# Ampersand: Sneak Attack



## Lord Zack

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080222a

An article revealing the Rogue. I'll post my impressions later, first I'm going to read cthe article.


----------



## Dragonblade

Never mind. I found a copy....


----------



## Badkarmaboy

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Never mind. I found a copy....




Rogue

"You look surprised to see me. If you’d been paying attention, you might still be alive."

CLASS TRAITS

    Role: Striker. You dart in to attack, do massive damage, and then retreat to safety. You do best when teamed with a defender to flank enemies.
    Power Source: Martial. Your talents depend on extensive training and constant practice, innate skill, and natural coordination.
    Key Abilities: Dexterity, Strength, Charisma

    Armor Training: Leather
    Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword
    Bonus to Defense: +2 Reflex

    Hit Points at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution score
    Hit Points per Level Gained: 5
    Healing Surges: 6 + Constitution modifier

    Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.
    Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dexterity), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dexterity), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dexterity)

    Build Options: Brawny rogue, trickster rogue
    Class Features: First Strike, Rogue Tactics, Rogue Weapon Talent, Sneak Attack 

Rogues are cunning and elusive adversaries. Rogues slip into and out of shadows on a whim, pass anywhere across the field of battle without fear of reprisal, and appear suddenly only to drive home a lethal blade.

As a rogue, you might face others’ preconceptions regarding your motivations, but your nature is your own to mold. You could be an agent fresh from the deposed king’s shattered intelligence network, an accused criminal on the lam seeking to clear your name, a wiry performer whose goals transcend the theatrical stage, a kid trying to turn around your hard-luck story, or a daredevil thrill-seeker who can’t get enough of the adrenaline rush of conflict. Or perhaps you are merely in it for the gold, after all.

With a blade up your sleeve and a concealing cloak across your shoulders, you stride forth, eyes alight with anticipation. What worldly wonders and rewards are yours for the taking?

ROGUE OVERVIEW

Characteristics: Combat advantage provides the full benefit of your powers, and a combination of skills and powers helps you gain and keep that advantage over your foes. You are a master of skills, from Stealth and Thievery to Bluff and Acrobatics.

Religion: Rogues prefer deities of the night, luck, freedom, and adventure, such as Sehanine and Avandra. Evil and chaotic evil rogues often favor Lolth or Zehir.

Races: Those with a love for secrets exchanged in shadows and change for its own sake make ideal rogues, including elves, tieflings, and halflings.
Creating a Rogue

The trickster rogue and the brawny rogue are the two rogue builds, one relying on bluffs and feints, the other on brute strength. Dexterity, Charisma, and Strength are the rogue’s most important ability scores.

Brawny Rogue
You like powers that deal plenty of damage, aided by your Strength, and also stun, immobilize, knock down, or push your foes. Your attacks use Dexterity, so keep that your highest ability score. Strength should be a close second—it increases your damage directly, and it can determine other effects of your attacks. Charisma is a good third ability score, particularly if you want to dabble in powers from the other rogue build. Select the brutal scoundrel rogue tactic, and look for powers that pack a lot of damage into every punch.

    Suggested Feat: Weapon Focus (Human feat: Toughness)
    Suggested Skills: Athletics, Dungeoneering, Intimidate, Stealth, Streetwise, Thievery
    Suggested At-Will Powers: Piercing Strike, Riposte Strike
    Suggested Encounter Power: Torturous Strike
    Suggested Daily Power: Easy Target 

Trickster Rogue
You like powers that deceive and misdirect your foes. You dart in and out of the fray in combat, dodging your enemies’ attacks or redirecting them to other foes. Most of your attack powers rely on Dexterity, so that should be your best ability score. Charisma is important for a few attacks, for Charisma-based skills you sometimes use in place of attacks, and for other effects that depend on successful attacks, so make Charisma your second-best score. Strength is useful if you want to choose powers intended for the other rogue build. Select the artful dodger rogue tactic. Look for powers that take advantage of your high Charisma score, as well as those that add to your trickster nature.

    Suggested Feat: Backstabber (Human feat: Human Perseverance)
    Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Thievery
    Suggested At-Will Powers: Deft Strike, Sly Flourish
    Suggested Encounter Power: Positioning Strike
    Suggested Daily Power: Trick Strike 

Rogue Class Features

All rogues share these class features.

