, if you allow sneak attack all the time, I think it works nicely along with removing iterative attacks and granting a damage bonus equal to one-half the character's BAB.
> 
> Sneak attack and removing iterative attacks are two separate issues but I think they compliment each other in the same combat system if for no other reason than removing the scenario of the TWF rogue spending 10 minutes to roll 8 attacks and 60+ d6's during his turn.



Though be warned: Two Weapon Fighting attacks are not iterative attacks. So I wouldn't be too sure it's out yet. Starwars Saga Edition creates some hefty penalties for two-weapon fighting - but eventually, these can be overcome. Another disadvantage in Saga is that it still require a fullround action, which also costs you your swift action - which is used for a lot of things.



> I agree. I think it should be renamed "Kick In the Groin" damage.
> 
> EDIT: Or for ranged attacks, "Hedgeapple in the Groin".



But what if there aren't hedgeapples in my campaign? You're forcing flavor in my game, aside from the fact that "hedgeapple" sounds (and looks) stupid!!!



"Oppertunistic Strike" might be a better name... Though comparing "Sneak" to "Oppertunistic", neither directly implies striking vitals. In 5E, they could  probably go back to calling it "sneak attack", once perceptions have changed...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though be warned: Two Weapon Fighting attacks are not iterative attacks.




But the problem isn't Sneak Attack + TWF, it's Sneak Attack + TWF + Iterative Attacks.

Sneak Attack with an extra attack per round isn't as scary as an extra attack per iterative attack.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But the problem isn't Sneak Attack + TWF, it's Sneak Attack + TWF + Iterative Attacks.
> 
> Sneak Attack with an extra attack per round isn't as scary as an extra attack per iterative attack.




What Wulf said.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I understand this complaint, but I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a good solution.  If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two (and those archetypes matter, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck around for so long -- and I am not referring to the 30 years of D&D).




Talk about a strawman argument! No one is arguing for making the rogue a better fighter than the fighter. We are talking about the disparity in the amount of time individual characters get the spotlight in 3e.



> I don't think you are likely to see less of your average play time be combat in 4E than 3E -- probably quite the opposite since both traps and social interactions have been adjusted to be sufficiently "combat like" to qualify as such.  So, it makes sense for you to think that removing any elements that might hinder your action in combat to be a good thing, as it keeps you active and playing.  And in a way you are right, but only insofar as such changes are needed because the emphasis on crunchy combat goes up and up. Rather than "fix" 3E combat by making all awesome, all the time, 4E could have fixed it so it didn't last as long (deflate hit points across the board, back to 1E levels), reduced the time needed to look up rules (put more power back in the hands of the DM), and sped up the actual process of maneuvering minis around thebattlemat (no more 10' diagonals; simplified AoOs; etc...)  As it is, the "fix" is as likely to unsatisfying as the "problem" was, but it will be full of special effects and random crit-heals.




I suppose it is possible that all of the playtest reports telling us how much quicker combat is in 4e could be outright lies. It would seem a strange marketing scheme however: to insist that one easily quantifiable thing is true, when in fact, it is not! BWA-HA-HA-HA, we'll teach those fools to believe anything we say!  

As for social interactions and the new take on traps, they are designed specifically to include all the characters in the party.

I wouldn't be opposed to a general reduction in hit points and damage across the board, although I would point out that spell damage has remained more or less the same. Maybe the increase in hit points and melee damage was intended to balance spell damage. Reducing spell damage would have worked as well. I would hazard a guess that most players would be opposed to reducing hit points and damage. For many gamers it is just cooler (  ) to do 50 points of damage than 5.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 4, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'd add this:
> The high-Dex TWF dagger-throwing specialist vs. zombies does pretty well, as does Rog6/Ftr2 with 14 Str, a greatsword, and Power Attack.




Those aren't great builds for fighting zombies IMO.

TWF rogues big thing is doing sneak attack on all their attacks, which does not work on zombies. Rogues can tumble and are not generally hampered by heavy armor leading to a benefit of greater mobility and speed. Being a mobile light armor person tumbling and maneuvering however means no full attacks when doing so, negating the TWF bonuses. Rogues are also hurt in TWF compared to Fighters/Rangers because of the lower BAB and requirements for a high proportion of their limited feat investments. 

A knife throwing rogue can either move and throw one or stand and throw more but lags from iteratives against full warriors.  

The rogue 6 ftr 2 power attacker does not do great either IMO. They again either go light armor for highly mobile tumbling 1 attack routine, but the fighter can do so as well with spring attack and have more BAB to pour into power attack.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Those aren't great builds for fighting zombies IMO.



Of course they aren't; they're not zombie-fighting builds, they're versatile builds that are still primarily rogues.  They're far more effective in this situation than a one-trick-pony would be.  A pure fighter still does better, but these guys are WAY more effective than a rogue who expects to use his rapier and Sneak Attack and never anything else. 

I happen to like versatile characters who have other options to fall back on.  Specialization is somewhat overrated in 3E, IMO.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Remember, kids, trip works against anything on two legs (that's why you always carry a flail).




Remember, kids, flails are martial weapons with which rogues are not proficient.


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Remember, kids, flails are martial weapons with which rogues are not proficient.




Remember, kids, that it's a melee touch attack, which is baby-candy against most undead, even for a rogue, and the rogue gets a +2 on the trip with the flail. 

However, admittedly, it's not my favorite tactic, either -- but it is a viable one.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> However, admittedly, it's not my favorite tactic, either -- but it is a viable one.




So, you make a melee touch attack at a -4 penalty (-4 for non-proficiency) in order to be able to do a raw Strength check (not always the rogue's best ability score) against a monster's Strength or Dexterity (whichever is higher, normally giving monsters an advantage, since they're usually built with higher ability scores) modified by their size (lots of monsters bigger than players) just in order to put them on the ground (where they can still attack you if you don't move), maybe causing them to provoke a single attack of opportunity when they try to stand up.

Sure, it's viable to perform a maneuver whose odds are stacked against you from the outset, and whose success isn't a huge amount of help. But fun? Nah.

EDIT: Flails do not grant a +2 bonus to trip attempts. They grant a +2 bonus to disarm attempts, and merely allow a trip attempt.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 5, 2008)

If you're playing a Rogue and are so concerned that there might be the odd combat where you've little or nothing to do, give it Leadership and hire a tank as your cohort. (or, just play a tank as your second PC)  That way, you'll be involved in every battle at least in some form.

Lanefan


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If you're playing a Rogue and are so concerned that there might be the odd combat where you've little or nothing to do, give it Leadership and hire a tank as your cohort. (or, just play a tank as your second PC)  That way, you'll be involved in every battle at least in some form.




So, instead of allowing me to emulate rogues like the Gray Mouser or Silk from the Belgariad, you suggest I change my concept by becoming some sort of leader-type? That's like giving me a band-aid for a headache... I appreciate the effort, but it doesn't actually solve my problem.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, instead of allowing me to emulate rogues like the Gray Mouser or Silk from the Belgariad, you suggest I change my concept by becoming some sort of leader-type? That's like giving me a band-aid for a headache... I appreciate the effort, but it doesn't actually solve my problem.



Silk more often than not leaves the heavy fighting to Barak and Mandorallen, and they leave the spying to him.

The Belgariad is actually a fine example of a party where each of the characters has their moments to shine but *they don't all shine all the time*.  Most adventuring parties by default will work much like this; it's not a broken model, so why waste good design time trying to fix it?

Lanefan


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Silk more often than not leaves the heavy fighting to Barak and Mandorallen, and they leave the spying to him.




Read those fight scenes more carefully, and note that Silk is often wiping his daggers clean. He's the quintessential rogue and is no push-over in combat, despite not being on the level of Barak, Hettar or any of the others.

There's a reason people are very paranoid of him and his daggers... and why he has several stashed all over his person.


----------



## Xanaqui (Jan 5, 2008)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> So many examples of still not understanding... Rogues don't have to be designed to be balanced against combat.  RPGs do not have to be designed to be balanced against combat.  The idea of the Thief in D&D was that they were worse than Fighters in combat in every single way.  That's because Fighters were meant to be good at combat.  That is their thing.  Thieves' thing was sneaking, hiding, disarming traps, stealing, etc.  If you want to fight, play a Fighter.  If you want to steal, play a Thief.  This is why you don't need to balance solely for combat.  If you want to be good at combat all the time, play a Fighter.  It's really that easy.  Or did you want to be good at combat and also better than the Fighter at a bunch of skill-based feats?  Why isn't that imbalanced?



The main problem is that the vast majority of the skills that the Rogue is good at become irrelevant around LV 7 or so when the Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid has spells that replicate or are better than the vast majority of them.

Furthermore, in core 3.x, most skills are useless or nearly useless in combat.

Fix the two above problems (make more skills useful in combat, and dramatically reduce the overlap between spells and skills), and I think the 3.x rogue becomes a more viable class, even with the inability to sneak attack roughly 1/2 the time at high levels.


----------



## Xanaqui (Jan 5, 2008)

*edition comparison*



			
				kennew142 said:
			
		

> I was really going to leave this subject alone, but while discussing my characters from previous editions in another thread it hit me like a bolt out of the blue.
> 
> Why did I love playing thieves (and bards) in earlier editions of D&D, but I find them weak and unsatisfying in 3e? In all editions bards were pretty much limited to d6 damage (plus a few points for magic and/or strength). Rogues were similarly limited when denied their backstab. The disconnect has to do with the difference in damage between rogues/bards and fighters in the different editions.
> 
> ...



I loved playing 1st and 2nd ed Thieves (and Assassins in 1E and Bards in 2E) largely because they got to higher levels more quickly; they were typically 1-2 levels above the rest of the party, which made up for quite a few of their problems (bad HP,poor chance to hit, abilities slowly overshadowed by magic, backstab topping out around LV 13).

Note that the fighter in your example is doing over twice the damage of the thief, per attack. Also note that with Weapon Specialization (and high level), the Fighter's number of attacks per round increased, whereas the Thief didn't get this (although most min/maxed Thieves did use 2 weapons in 1E).

However, I agree that everyone but a high-level Cleric (Harm) or Druid (Creeping Doom) or perhaps 1E Illusionist (Prismatic Spray) felt overshadowed by Wizards, other than at very low levels.


			
				kennew142 said:
			
		

> I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me until just now. I'm not usually this slow on the uptake.
> 
> When 3e came out, martial types with good BAB got a significant boost in power. They still couldn't compete with wizards, but they did more than rogues and bards. Rogues looked promising, with this new sneak attack and more ways to use it than backstab. Then the rules disallowed its use against some of the most common monsters in the game.



I disagree. Other than at the highest levels, against weak opponents over 1 HD, their power decreased, particuarly compared to the powers of their opponents. A LV 13 or so fighter got a commensurate BAB to a 3rd edition one, but had 5/2 attacks with weapon specialization (all at full BAB, unlike the 3E one). If one used 2-weapon fighting (1st ed), or weapon mastery (Complete Fighter's handbook), and magic items from early standard modules (which seemed to love girdles of giant strength,and gave out magic weapons like candy), Fighters could do a lot more per non-sneak attack round than a Thief or Bard (even one with Gauntlets of Ogre power). Never mind the HP disparity, or that thieves in 1/2E had roughly the raw BAB of Wizards in 3E.


			
				kennew142 said:
			
		

> DR exacerbated the problem. In earlier editions, if a monster required a +2 weapon to hit it, you either had it or you didn't. In 3e (especially 3.5), DR could mean hitting a creature over and over again without ever doing any damage. It became very frustrating.



I found being able to do nothing worse. For that matter, I think that's one of the nice things about Sneak attack - the ability to pierce DR through high damage.


			
				kennew142 said:
			
		

> To make matters worse, combat (even at mid-levels) in 3e can take forever. I don't know about anyone else, but our group never took so long in 1e and 2e to finish a fight that we did in 3e. The net effect of this was to increase the amount of time at the gaming table dedicated to fighting, almost of necessity reducing the amount available for exploring, social interaction and other things the rogue and bard were so good at.
> 
> I could go on, but I think I now understand my personal issues with 3e rogues and bards. I've seen fighters (although not usually fighters with power attack and a two-handed weapons) look on in envy at the amount of damage a 3e rogue can do when they get their sneak attack. But there are so many different circumstances in 3e in which rogues lose their sneak attack (creature type, concealment, barbarians   , creatures that can't be flanked, etc...) that it really feels excessive.
> 
> I am a player/GM who puts much more emphasis on role-playing than on combat as story elements, but 3e combat mechanics really eat up the time. It isn't being less than optimal in some fights that is the problem, it's being well-nigh useless for such a long period of time when the right circumstances roll around.



I agree on your last point. As GM, I end up having to deliberately put in creatures so that the Rogue can sneak attack them, or I'll end up with a combat ineffective rogue for long stretches of time.

As far as bards are concerned, 3.5 nerfed one of their more effective 3.0 builds (Archer). Even as such in 3.0, one would still have been stronger as a Cleric (rather than a Bard) in virtually every way. I think that said class needs help, and likely a re-design.


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 5, 2008)

Xanaqui said:
			
		

> The main problem is that the vast majority of the skills that the Rogue is good at become irrelevant around LV 7 or so when the Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid has spells that replicate or are better than the vast majority of them.




Playing the wizard in a rogue-less party I've invested in a chime of opening but I'm not going to load up on divinations to replace the rogue - spells might be better but they are not an effective solution because they run out quickly and frankly I've found a fiendish ape called 'ook-ook' is a much better use for a 3rd level spell for the party in almost all circumstances.... 



			
				Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Furthermore, in core 3.x, most skills are useless or nearly useless in combat.




Skills = a versatility limited only by your imagination (or a DM who doesn't give you more than a 20' x 20' room to work in...). And that, IMHO is what makes playing rogues enjoyable - you have the skill base to try different things all the time

Tumble through line of skeletons, climb onto altar, take out necromancer..... 
Hide as guards run past, sleight of hand the amulet from the leader, Decipher the runes and deactivate the constuct
Hear the wizard chanting a spell, disable trap and exit stage left
balance across chasm, open locked door and surprise the enemy

etc etc.

Could anybody other than a rogue try it? Sure, anybody other than rogue / bard / ~ranger succeed? unlikely. The skill points a rogue gets are fundamental to the class concept. 

I actually like the fact that for some monsters the rogue character has to think. The same as huge DR/immunity to crits makes martial types think, the same as SR / Resistance makes spell-casters think. The same as a large room with two exits, different coloured squares on the floor, and a deaths head symbol on the wall makes _everybody_ think... the classics are classic for a reason.

Just MHO and YMMV. 

In all honesty the fact that rogues sneak attack is limited / not-limited is so far down the list of things that will decide whether I convert to 4e or not I'll have to make a climb check (DC 15) to get that far down to read it......


----------



## Leugren (Jan 5, 2008)

Rallek said:
			
		

> Leugren, do you take a few levels of mage first to represent the mouser's training during which he earned his name? If so, you can use scrolls and wands and other assorted mystic goodies well before your general rogue's UMD would kick in reliably. So I'd go for using some of those toys, along with the occasional spell or two.
> 
> 
> In addition I'm going to call BS on the argument of "my character concept is X literary figure, and the base class is too weak!" in general. So all rogues are now the gray mouser, all barbarians have to be Fafhrd, but they also have to be Conan, Kull, and Beowulf. All sorcerers are Elric, and Merlin, and Harry Potter too... and so on. How does one "balance" the Gray Mouser vs. Conan, or Elric vs. Merlin?
> ...




Superlative use of the Chewbacca Defense, with a generous serving of the Straw Man fallacy to boot.  I used "the Gray Mouser" within the referenced post merely as an example of a roguish character who spends a lot of time in the limelight. This is quite clear from the larger context of the post.  My main point was that a well-designed game should accommodate a wide variety of play styles;  not just yours.  There were a lot of things about the 3e rogue that made it difficult for people like me to enjoy playing one, despite our desire to do so.  The fact that I am not alone in these convictions is amply evident from other posts on this thread and elsewhere.  

This point has been beaten half to death within this thread, however, so lest I be accused of _argumentum ad nauseum_, I will gracefully retire to my corner now...

Cheers.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jan 5, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be opposed to a general reduction in hit points and damage across the board, although I would point out that spell damage has remained more or less the same. Maybe the increase in hit points and melee damage was intended to balance spell damage. Reducing spell damage would have worked as well. I would hazard a guess that most players would be opposed to reducing hit points and damage. For many gamers it is just cooler (  ) to do 50 points of damage than 5.




You realize they're completely redoing spell damage in 4e right?


----------



## Xanaqui (Jan 5, 2008)

*Enough Sneak Attack?*



			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> Playing the wizard in a rogue-less party I've invested in a chime of opening but I'm not going to load up on divinations to replace the rogue - spells might be better but they are not an effective solution because they run out quickly and frankly I've found a fiendish ape called 'ook-ook' is a much better use for a 3rd level spell for the party in almost all circumstances....



Perhaps. I was more thinking of Fly (or in some cases, Spider Climb) vs. Balance/Tumble/Climb/Jump, Freedom of Movement vs. Escape Artist/Swim, Knock (or just a heavy damage spell) vs Open Lock/Disintegrate/Passwall, Dimension Door/Teleport vs Disable Device. Invisibility vs Hide. I don't really find divinations comparable - some do things Rogues can't dream of, and others are solved more simply by removing (or opening) the door. It may just be a difference in level ranges that we're thinking of.

Summons are very flexible. I really like them for trap detection 


			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> Skills = a versatility limited only by your imagination (or a DM who doesn't give you more than a 20' x 20' room to work in...). And that, IMHO is what makes playing rogues enjoyable - you have the skill base to try different things all the time
> 
> Tumble through line of skeletons, climb onto altar, take out necromancer.....
> Hide as guards run past, sleight of hand the amulet from the leader, Decipher the runes and deactivate the constuct
> ...