First Strike
At the start of an encounter, you have combat advantage against any creatures that have not yet acted in that encounter.

Rogue Tactics
Rogues operate in a variety of ways. Some rogues use their natural charm and cunning trickery to deceive foes. Others rely on brute strength to overcome their enemies.

Choose one of the following options.

    Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma modifier against opportunity attacks.
    Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to your Strength modifier. 

The choice you make also provides bonuses to certain rogue powers. Individual powers detail the effects (if any) your Rogue Tactics selection has on them.

Rogue Weapon Talent
When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

Sneak Attack
Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.
Level 	Sneak Attack Damage
1st–10th 	+2d6
11th–20th 	+3d6
21st–30th 	+5d6
Rogue Powers

Your powers are daring exploits that draw on your personal cunning, agility, and expertise. Some powers reward a high Charisma and are well suited for the trickster rogue, and others reward a high Strength and appeal to the brawny rogue, but you are free to choose any power you like.
Deft Strike
Rogue Attack 1
A final lunge brings you into an advantageous position.

At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling.
Target: One creature
Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack.
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC

Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.


Piercing Strike
Rogue Attack 1
A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh.

At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex

Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.


Positioning Strike
Rogue Attack 1
A false stumble and a shove place the enemy exactly where you want him.

Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Will

Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and you slide the target 1 square.
Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Charisma modifier.


Torturous Strike
Rogue Attack 1
If you twist the blade in the wound just so, you can make your enemy howl in pain.

Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC

Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Strength modifier.


Tumble
Rogue Utility 2
You tumble out of harm’s way, dodging the opportunistic attacks of your enemies.

Encounter ✦ Martial
Move Action
Personal
Prerequisite: You must be trained in Acrobatics.

Effect: You can shift a number of squares equal to one-half your speed.


Crimson Edge
Rogue Attack 9
You deal your enemy a vicious wound that continues to bleed, and like a shark, you circle in for the kill.

Daily ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude

Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and the target takes ongoing damage equal to 5 + your Strength modifier and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
Miss: Half damage, and no ongoing damage.


----------



## Lord Zack

Edit: Ignore this.


----------



## CleverNickName

Oh, so crunchy and delicious...


----------



## Dragonblade

Wow! This is crunchtastic!!!



> Hit Points at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution score
> Hit Points per Level Gained: 5




A little lower starting hp than I predicted, but my HP per level prediction was RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!

Who called flat hp per level and strikers getting 5 per level?? Huh? Me!! BAM!!


----------



## HeinorNY

Fixed HP per level.

The gods finally listened to our prayers.


----------



## Vayden

Awesome, awesome stuff. Quick summation of what look like the highlights:
1 - Int doesn't affect your amount of trained skills. 
2 - Con only affects healing surges and 1st level hitpoints, not subsequent levels.
3 - Dmg is a LOT lower than it was in 3.x - only 5d6 sneak attack damage at Epic Tier? Sounds like that Pit Fiend is a lot more powerful than the haters assumed.
4 - Seems like AC is generally going to be lower than Reflex defense (see the extra abilities available in the one power, which is identical to the other except the one with more options targets Reflex instead of AC)
5 - Combat Advantage looks to be a significant new term - it clearly replaces flanking (and flat-footed?), and powers the Rogue's Sneak Attack. I wonder what affect it has for other classes?


----------



## Zamkaizer

The weapon proficiencies are positively eloquent. As are the skills. And the powers as well. This is damn suave. I just want to know what [W] is.


----------



## Dwelian

I wonder if rogues also get bonuses when using the Horadric Cube?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I think [W] stands for Weapon, so 1[W] is 1 x Weapon Damage and 2[W] is 2 x Weapon Damage.


----------



## Stalker0

So a few things to note:

1) Dexterity pretty much applies to attack and damage now with the rogue. The rogue now has an at will power that lets him add dex to attack and damage. And since pretty much all rogue powers are based on dex, looks like you won't need weapon finesse any more.