Actually, I think that as a skill-based class, Rogues have far too few skills. I've tried pumping them to 12 + int mod, and it still ended up being too few. I've added generic combat options onto a dozen or so skills, and that did help some.

And yes, I do try to emphasize skill usage where I can; I think it's one of the better advances of 3E vs. late 2E.


			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> Could anybody other than a rogue try it? Sure, anybody other than rogue / bard / ~ranger succeed? unlikely. The skill points a rogue gets are fundamental to the class concept.



Well, given an individual skill, yes, any class could try it. They mostly get a better breadth of skills. However, even with an 18 Int (or 16 if Human), they get 1/3 of the core skills; less if you include the fact that a bunch of sub-skills (such as Knowledge) need to be purchased separately. I'm thinking that they should get something closer to a base of 14 skill points/level (base), with all skills as class skills.


			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> I actually like the fact that for some monsters the rogue character has to think. The same as huge DR/immunity to crits makes martial types think, the same as SR / Resistance makes spell-casters think. The same as a large room with two exits, different coloured squares on the floor, and a deaths head symbol on the wall makes _everybody_ think... the classics are classic for a reason.
> 
> Just MHO and YMMV.
> 
> In all honesty the fact that rogues sneak attack is limited / not-limited is so far down the list of things that will decide whether I convert to 4e or not I'll have to make a climb check (DC 15) to get that far down to read it......



I wouldn't mind sneak-attack immunity if, say, 10% (or less) of creatures had it. The problem is that at high levels, more like 50% of creatures have it, and even at low levels, it's well over 10% (all Plants, Oozes, Undead, and Constructs- just to start). SR on the other hand, is controllable, and (over a number of levels) pretty easy to mostly ignore (heck, your summons example above is a classic way to get around SR). DR is an annoyance you can specifically prepare to get around. I'm unclear as to why Immunity to Crits matters much to anyone but Rogues - isn't it at most roughly a 23% or so reduction in damage (assuming Improved Crit/Keen and a maximum crit weapon)? Frankly, high-level warrior-types typically got a bunch of +1d6-type damage abilities on their weapons in my games (and would typically not go for maximum crit weapons), so I think it was quite a bit less significant than that in my games.

To be clear, with some frequency while designing an adventure, I have to look through the first draft to determine if anything can be sneak-attacked, and if not, I need to change the module in response. I find that annoying, particuarly if I'm doing a run of them. When playing a rogue, I find not being able to sneak attack anything because the GM wanted to create, say, an undead-filled crypt extremely annoying.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 5, 2008)

Phlebas said:
			
		

> Playing the wizard in a rogue-less party I've invested in a chime of opening but I'm not going to load up on divinations to replace the rogue - spells might be better but they are not an effective solution because they run out quickly and frankly I've found a fiendish ape called 'ook-ook' is a much better use for a 3rd level spell for the party in almost all circumstances....
> 
> 
> 
> Skills = a versatility limited only by your imagination (or a DM who doesn't give you more than a 20' x 20' room to work in...). And that, IMHO is what makes playing rogues enjoyable - you have the skill base to try different things all the time



Little of which can really help you defeat an enemy. Bypassing, maybe. But that's only you, what's with the rest of the party? (Especially with those players that actually want to beat down the enemies)



> Tumble through line of skeletons, climb onto altar, take out necromancer.....



Oops, the Necromancer is a lich - so taking him out actually meant "Save vs. Paralyzation!" Or lower level: The Necromancer that created the skeletons is dead since the time the Tomb was closed, approximately 10 centuries ago...


> Hide as guards run past, sleight of hand the amulet from the leader, Decipher the runes and deactivate the constuct



Hide in plain sight? After you spent 2 minutes picking the lock open? Deciphering some runes on the fly? ANd what kind of non-standard construct are we speaking about?


> Hear the wizard chanting a spell, disable trap and exit stage left



So you actually didn't want to stop the Wizard and instead let him slaughter your allies while you run away?


> balance across chasm, open locked door and surprise the enemy



... just as much as they surprise you, since they are 3 Bodaks. Your first thought would have been "Screw it, no sneak attack against them", but it's actually "AAArgh!"

Okay, these were a few cheap shots. My issue with these examples are: 
1) They are highly situational. Most constructs don't have secret switch to turn them off. Most enemy leaders don't carry any important amulets around. They might work, and I think they're cool if used. They don't really use the rules for solving the encounter. It's more playing the DM then playing the game.

2) They don't rely on the core abilities on the character. Everybody has skills. The Rogues class abilities might say he has access to a lot of skills - but why does he need to put ranks in Decipher Script (in fact, which Rogue does), Use Magic Device (though which Rogue would want to miss that?), Disguse or any other skill on his list? He gets 8+INT to choose from, that's a lot, but it's not enough to cover them all, and it's possible to miss a lot of these skills if that's not what your character is about. The abilities you can really rely on for the Rogue are his class abilities, which include Sneak Attack. It is a core ability of the class, since he gets it every 2 levels!

3) If these situations would work out fine, the Rogue would get all the spotlight. The rest of the characters are not required for the situation. I know that some people think that would be fine if there are other situations where another characters gets the full spotlight. But I think that's not what team play is about. Everyone should contribute significantly in all situations. Maybe someone might be a bit more effective, but he shouldn't been able to do the job without the help of others. 
I agree it's okay to have corner cases, and they will probably work out fine for the total game experience. But they should stay corner cases, they are spice that is best used in low doses. There are games that work the opposite - Shadowrun for example. There, Mage, Rigger and Decker/Hacker have their own "subgames" - that they play effectively alone! The rest of the players and characters are standing around doing nothing.


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 5, 2008)

Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Perhaps. I was more thinking of Fly (or in some cases, Spider Climb) vs. Balance/Tumble/Climb/Jump, Freedom of Movement vs. Escape Artist/Swim, Knock (or just a heavy damage spell) vs Open Lock/Disintegrate/Passwall, Dimension Door/Teleport vs Disable Device. Invisibility vs Hide. I don't really find divinations comparable - some do things Rogues can't dream of, and others are solved more simply by removing (or opening) the door. It may just be a difference in level ranges that we're thinking of.




Maybe, I'm at 7th level, and I think you need to be higher to pull out spells like that for miscellaneous activity (though for the final encounter its def an option). for some reason our party is overloaded with spider climb items so we can spend the final encounter huddling on the ceiling.....



			
				Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Summons are very flexible. I really like them for trap detection




I've also got a bag of tricks for that unremarkable doorway problem 



			
				Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that as a skill-based class, Rogues have far too few skills. I've tried pumping them to 12 + int mod, and it still ended up being too few. I've added generic combat options onto a dozen or so skills, and that did help some.
> And yes, I do try to emphasize skill usage where I can; I think it's one of the better advances of 3E vs. late 2E.
> ........
> Well, given an individual skill, yes, any class could try it. They mostly get a better breadth of skills. However, even with an 18 Int (or 16 if Human), they get 1/3 of the core skills; less if you include the fact that a bunch of sub-skills (such as Knowledge) need to be purchased separately. I'm thinking that they should get something closer to a base of 14 skill points/level (base), with all skills as class skills.




Def valid points, i was just trying to highlight rogues are not one-trick ponies with SA. Although i think the skill system could be improved, and played around with it in house rules, i haven't seen anything yet that really fixes all the issues elegantly. Personally i'm thinking of giving out free skill focus feats to all characters every x levels but thats a 3E sticking plaster.



			
				Xanaqui said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind sneak-attack immunity if, say, 10% (or less) of creatures had it. The problem is that at high levels, more like 50% of creatures have it, and even at low levels, it's well over 10% (all Plants, Oozes, Undead, and Constructs- just to start). SR on the other hand, is controllable, and (over a number of levels) pretty easy to mostly ignore (heck, your summons example above is a classic way to get around SR). DR is an annoyance you can specifically prepare to get around.




"Ah, so we agree the principle and now we're just haggling over the price"
I've no problem with changing the range of creatures immune to sneak, personally i'd like to see a mechanic similar to rangers favoured enemy to change the range. it would allow an undead specialist to be happy traipsing around a crypt, but still be nervous of plants or a construct demolition expert to have a skeleton-phobia.



			
				Xanaqui said:
			
		

> I'm unclear as to why Immunity to Crits matters much to anyone but Rogues - isn't it at most roughly a 23% or so reduction in damage (assuming Improved Crit/Keen and a maximum crit weapon)? Frankly, high-level warrior-types typically got a bunch of +1d6-type damage abilities on their weapons in my games (and would typically not go for maximum crit weapons), so I think it was quite a bit less significant than that in my games.




In my game i have a cleric / fighter with improved crit and lucky dice, so its becoming a regular feature of combat these days, but that may be a personal view..... especially since no-one can match the TWF Fighter / Rogue / Shadowdancer for damage output and she's now thinking of improved critical as well!



			
				Xanaqui said:
			
		

> To be clear, with some frequency while designing an adventure, I have to look through the first draft to determine if anything can be sneak-attacked, and if not, I need to change the module in response. I find that annoying, particuarly if I'm doing a run of them. When playing a rogue, I find not being able to sneak attack anything because the GM wanted to create, say, an undead-filled crypt extremely annoying.




I do think you can get issues if you don't mix and match challenges for any character class, try taking a druid, fighter specialising in mounted combat, illusionist and rogue down an undead filled crypt and see who feels more hard done by.... as a DM you have the ability to design PC killers or Gold mines with your decisions - SA immunity is just one of many factors you should be careful not to overuse.

In both the games I play in the Rogue spot has been taken by a Ranger + Artificier or Urban Ranger + Warlock- they're 5 PC games and when we rolled up / pointed up PC's it was just how it came out.

Where I DM there's 2 multi-class rogues and the only comment about SA came up when they were dealing with a bunch of half-golems in the sewers over several sessions. I always justified it as SA immunity was one of the reasons the half-golems were kicking butt of the other thieves guilds. Anyhow, the golems were beaten back and now they're more worried about the bad case of lycanthropy the docklands guild has come down with.....


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> ..............
> Okay, these were a few cheap shots. My issue with these examples are:
> 1) They are highly situational. Most constructs don't have secret switch to turn them off. Most enemy leaders don't carry any important amulets around. They might work, and I think they're cool if used. They don't really use the rules for solving the encounter. It's more playing the DM then playing the game.




I think the point i was trying to make is that if your games are just form a line and blast & hack at each other than the Rogue is not made for that. Thats why i highlighted it is situational and, more to the point, situational is where the rogue comes into its own. 

btw most of those examples I quoted I have seen in real games. And most actually in an initiative context (ie during combat rather than solo play)



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 2) They don't rely on the core abilities on the character. Everybody has skills. The Rogues class abilities might say he has access to a lot of skills - but why does he need to put ranks in Decipher Script (in fact, which Rogue does), Use Magic Device (though which Rogue would want to miss that?), Disguse or any other skill on his list? He gets 8+INT to choose from, that's a lot, but it's not enough to cover them all, and it's possible to miss a lot of these skills if that's not what your character is about. The abilities you can really rely on for the Rogue are his class abilities, which include Sneak Attack. It is a core ability of the class, since he gets it every 2 levels!




We'll have to agree to disagree here - I believe skill-monkey is effectively a class ability of the rogue, you don't. I believe that you cannot expect a class to be master of non-combat activities and master of combat as well. No right / wrong intended or implied just different perspectives



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 3) If these situations would work out fine, the Rogue would get all the spotlight. The rest of the characters are not required for the situation. I know that some people think that would be fine if there are other situations where another characters gets the full spotlight. But I think that's not what team play is about. Everyone should contribute significantly in all situations.




OK, classic example of rogue ability is to tumble past guards and engage spell-casters - engage works even if they're immune to Sneak attack as you're still forcing him to make the concentration roll or focus on you rather than the area effect spells - this only works in a group concept as you'll need the cavalry to hack their way through to you sooner rather than later. 

Scouting has always been solo activity and the philosophy of solo v group activity is a whole other discussion for another thread and time



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe someone might be a bit more effective, but he shouldn't been able to do the job without the help of others.




My point about Rogues not being useless without Sneak attack really - they can have a supporting or starring role in any combat or non-combat situation.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I agree it's okay to have corner cases, and they will probably work out fine for the total game experience. But they should stay corner cases, they are spice that is best used in low doses. There are games that work the opposite - Shadowrun for example. There, Mage, Rigger and Decker/Hacker have their own "subgames" - that they play effectively alone! The rest of the players and characters are standing around doing nothing.




I know what you mean about shadow run, in one game the Decker moved away and nobody even noticed and that level of seperation is not something I enjoy

I'm not sure what you mean by corner-cases, assume its the same as occasional?

I do think you can play the game as a succession of spotlight moments as long as your careful to balance it both in terms of player vs player share and individual v group.  Again this is a long way away from Sneak Attack so i suggest we leave it there, message me or open up another thread. 

My point has always been that sneak attack is not the be all and end all of the rogue, and that reducing or removing immunities is, IMHO, not that major a factor (certainly not worth an edition war over.)


----------



## Digital M@ (Jan 5, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Even just taking this example.
> 
> That's about 1/4 of the encounters that the rogue cannot use his main combat ability.
> 
> ...





Wrong!  Magic users spend more time firing crossbows knowing they will never do anything than Rogues do not getting sneak attack.  Rogues can still maneuver and help an over all encounter, still do damage with their chosen weapon.  A wizard will get crippled by casting his three spells for the day and have nothing else to do until the group can rest.  I hate playing magic users because you have to limit yourself to one or two rounds of action per encounter or risk having nothing to do but say, I fire my crossbow for two hours at the game table.

Now thankfully, this is being addressed in 4e.  I just hope they lower the sneak attack damage a bit, then having it always on is fine.  Sneak attacks are pretty easy to set up in 3E, you can even do it with a bow from the safety of the side lines.  I am just saying the Rogue class is hands down the most active class in the game and even if the fighter can smash the gears of a large trap, he will not be as effective as the rogue in the party at doing so, so why bother unless the rogue rolls bad.  It will be nice to have the mechanics in the game for a fighter to smash open a chest or door to bypass a poison needle trap.

Overall I like many of the changes, but my concern with 4E is the everybody is always a bad a$$ at whatever they do.  It may significantly change the feel of the game.  

Personally, I have never played a rogue in 3E because other players always clamor for it first, and I have never heard anyone complain about their characters being boring or too weak.  But, that is my experience and I am only one of thousands, so.....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2008)

> I believe that you cannot expect a class to be master of non-combat activities and master of combat as well.




Agreed 100%.  You want to be a primary combat damage-dealing badass, play a warrior class.

Rogues are, IMHO, meant to be secondary or tertiary combatants, using tactics to give his party an advantage, not accumulating a bodycount as fast as his armor-wearing, Maul weilding partymates.

I have no problem with rogues having periods of *merely* being able to deal base weapon damage- other classes do so as well.  My first adventure ever (back in '77) concluded with my fighter standing shoulder-to-shoulder with only the party's mage (who only had Magic Missile left) against a Purple Worm.  I welcomed those d4s from thrown daggers and d6s he did with his staff strikes after that final spell was expended- it made the fight close enough to give me a chance.  (The worm won, but with only 4 hp left- I never felt cheated, and that single adventure hooked me on the game, along with several of the guys who fell earlier in the game).

Rogues can't SA undead?  I'm crying!  That means that PC Paladins & Clerics (and some others) get to step to the fore.

This is a "problem" that really didn't need a fix.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 5, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Agreed 100%.  You want to be a primary combat damage-dealing badass, play a warrior class.
> 
> Rogues are, IMHO, meant to be secondary or tertiary combatants, using tactics to give his party an advantage, not accumulating a bodycount as fast as his armor-wearing, Maul weilding partymates.
> 
> ...



I disagree.  I like the archtype of backflipping over someone's head and stabbing them in the neck only to deftly dodge under the blow from the other enemy, kick them in the stomach then eviscerate them.  That's a rogue's shtick.  It's the fighting style I want in my combats.  And fighters don't do that well.  They instead are the people who deflect the blow with their shield and force the enemies weapon away with a strong blow hacking through their block and their chest then they immediate whirl around an throw their shield up to deflect a blow that was about to hit the rogue in the back.  Meanwhile, the cleric is calling down holy smites on their enemies, the power of their god descending in columns of light from the heavens and roasting their enemies while the wizard throws white hot balls of fire roasting them.

That is all kinds of awesome right there.  Everyone gets to have fun, everyone has cool powers.

Contrast that to:
The fighter slices at the zombies shambling towards them hacking off the head of two of them in a row without even pausing before cutting a third one in half.  The wizard roasts a group of them with a fireball, a dozen of them turning to ash in an instant.  The rogue then pulls out his daggers, a gleam in his eye as he stabs the first zombie he sees in the eye, right through the socket into the brain of the creature.  It doesn't appear to notice and continues towards the rogue, pummeling him.  The cleric holds up his holy symbol and concentrates for a second sending waves of holy energy around him, destroying the remaining 15 of them.

It doesn't feel like you are a high level character in that battle.  It doesn't feel like you are cool or interesting, or that you even have a reason to be there.  Whereas in the first battle everyone is useful and cool and fun.  Now, tell me why the second battle should be the way things should be done as opposed to the first one.  Why is it that one person in the party should be completely useless against a monster?