2) Sneak attack only applies to specific weapons!! No more backstabbing with a ballista  Further, sneak attack has a very flat scale. At first the +2d6 damage seems like a whole lot, but then again hp starts greater and scales slower than before.

3) We have a mechanic called healing surges. Is that the "second wind"?

4) Int has no bearing on SKILLS!!???? Either that's simply the "standard starting package" aka 3e or int really has nothing to do with skills. I hope its the former, what point does int serve if not for skills? (and for wizards of course)


----------



## Dragonblade

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The weapon proficiencies are positively eloquent. As are the skills. And the powers as well. This is damn suave. I just want to know what [W] is.




I assume W stands for weapon damage. So 2[W] probably means you do double damage or roll weapon damage twice. That's my guess anyway.


----------



## Vayden

Dollars to donuts says that [W] is weapon dmg - playtest reports confirm that weapon damage is still expressed in dice of different sizes, so 1[W] = standard weapon dmg dice, 2[W] = double dmg dice, etc.


----------



## Dragonblade

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 4) Int has no bearing on SKILLS!!???? Either that's simply the "standard starting package" aka 3e or int really has nothing to do with skills. I hope its the former, what point does int serve if not for skills? (and for wizards of course)




I don't think we know enough yet. I bet Int bonus probably gives you extra trained skills or something or lets you add skills to your class list that you can choose to be trained in.


----------



## MaelStorm

I knew it! A martial class.

But it's even more crunchy than I imagined.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I also get the feeling though we are missing a lot from this article that will be in the official PHB. So perhaps things like Skill Points earned from Intelligence is still in just wasn't put in.


----------



## StarFyre

*hmmm*

I don't like the fixed hp/level but other than that..sounds cool.

will maybe use our own house rule for HD/level ongoing with the 3.5E dice values as needed....

Sanjay


----------



## Vayden

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 4) Int has no bearing on SKILLS!!???? Either that's simply the "standard starting package" aka 3e or int really has nothing to do with skills. I hope its the former, what point does int serve if not for skills? (and for wizards of course)




I'll bet you anything that there are plenty of classes/powers where you attack with "Int vs. Reflex" or whatever. But yeah, Int doesn't seem to serve much purpose for the Rogue. Guess they got tired of CHA being everyone's dump stat and decided to mix it up a bit.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

The flat damage bonus to sneak attack is probably a good thing when you consider, there's +1/2 your level damage to attacks that your character gets.  

And it's likely there probably is a power or talent that either adds more dice to sneak attacks, or give an even greater bonus to attack for combat advantage.


----------



## Dragonblade

Vayden said:
			
		

> Awesome, awesome stuff. Quick summation of what look like the highlights:
> 1 - Int doesn't affect your amount of trained skills.
> 2 - Con only affects healing surges and 1st level hitpoints, not subsequent levels.
> 3 - Dmg is a LOT lower than it was in 3.x - only 5d6 sneak attack damage at Epic Tier? Sounds like that Pit Fiend is a lot more powerful than the haters assumed.
> 4 - Seems like AC is generally going to be lower than Reflex defense (see the extra abilities available in the one power, which is identical to the other except the one with more options targets Reflex instead of AC)
> 5 - Combat Advantage looks to be a significant new term - it clearly replaces flanking (and flat-footed?), and powers the Rogue's Sneak Attack. I wonder what affect it has for other classes?




I don't think we know enough about Int to say definitively about its effect on skills yet.

And Combat Advantage is explained, along with the new 4e saving throw mechanic in the D&D Minis rules. You can download the rulebook from WotC and check it out.


----------



## Vayden

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I don't think we know enough yet. I bet Int bonus probably gives you extra trained skills or something or lets you add skills to your class list that you can choose to be trained in.




I wouldn't count on it. Mmmm, delicious sacred beef.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Hmm... It also seems that Weapon Proficiency is different and not based of basic, martial, exotic. But specific weapons like with the rogue:

Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword

So we got 3-basic weapons and 2-exotic weapons there.


----------



## Vayden

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> The flat damage bonus to sneak attack is probably a good thing when you consider, there's +1/2 your level damage to attacks that your character gets.