Is it because said rogue can find traps?  That isn't much of a tradeoff.  Sitting there for an hour waiting for the rest of the players to finish having fun killing things so I can make the disable device roll for 10 seconds sounds like all sorts of awesome to me.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 5, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I like the archtype of backflipping over someone's head and stabbing them in the neck only to deftly dodge under the blow from the other enemy, kick them in the stomach then eviscerate them.  That's a rogue's shtick.




Kicking a zombie in the stomach isn't going to effect it much.  Neither will eviscerating it or stabbing it in the neck.  There are some creatures that just can't be hurt in certain ways.

What if a party goes up against an incorporeal creature that can only be hurt by magic?  Do you think that such creatures such as these (ghosts, for example) should not be used in 4e because a fighter type or other physical combatant might not be able to hurt it and would then not have fun?


----------



## Campbell (Jan 5, 2008)

I think part of the disconnect we're experiencing in this thread is due to a disagreement on what a rogue should be on a conceptual level, largely because the 3rd edition rogue was conceptually confused. A significant number of people who now choose to play rogues do not want to play AD&D thieves. They want to play a lightly armored, athletic, stealthy warrior that takes every advantage his enemy will give him (basically the Iron Heroes Executionor or the Arcana Evolved Unfettered). They get their kick not from bomb disposal or thievery, but from sticking a knife into an enemy's side or ambushing a monster.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I like the archtype of backflipping over someone's head and stabbing them in the neck only to deftly dodge under the blow from the other enemy, kick them in the stomach then eviscerate them.  That's a rogue's shtick.  It's the fighting style I want in my combats.  And fighters don't do that well.  They instead are the people who deflect the blow with their shield and force the enemies weapon away with a strong blow hacking through their block and their chest then they immediate whirl around an throw their shield up to deflect a blow that was about to hit the rogue in the back.



The rogue you describe is a master combatant.  Therefore, I would suggest that Rog/Ftr is the proper combination to model the rogue you describe.

You also have a much narrower view of the fighter than I do.

I wanted to make an agile reach-weapon fighter for 3.5.  Using Tumble, taking advantage of AOOs, maybe Trip.  So I started him as a level 1 rogue.  Not because he was a thief or ever stole anything, but because that set of abilities (in particular, Tumble as a class skill) best represented the character concept.  Over time, he'd have been mostly Ftr with a couple of Rogue levels.  The character classes function best as sets of abilities, not archetypes.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> The rogue you describe is a master combatant.  Therefore, I would suggest that Rog/Ftr is the proper combination to model the rogue you describe.




Can you list some archetypical rogues that aren't good combatants, aside from Bilbo Baggins?


----------



## Greg K (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> The rogue you describe is a master combatant.  Therefore, I would suggest that Rog/Ftr is the proper combination to model the rogue you describe.




I personally prefer the martial rogue from Unearthed Arcana as an option.  I'd probably let the player trade out skill points per level to boost hit die to d8/level. I might also let the player trade out more skill points to increase BAB/level.  So, the character would have a couple of more skill point per level and a better skill selection than a fighter, but lack the sturdiness and training in all martial weapons as well as medium and heavy armor.
However, if they multiclassed into a fighter, I wouldn't allow them to take all martial weapons, medium, and heavy armor.

But yeah, I also don't picture the standard rogue as being someone meant to be mixing it up on the front line.


----------



## Xanaqui (Jan 6, 2008)

Phlebas said:
			
		

> Maybe, I'm at 7th level, and I think you need to be higher to pull out spells like that for miscellaneous activity (though for the final encounter its def an option). for some reason our party is overloaded with spider climb items so we can spend the final encounter huddling on the ceiling.....



My last significant campaign ended in the low 20s, so that's the reference point that sticks out most in my mind. At that point, a LV 23 spellcaster isn't worried about the low-level spells (which, of course, at LV 7 are all their spells, and then some).


			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> "Ah, so we agree the principle and now we're just haggling over the price"
> I've no problem with changing the range of creatures immune to sneak, personally i'd like to see a mechanic similar to rangers favoured enemy to change the range. it would allow an undead specialist to be happy traipsing around a crypt, but still be nervous of plants or a construct demolition expert to have a skeleton-phobia.



Sounds like what I'm thinking of introducing in my present game - I'm thinking knowledge checks to bypass sneak immunity. Maybe 15 + CR for 1/2 sneak dice; 30+ CR for full sneak dice. Or maybe 10 + 5/sneak die.


			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> In my game i have a cleric / fighter with improved crit and lucky dice, so its becoming a regular feature of combat these days, but that may be a personal view..... especially since no-one can match the TWF Fighter / Rogue / Shadowdancer for damage output and she's now thinking of improved critical as well!



Crits are a regular feature of combat once the party hits with a significant frequency. Even at, say, a 19-20 crit range and 5 hits per average round, there should be a crit every other round. They still aren't a lot of overall damage, unless you stack a couple crit-improving prestige classes on top of a otherwise crit min/maxed PC.


			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> I do think you can get issues if you don't mix and match challenges for any character class, try taking a druid, fighter specialising in mounted combat, illusionist and rogue down an undead filled crypt and see who feels more hard done by.... as a DM you have the ability to design PC killers or Gold mines with your decisions - SA immunity is just one of many factors you should be careful not to overuse.



It's been decades, but I played a 1st ed Illusionist in a crypt. On the other hand, 3E Illusionists have a lot of non-illusion spells to choose from. I'd say the Illusionist at very low levels; otherwise, the Rogue (unless it's very trap-heavy). I've never had problems feeling useful as a Druid (above LV 1). At low-mid levels, it's hard to make a non-viable fighter build.

Yep; perhaps it's just one of the two that gives me (personally) difficulty. I still think that there are too many high-CR creatures with sneak immunity.


			
				Phlebas said:
			
		

> In both the games I play in the Rogue spot has been taken by a Ranger + Artificier or Urban Ranger + Warlock- they're 5 PC games and when we rolled up / pointed up PC's it was just how it came out.
> 
> Where I DM there's 2 multi-class rogues and the only comment about SA came up when they were dealing with a bunch of half-golems in the sewers over several sessions. I always justified it as SA immunity was one of the reasons the half-golems were kicking butt of the other thieves guilds. Anyhow, the golems were beaten back and now they're more worried about the bad case of lycanthropy the docklands guild has come down with.....



I've played a number of games with no Rogue; if you allow other classes to gain Trapfinding (or something to replace it, like summons) one way or another, there's really little essential need for a Rogue.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Can you list some archetypical rogues that aren't good combatants, aside from Bilbo Baggins?



In terms of *archetypical * rogues, I don't know that there is such a thing.  The rogue class abilities can be used to create characters representing many archetypes.  The 2E PHB mentioned Reynard the Fox, Ali Baba, and Robin Goodfellow (aka Puck) as inspirations for the class.  I'm not familiar with Reynard the Fox, is he a super-acrobatic throat-slitting machine?  My Mentzer Basic Set has a list of material that inspired the game at the back, next time I have access to it I will look through that list.

There LEGIONS of thieves in literature of all sorts, who would use the rogue class.  Pickpockets, burglars, muggers, con artists, mobsters, tricksters, scoundrels, and so on.  Ninjas are a possibility, yes, but not the only kind of rogue out there.  Have you read the Complete Thief's Handbook?  That contains many archetypes that are represented by the 2E thief class.  Was the 3E rogue class intended to be a radical revision of the archetypes modeled by the class?


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Can you list some archetypical rogues that aren't good combatants, aside from Bilbo Baggins?




Mouse from "Hawkwoman"
Aladdin from "Aladdin"
Indiana Jones (seriously, he's a rogue, and he never got in a fight in which he didn't get his ass kicked unless he used a dirty trick or a gun)


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> In terms of *archetypical * rogues, I don't know that there is such a thing.  The rogue class abilities can be used to create characters representing many archetypes.




The rogue class is about sneaky attacks (backstab, sneak attack), larcenous dealings (thief skills in 1e/2e, big focus on thief skills in 3e), and traps above all (which is why they were only ones able to do trapfinding in 1e/2e/3e). I think it's completely false when people claim rogue as the everyman class.



> The 2E PHB mentioned Reynard the Fox, Ali Baba, and Robin Goodfellow (aka Puck) as inspirations for the class.




The 2E book stuck to "historical" figures and ignored fantasy, which is why it didn't list Bilbo in there... and the class, at that time, was Thief, not Rogue, so it was actually a far tighter archetype than rogue (you steal things, otherwise you wouldn't be a thief).

Reynard the Fox is... actually a fox, apparently. Anthromorphic tales from medieval Europe. Not sure if he really fits the fantasy "rogue."

Ali Baba lived nearly 40 thieves who hid treasure in a magic cave. He learned the words to get into and out of the cave, become somewhat wealthy, lost his greedy brother to the thieves (his brother forgot the words to leave the cave), nearly got killed by one of thieves, but was saved by a slave-girl who he set free, and she married his son. Yeah, he's a thief, because he steals... but that doesn't make him the thief class.

Robin Goodfellow/Puck was a prankster and a trickster. Comic relief.



> Was the 3E rogue class intended to be a radical revision of the archetypes modeled by the class?