Do we know that for sure, or have we all just been assuming that because of SWSE? Just saying, this is the biggest single piece of crunch we've seen yet, and I don't see anything in there about adding your level/half your level to anything. I think it's been confirmed that you add it to skill rolls, but I'm not sure you'll be adding it to attacks/damage. Remember, in SWSE you didn't have magic weapons and armor, but it was confirmed that +X wpns/armor are still going to be in 4E.


----------



## Rechan

Not a lot of weapon options, there.


----------



## Vayden

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Hmm... It also seems that Weapon Proficiency is different and not based of basic, martial, exotic. But specific weapons like with the rogue:
> 
> Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword
> 
> So we got 3-basic weapons and 2-exotic weapons there.




Yeah, that short weapon list makes me remember the rogue in the early playtest who was wielding the greataxe for the dmg, even though he wasn't proficient. (Though they did nerf the greataxe after that, IIRC)


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I noticed that rapier isn't a weapon that rogues automatically know how to use.  But I'm sure that a lot of players will simply pick an option that allows them to be proficient with a rapier.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

That is also interesting considering how they said the swashbuckler was partially divided up into the rogue, guess not the rapier part.


----------



## The Shadow

*Wow!*

Just wow.

Some of my immediate thoughts, in no particular order:

* Non-random hit-points!!  If you are as terrible at rolling dice as I am, this means a lot!

* Only one defense bonus - wasn't expecting that, but it *is* consistent with 3e.

* Number of healing surges apparently depends on one's class.  Didn't expect that either.

* I'm not terribly pleased with being told I *have* to take Thievery - though it will depend on just exactly what that skill does.  But it's easy enough to house-rule that you just pick six off the list.

* I was expecting Bluff and Intimidate to be folded together;  guess not.  I'm also surprised that "Insight" (Sense Motive?) isn't part of Perception.

* Confirmation that humans still get an extra feat at 1st level, looks like.  And it looks like it can be any feat - we know Toughness isn't human-exclusive.  It also appears that humans are the only race to get bonus feats.

* A feat called Backstabber... since they've already got Sneak Attack, I wonder just what this does?

* 1st level characters get 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily power.  I wonder how that ratio holds up with more levels?

* You can use some Charisma skills in place of attacks.  Interested to see how it's done these days - I love playing taunting, laughing rogues.

* Brutal Scoundrel:  Huh.  Don't you already get Str bonus to your Sneak Attack?  Guess not.  Artful Dodger looks tasty too.

* A little bit of love for daggers - and shuriken, of all things. 

* Sneak Attack:  Do crits let you max this out also?  Brutal, if so.

* Powers:  Most add Dex-mod to damage;  Brutal Scoundrels can add Str on top of that for some of them.  But then why does it say under "Brawny Rogue" that Str adds damage "directly"?  Is there any option to do a plain-vanilla attack, as opposed to an at-will power?  (I think surely there must - surely wizards don't *have* to use spells, they can swing a staff if they wish.)

* Crimson Edge is NASTY.  Easy to see why it's a per-day power.  Torturous Strike looks like it'll be a wasted power beyond 20th level - or perhaps not, I'm not sure how the per-encounter stuff works yet.  It does look like they're working hard to make low-level powers still viable later on.

* Powers apparently don't shift categories as you go up in level.  Once an encounter power, always an encounter power, or so it seems.

This has definitely whetted my appetite for more!


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Vayden said:
			
		

> Do we know that for sure, or have we all just been assuming that because of SWSE? Just saying, this is the biggest single piece of crunch we've seen yet, and I don't see anything in there about adding your level/half your level to anything. I think it's been confirmed that you add it to skill rolls, but I'm not sure you'll be adding it to attacks/damage. Remember, in SWSE you didn't have magic weapons and armor, but it was confirmed that +X wpns/armor are still going to be in 4E.



Races & Class mentions that all classes get the +1/2 level bonus to attacks, skill checks, defenses and AC.  I'm sure I remember a mention of damage also being on this list.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Seeing this just reinforces my opinion that 4e is not my D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae

w00t! Crunchtastic.

Fixed hit points are my favourite bit. At last D&D's going to step out of the 1970s.

I figure there must be a lot more rogue powers, they just printed a small selection.