Rogue was a broadening of the class, instead of just being thief. It opened up skills a lot more (since before, you only got your thief skills), but the class retained it's fundamental character from earlier editions.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The rogue class is about sneaky attacks (backstab, sneak attack), larcenous dealings (thief skills in 1e/2e, big focus on thief skills in 3e), and traps above all (which is why they were only ones able to do trapfinding in 1e/2e/3e). I think it's completely false when people claim rogue as the everyman class.



I certainly wasn't saying that.  If you look, I posted NUMEROUS archetypes that I think the rogue class can be used to represent -- which is why I don't think the class by itself is any single archetype.  That's not the same as saying it's an everyman class.

"Pickpockets, burglars, muggers, con artists, mobsters, tricksters, scoundrels" -- to name a few.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Mouse from "Hawkwoman"




Ladyhawke, you mean? He's an example, but probably of a low-level one. If you put the movie into D&D terms, he doesn't really do much that requires anything but a couple levels of rogue.



> Aladdin from "Aladdin"




The Disney movie or the original tales? In the movie, he doesn't seem to be anything but competent with a sword in hand.



> Indiana Jones (seriously, he's a rogue, and he never got in a fight in which he didn't get his ass kicked unless he used a dirty trick or a gun)




Perfect example (alongside Silk, Gray Mouser, Cugel, Jimmy the Hand)... he doesn't fight fair, and that makes him an effective combatant.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Perfect example (alongside Silk, Gray Mouser, Cugel, Jimmy the Hand)... he doesn't fight fair, and that makes him an effective combatant.



Look at the original quote that got this started:


			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I like the archtype of backflipping over someone's head and stabbing them in the neck only to deftly dodge under the blow from the other enemy, kick them in the stomach then eviscerate them. That's a rogue's shtick.



That is not a merely good combatant who wins by trickery or luck.  That is a highly-trained killing machine, like a Jet Li character.  I think the archetype described is as much the fighter's as the rogue's; make it a Rog/Ftr and call it a swashbuckler.  Zorro, after all, is exceptionally skilled with a rapier, NOT just relying on luck and dirty tricks, so I'd call him at least as much Fighter as Rogue.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> That is not a merely good combatant who wins by trickery or luck.  That is a highly-trained killing machine, like a Jet Li character.




That's a high-level rogue to me. He isn't a toe-to-toe fighter, laying down devastating blows that stun, knockdown, or knockback a target. He uses acrobatics, trickery, the terrain, and his ability to take an opponent by surprise. When you get into the higher levels, that starts to make them more ninja-like, with the way the game scales.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> That's a high-level rogue to me.




I think it mostly has to do with the perception of what a "rogue" is.  I think "thief" first (at least insofar as it was displayed in earlier editions) and you seem to think "ninja" first, which, admittedly, is much closer to the 3rd edition rogue -- particularly the 3.5, post-splat cuisinart rogue.

Part of the problem is that if the intent is to put combat first, and define character parity and effectivenes through combat, then describing the rogue as a sly, skilled burglar and con man doesn't seem to be equivalent to the tough, awesome fighter (never mind that the fighter has no skills outside of combat).  D&D has never been, to me, all about combat, and how useful or cool a character is has little to do with their combat capabilities relative to other characters.  If you sit down for a 4 hour session, "fun" isn't defined as how much damage you do, but by how much you contribute and engage the game throughout those 4 hours.  Obviously, this means that if your sessions are largely combat, then combat effectiveness is going to have a heavier impact on your "fun".  But as the poll I started in General shows, how much session time is devoted to combat varies wildly from group tp group.  Mandating "fun" in 4E as it relates to encounters and combat and character effectiveness therein seems to be a poor design goal -- it assumes a certain definition of "fun" that is by no means universal.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> That's a high-level rogue to me. He isn't a toe-to-toe fighter, laying down devastating blows that stun, knockdown, or knockback a target. He uses acrobatics, trickery, the terrain, and his ability to take an opponent by surprise. When you get into the higher levels, that starts to make them more ninja-like, with the way the game scales.



The mighty warrior using power moves is ONE archetype for the fighter class, not the only one.  The acrobatic combatant has long been another of the archetypes that the fighter class seeks to model.  Look at the 2E fighter kits: both the gladiator and the swashbuckler had access to the Tumbling NWP.  And with TWF rules as they were, I've seen a lot of high-Dex fighters in both 2E and 3E.  I just don't buy the argument of "Anybody agile must be a Rogue, because all fighters are Str-based plodding tanks."  Given the number of weapons, feats, and fighting styles possible, the fighter is too broad and versatile a class to be limited to one archetype.


----------



## Campbell (Jan 6, 2008)

Reynard,

I know this probably won't improve your disposition any, but I don't think the intent is solely to determine character parity through combat. Everything I've seen so far indicates that noncombat abilities will play a meaningful role in 4th Edition, but instead of balancing noncombat abilities with combat abilities they're attempting to balance combat and noncombat abilities seperately. It looks like we'll be getting the same sort of broadly competent character classes that Saga has. I expect that difference between the most highly skilled and the least skilled characters will be narrower, and that the rogue will most likely lose a fair bit of his edge here. I also expect fighters will actually be able to represent professional soldiers adequetely.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Reynard,
> 
> I know this probably won't improve your disposition any, but I don't think the intent is solely to determine character parity through combat. Everything I've seen so far indicates that noncombat abilities will play a meaningful role in 4th Edition, but instead of balancing noncombat abilities with combat abilities they're attempting to balance combat and noncombat abilities seperately. It looks like we'll be getting the same sort of broadly competent character classes that Saga has. I expect that difference between the most highly skilled and the least skilled characters will be narrower, and that the rogue will most likely lose a fair bit of his edge here. I also expect fighters will actually be able to represent professional soldiers adequetely.




There's nothing wrong with that, in general, despite the fact that I think parity in combat should not be a goal in a game built around archetypes.  That's hardly my biggest problem with 4E, though, and I can see why, especially from a player's perspective, it is seen as a "good thing".

However, it should be noted that WotC has given ua almost exclusively combat related previews.  Even those previews that are about fluff end up including little sections on how totally awesome the combat against creature x/while playing race or class Y will be.  Will 4E be any more or less combat focused than any other edition?  No way to tell.  But it does seem that way, given the nature of the previews.

What I do know, though, is that design with the encounter as the central aspect, as the basic unit of fun, will lead to design that forces parity where it doesn't need to exist.  Letting PCs of a certain type shine in certain kinds of situations is a good thing and doesn't ruin the balance of fun when you are taking an adventure as a whole as the basic unit of fun.  An encounter with powerful, incorporeal undead giving the cleric a moment to shine while the other PCs try not to die isn't "unfun"; having a magical duel between a PC wizard and an NPC witch while the other PCs do little more than mop up mooks isn't "unfun"; letting the rogue fully explore a complex web of traps and locks while the other PCs hold torches isn't "unfun"; creating an encounter where the fighter shines through massive physical violence while the other PCs have to deal with their less than awesome BABs isn't "unfun -- so long as situations like these all exist in a given adventure.  I don't know about anyone else, but watching my fellow players feel awesome and special is fun, and more to the point, I can manage to create my own fun through roleplaying my character and doing what I can to contribute even if I am not the spotlight character or I don't have much to do in the way of mechanics.

D&D is storytelling: not in the sense that the DM should be telling the players a story, but in the sense that stories naturally emerge from play.  It doesn't matter so much if those stories end with a group of mouldering corpses on the third level of the Dungeon of Doom or with a set of Young Gods who managed to be so great that they ascended to immortality.  The whole spectrum is cool when you sit down with a couple beers and everyoen starts talking about last week's/month's/year's/decade's game.  And part of those emergent stories are the moments when the characters involved did their thing, got to shine and took center stage.  It happens in every kind of ensemble entertainment and D&D is no different.

It's not a beer and pretzles game that we play for a couple hours of monster bashing.  It is, and always has been, more than that.  The very fact of continuity inherent in the system -- character levelling, for the most basic example -- tells us that the game is more.  That's why it is niche.

I don't know if I would like 4E or not, but I do know that the combination of the previews we've seen and the general attitude of thsoe that argue most vehemently in favor of whatever random change WotC throws at us make me fairly certain I am not going to bother trying (so long as I can still find a group to play one of the various previous editions I have on my shelf).  WotC has done a "good" enough job with their re-imagining of D&D -- or at least their previews of such -- that it is the *only* version of the game that is likely to not find a place on my bookshelf.  That has to say something.


----------



## Campbell (Jan 6, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with that, in general, despite the fact that I think parity in combat should not be a goal in a game built around archetypes.  That's hardly my biggest problem with 4E, though, and I can see why, especially from a player's perspective, it is seen as a "good thing".




I'm not going to argue that this isn't a genuine concern, especially for folks who've been with the game since its inception. Generally speaking, I think 3e and 4e occupy a middle ground between archetype based game play and more free for all systems. Personally, I tend to like this middle ground.

As far as combat parity and hopefully noncombat parity being central design goals of 4e I can't say I've ever really looked at it from a player's perspective. The reason I tend to view such things favorably is the additional adventure design space this allows me as a DM.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> However, it should be noted that WotC has given an almost exclusively combat related previews.  Even those previews that are about fluff end up including little sections on how totally awesome the combat against creature x/while playing race or class Y will be.  Will 4E be any more or less combat-focused than any other edition ?  No way to tell.  But it does seem that way, given the nature of the previews.




I can understand where you're coming from here. Other than the traps preview, some hints of rituals, and some vague indications of the new social resolution system we've seen little about the noncombat elements of the game. I think there a few reasons for this that don't really speak to the overall focus of the design work although I could be wrong. First of all, I think the combat mechanics are sufficiently different enough from previous iterations of the game to make them ripe for preview material and they're probably easier to preview in chunks than the social resolution material will be. Additionally it's probably easier for a number of people to relate to, right or wrong.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> What I do know, though, is that design with the encounter as the central aspect, as the basic unit of fun, will lead to design that forces parity where it doesn't need to exist.  Letting PCs of a certain type shine in certain kinds of situations is a good thing and doesn't ruin the balance of fun when you are taking an adventure as a whole as the basic unit of fun.  An encounter with powerful, incorporeal undead giving the cleric a moment to shine while the other PCs try not to die isn't "unfun"; having a magical duel between a PC wizard and an NPC witch while the other PCs do little more than mop up mooks isn't "unfun"; letting the rogue fully explore a complex web of traps and locks while the other PCs hold torches isn't "unfun"; creating an encounter where the fighter shines through massive physical violence while the other PCs have to deal with their less than awesome BABs isn't "unfun -- so long as situations like these all exist in a given adventure.  I don't know about anyone else, but watching my fellow players feel awesome and special is fun, and more to the point, I can manage to create my own fun through role playing my character and doing what I can to contribute even if I am not the spotlight character or I don't have much to do in the way of mechanics.




To a certain extent I agree with you here, although most likely not on all specifics. Over all I'd argue that 'unfun' has been trumpeted out far too often on these boards. Much like 'anime' or 'video game' its a term used in place of a solid argument and cuts off discussion. I guess I don't see this issue as a binary one. There are varying levels of 'being taken out of the game' as well as differing rates of occurrence. I personally feel that PCs in 3e are hyper specialized to an extent that occasionally wreaks havoc upon adventure design for me. I agree having individual PCs shine is something that needs to be preserved, and I have faith that it will be if not necessarily to the degree that you might prefer. For instance, it seems like rogues and warlocks will not do as well as fighters and wizards in combat against a multitude of foes, but will rise to the occasion against solo enemies. Rogues should still be the best equipped to handle bomb disposal. Generally, I think most examples of PCs shining will be due to expressing their strengths, rather than as a result of other PCs dealing with glaring weaknesses (see the removal of the Rock/Paper/Scissors spell casting in Saga). 



			
				 Reynard said:
			
		

> D&D is storytelling: not in the sense that the DM should be telling the players a story, but in the sense that stories naturally emerge from play.  It doesn't matter so much if those stories end with a group of moldering corpses on the third level of the Dungeon of Doom or with a set of Young Gods who managed to be so great that they ascended to immortality.  The whole spectrum is cool when you sit down with a couple beers and everyone starts talking about last week's/month's/year's/decade's game.  And part of those emergent stories are the moments when the characters involved did their thing, got to shine and took center stage.  It happens in every kind of ensemble entertainment and D&D is no different.
> 
> It's not a beer and pretzels game that we play for a couple hours of monster bashing.  It is, and always has been, more than that.  The very fact of continuity inherent in the system -- character leveling, for the most basic example -- tells us that the game is more.  That's why it is niche.




I absolutely agree with you here. I think where we disagree here is how to best accomplish that task.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I don't know if I would like 4E or not, but I do know that the combination of the previews we've seen and the general attitude of those that argue most vehemently in favor of whatever random change WotC throws at us make me fairly certain I am not going to bother trying (so long as I can still find a group to play one of the various previous editions I have on my shelf).  WotC has done a "good" enough job with their re-imagining of D&D -- or at least their previews of such -- that it is the *only* version of the game that is likely to not find a place on my bookshelf.  That has to say something.




I’m not trying to sell you on 4e here, but I’d advise you to wait a while longer before making up your mind. There’s still a lot we still don’t know and making up your mind now, for good or ill, could be doing yourself a disservice. It is a shame that so many of us have become lost in rhetoric to the point that we can’t really have a decent conversation.

*Note:* When I was composing this reply I used Microsoft Word and edited the entirity of the post, including quoted section, for spelling and grammar.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2008)

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> Wrong!  Magic users spend more time firing crossbows knowing they will never do anything than Rogues do not getting sneak attack.  Rogues can still maneuver and help an over all encounter, still do damage with their chosen weapon.  A wizard will get crippled by casting his three spells for the day and have nothing else to do until the group can rest.  I hate playing magic users because you have to limit yourself to one or two rounds of action per encounter or risk having nothing to do but say, I fire my crossbow for two hours at the game table.
> *snip*





Three spells for the day?  Ok, that's a second level wizard.  What about the other eighteen levels of the game?  Your wizards never buy scrolls or wands?  

Clerics I've seen run out of spells lots.  Wizards?  Not so much.  And, picking up a wand or three isn't out of line for most wizards.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Agreed 100%.  You want to be a primary combat damage-dealing badass, play a warrior class.
> 
> Rogues are, IMHO, meant to be secondary or tertiary combatants, using tactics to give his party an advantage, not accumulating a bodycount as fast as his armor-wearing, Maul weilding partymates.
> 
> ...




Let's not forget that that purple worm had what, 50 hit points?  Meaning that a d4 damage ACTUALLY mattered.  Now, it might as well be harsh language.  The purple worm could sit back and take d4 damage attacks for 20 or 30 rounds before he started to get worried.  Comparisons to earlier editions don't take into account how much tougher monsters got in 3e.

"Tertiary combatant"   So, he's not second line, he's actually third string?  In a 4 man party?  You can't have a third line when there's only 4 PC's.  That's ridiculous.  You might as well be a commoner.  Or an expert.

Actually, thinking about it, expert is FAR closer to what you guys are talking about.  A skill monkey that is very weak combatant.  

Sorry, my rogue has ALWAYS been the ninja cuisinart to use Reynard's term.  We allowed thieves to sneak attack just about everything back in the day.  And it didn't hurt the game at all.  Heck, we allowed theives to hide in shadows during combat and then backstab in the next round.  3e simply codified the house rules I was already playing (after giving them a shiney new buff too  )

You want Indiana Jones in your group?  Why?  Getting your ass kicked every fight is stupid.  Indie lives because he has plot protection.  PC's just die.  3e combat is far and away too lethal to have weak combatants in the group.  Because, that means that the weak combatant doesn't die, but someone else does because the monster gets more attacks because the weak combatant doesn't contribute to the fight.


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> That's a high-level rogue to me. He isn't a toe-to-toe fighter, laying down devastating blows that stun, knockdown, or knockback a target. He uses acrobatics, trickery, the terrain, and his ability to take an opponent by surprise. When you get into the higher levels, that starts to make them more ninja-like, with the way the game scales.




Seems like this may be the route of the various disagreements, various expectations of what a *pure* class rogue should be.

One of the GREAT (IMHO) conceptually changes 2E -> 3E was the idea of mix-n-match base classes to give you flexible build. The most effective combatant in my campaign (unless monsters have DR) is the Rog 4 / Ftr 4 / Shadowdancer 3 TWF stab-o-matic. Thats a very specific build, and is incredibly effective and should be much better in combat than a pure rogue (otherwise whats the point of the fighter class). On the other hand she's nowhere near as good as the other rogue in the party at trapfinding and all the traditional rogue activities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing i thought of last night is that the combination of DR and Sneak Attack immunity is  a double whammy for light fighters - maybe thats something that should be looked at?


----------



## med stud (Jan 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, it boils down to the question: Can someone conceive sneak attack as something other than striking at vital, living organs? Can it be striking sensitive (but not always bleeding) parts, can it be a representation of the element of surprise instead?



Without any problems at all. If we assume that HP is the amount of beating needed to get someone out of a fight and not necessarily kill them, then "vital spot" would mean "a body part crucial for fighting".

When fighting a zombie or a golem:
-Non vital spot: Slashing up the side, piercing the abdomen, breaking ribs.
-Vital spot: Breaking a knee or cutting off an arm.

The increased damage due to the sneak attack in this circumstance is that by attacking body parts the zombie needs for fighting, you take out of the battle earlier.

Note that this works out perfectly well against living creatures as well; without your leg, it doesn't matter if you are Miyamoto Musashi. I think many sneak attack descriptions tend to overemphasis the "vital" aspect as in "necessary for prolonged survival" (prolonged as in minutes-hours-days) instead of "needed to get someone to stop fighting in 6-12 seconds".


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> I can understand where you're coming from here. Other than the traps preview, some hints of rituals, and some vague indications of the new social resolution system we've seen little about the noncombat elements of the game. I think there a few reasons for this that don't really speak to the overall focus of the design work although I could be wrong. First of all, I think the combat mechanics are sufficiently different enough from previous iterations of the game to make them ripe for preview material and they're probably easier to preview in chunks than the social resolution material will be. Additionally it's probably easier for a number of people to relate to, right or wrong.






> I’m not trying to sell you on 4e here, but I’d advise you to wait a while longer before making up your mind. There’s still a lot we still don’t know and making up your mind now, for good or ill, could be doing yourself a disservice. It is a shame that so many of us have become lost in rhetoric to the point that we can’t really have a decent conversation.




Well, I am still reading the previews and still taling about it, which means there's a part of me that really wants to find that golden nugget that sells me on 4E.  I have been gming a long time and I have played a lot of games, but D&D was first and best and I always come back to it.  The idea that a new edition of the game is something I _wouldn't_ want to play is kind of upsetting.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Without any problems at all. If we assume that HP is the amount of beating needed to get someone out of a fight and not necessarily kill them, then "vital spot" would mean "a body part crucial for fighting".
> 
> When fighting a zombie or a golem:
> -Non vital spot: Slashing up the side, piercing the abdomen, breaking ribs.
> ...




What you are talking about here is a critical hit, of which the sneak attack is only a component.  Allowing criticals against any corporeal opponent, by defining a critical as a blow to a vulnerable area (whatever that may mean for a given opponent) is not a bad idea and affects all characters.  I am sure the falchion-wielding, improved criticalled, power critical-ing barbarian would appreciate it, too.

Thinking on this, maybe the better way to model "sneak attack" is to call it a critical, and/or double the rogues threat range when flanking or attacking a creature denied its dex bonus.  This way, the rogue has an eye for "vitals" but isn't necessarily a cuisinart of awesomeness.

In a thread on rpg.net, I did some quick numbers and found, much to my surprise, that all those sneak attack d6's didn't put the rogue over the top -- early on the big weapon, power attacking fighter was still better at dealing damage and even at later levels the rogue only had a slight edge (and only then if the fighter wasn't using a particularly powerful power attack).  So, in the end, allowin most creatures to be criticalled, and therefore sneak attacked, isn't going to break the game.  Sneak attack is already sufficiently different from "backstab" that the "thief" D&D-ism is long lost already.


----------



## med stud (Jan 6, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> What you are talking about here is a critical hit, of which the sneak attack is only a component.  Allowing criticals against any corporeal opponent, by defining a critical as a blow to a vulnerable area (whatever that may mean for a given opponent) is not a bad idea and affects all characters.  I am sure the falchion-wielding, improved criticalled, power critical-ing barbarian would appreciate it, too.
> 
> Thinking on this, maybe the better way to model "sneak attack" is to call it a critical, and/or double the rogues threat range when flanking or attacking a creature denied its dex bonus.  This way, the rogue has an eye for "vitals" but isn't necessarily a cuisinart of awesomeness.
> 
> In a thread on rpg.net, I did some quick numbers and found, much to my surprise, that all those sneak attack d6's didn't put the rogue over the top -- early on the big weapon, power attacking fighter was still better at dealing damage and even at later levels the rogue only had a slight edge (and only then if the fighter wasn't using a particularly powerful power attack).  So, in the end, allowin most creatures to be criticalled, and therefore sneak attacked, isn't going to break the game.  Sneak attack is already sufficiently different from "backstab" that the "thief" D&D-ism is long lost already.



Well I think the difference in the game world between a critical hit and a sneak attack is hard to tell . But both critical hits and sneak attacks are most often described as hitting vital parts of your opponent.

I essentially agree that sneak attack could be renamed to something in theme with critical. OTOH I think the "sneak" part of the name shows that they are attacks made on an opponent who can't defend itself properly.

My main point, though, is that many creatures that can't be critically hit or sneak attacked due to lack of vitals really have many vulnerable points in common with living creatures.


----------



## hopeless (Jan 6, 2008)

*Okay*



			
				Hairfoot said:
			
		

> For me, the issue is not whether they have weak spots, but whether the rogue has learned them.  Flesh golems and most undead, fair enough, but tell me where you'd attack an animated oak table with a dagger to earn a sneak attack!




Use an axe like everyone else!
Fire apparently works well supposedly even on oozes but the trick is to not get caught in the subsequent attempt to put said fire out...

Well if fighters are going to get combat maneuvers whats to stop rogue getting assassination techniques?

I believe a certain rogue in the d&d sequel made use of a vial of purple worm stomach acid, I guess it will be a matter of preparation which adventures might make difficult if not impossible I wonder how they're going to treat holy water?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> So, in the end, allowin most creatures to be criticalled, and therefore sneak attacked, isn't going to break the game.



To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class.  So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class.  So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?



Well, it might be easier to just adjust their challenge rating (if the point was really critical* for the monster). Maybe adjust its strength or spellcasting ability score by 2 points to make the CR adjustment fair. I think few monsters really need this kind of defense. 

For 4E, it will naturally be less of a problem, since such monsters would need a redesign anyway. 


*what's with all the puns today?


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class.  So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?



No. Those monsters can and should remain either immune or get a damage threshold (your damage must be this big to die!) -- or, yes, they just get more hit points, or do bad stuff when they get snuck attacked, or whatever.

It's the "all undead are immune!" that's the problem, not "some (scarier) undead are immune!" -- that's cool and differentiates monsters.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 7, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class.  So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?




Not particularly.  We don't adjust the CR of creatures if the party does not have a rogue, so, it's really a wash anyway.  A party that has a barbarian instead of a rogue is going to have 4 PC's which are effective 100% of the time.  Or, at least equally ineffective (such as facing incorporeal or concealed opponents).  However, you won't have situations where 3 of the PC's are equally effective with 1 PC only equally effective 75% of the time.

Most creatures are swimming in HP's anyway.  Letting the rogue be effective against golems isn't going to significantly weaken them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2008)

Gort said:
			
		

> It is, when the bit that your friend (say, combat) gets to shine in takes a ton of time and is massively detailed in the rules with lots of different approaches, while your bit (say, trapfinding and disarming) is two dice rolls.




That, btw, is the problem in a nutshell.  In 3e, combat takes so damn long that it is disproportionately important to adventures when compared to previous editions.  It is easier for a rogue to shine in 1e, say, where combat was quicker.  If combat really is sped up in 4e, it'll be a good thing.

RC


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 7, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Not particularly.  We don't adjust the CR of creatures if the party does not have a rogue, so, it's really a wash anyway.



You also don't adjust the CR if a party doesn't have a wizard -- but SR 100 should factor into the monster's CR anyway. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Most creatures are swimming in HP's anyway.  Letting the rogue be effective against golems isn't going to significantly weaken them.



Golems really don't have a lot of HP for monsters of their CR -- but they're supposed to be immune to Sneak Attacks and immune to all but a very small list of spells.  With the huge variety of no-SR damaging spells, the latter defense has become basically irrelevant.
Most of the tougher undead (liches, vampires, incorporeal) also didn't have a lot of HP for their CR, since they didn't have a Con bonus.


----------



## Gort (Jan 7, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Golems really don't have a lot of HP for monsters of their CR -- but they're supposed to be immune to Sneak Attacks and immune to all but a very small list of spells.  With the huge variety of no-SR damaging spells, the latter defense has become basically irrelevant.
> Most of the tougher undead (liches, vampires, incorporeal) also didn't have a lot of HP for their CR, since they didn't have a Con bonus.



Well, those creatures would almost certainly get their HP buffed since they're losing their immunities. I always liked undead getting extra HP based on charisma, anyway.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 7, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> You also don't adjust the CR if a party doesn't have a wizard -- but SR 100 should factor into the monster's CR anyway.
> 
> 
> Golems really don't have a lot of HP for monsters of their CR -- but they're supposed to be immune to Sneak Attacks and immune to all but a very small list of spells.  With the huge variety of no-SR damaging spells, the latter defense has become basically irrelevant.
> Most of the tougher undead (liches, vampires, incorporeal) also didn't have a lot of HP for their CR, since they didn't have a Con bonus.




Meh, it's mostly a wash.  You might _maybe_ bump the CR by 1.  But, CR is mostly arrived at by factoring offensive capabilities, not immunities.  Immunities are nice, of course, but, entirely situationally dependent.  Losing the immunity to sneak attack (and not criticals) does not dramatically affect the combat capabilities of a creature.

Put it another way, a stone golem's CR is based mostly on the fact that it has decent hp's (with a pretty serious whopping DR to boot), a good AC, decent damage and it's slow ability.  The construct trait of immune to sneak attack doesn't matter a whole lot.


----------