----------



## Vayden

Yep, this definitely not 3.75 - this is a whole new D&D. June 6th can't come soon enough.


----------



## Campbell

Seeing this just reinforces that 4e is at long last my D&D.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> w00t! Crunchtastic.
> 
> Fixed hit points are my favourite bit. At last D&D's going to step out of the 1970s.
> 
> I figure there must be a lot more rogue powers, they just printed a small selection.




Yeah I think so too, especially since it goes from:

Tumble
Rogue Utility 2

TO

Crimson Edge
Rogue Attack 9

If one assumes that is the level you get them at we got at the very least 7 levels missing of powers, and probably more before level 2 as well.


----------



## HeinorNY

So crimson edge is something like an auto-hit? If I put some deadly poison on my light blade and use this power....


----------



## Almacov

ainatan said:
			
		

> So crimson edge is something like an auto-hit? If I put some deadly poison on my light blade and use this power....




You'd probably still have to hit with the poison as a followup attack vs fortitude, if DDM is any indication.  

Seems plausible that it may at least automatically initiate that though, yeah.
Unless of course the wording for poison is "If the melee/ranged attack *hits*, make a followup attack vs fortitude to see if the poison is effective." That would spoil your fun there.


----------



## CleverNickName

_"Oh noes! Rogues can has shrikens!  D&D has been ruined by anime!"_  Just kidding.  That's easy enough to houserule right off my table (you say "shuriken," I say "throwing knife.")  Not a deal-breaker.

I am very excited.  Very pleased indeed.

Some of my favorite bits:

- Fixed HP per level (at last!)
- Fixed the sneak attack damage scale
- Summed up many battlefield conditions into a single one called "Combat Advantage"
- Positioning Strike sounds like fun, especially near a cliff.  Or lava.


Some of my not-so-favorite bits:

- Shurikens
- Crimson Edge
- Sneak attack restricted to only light blades, crossbows, and slings.


Some unanswered questions that will haunt me until the PHB is released:

- What about nonlethal/subdual damage?  Can my rogue still knock the snot out of his opponents with a sap, knock them unconscious, and thereby capture them without killing them?  Because that's a good time.

- What is the difference between moving and shifting?

- (The big one) What circumstances grant Combat Advantage?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Vayden said:
			
		

> Do we know that for sure, or have we all just been assuming that because of SWSE? Just saying, this is the biggest single piece of crunch we've seen yet, and I don't see anything in there about adding your level/half your level to anything. I think it's been confirmed that you add it to skill rolls, but I'm not sure you'll be adding it to attacks/damage. Remember, in SWSE you didn't have magic weapons and armor, but it was confirmed that +X wpns/armor are still going to be in 4E.




It's worth noting that this writeup in fact says nothing at all about level progressions.

Except of course that Rogue Attack 1 & 9 and Rogue Utility 2 look like some sort of progression based requirement.  A delicious one, that no doubt tastes wonderful with multi-classing.

This just looks awesome.  I'm really pleased beyond all expectations.

And very pleased that I called the favored races (is that even a term) for the rogues when beginning to do the write ups for my inevitable homebrew TM.  Though I think I will read any mention of the word shuriken as 'generic small bladed throwing weapon.'  I really like that they're starting with a mixed culture perspective so there are no more monk kama/druid sickle splits, but I'm probably going to be using a less mixed cultural perspective so there you are.  On the other hand, it may be that I just hate shuriken from 3.X and that in this edition they will be awesome.

That's a great illustration, too, the new Halfling grew on me by 1.5 feet with that picture alone.


----------



## Kraydak

Flat hp=very, very good

Massive array of melee attacks that don't target AC:  :\
I'm guessing that NPCs don't get such, or Defenders are going to have massive issues.
Attacks that force (lots) of movement: again, PC only or Defenders are going to *cry*.

If the above holds, any remaining whisper of a hope of NPC/PC transparency fades (and by that I mean making NPCs with PC rules).  Forget NPC abilities that would break the game if PCs got them, the rogue abilities threaten to break the game if *NPCs* got them.

Melee PCs are never, ever, going to make a normal attack.  But we kind of already knew that.  As noted above, the int/skill thing is interesting.  It wouldn't completely shock me if int gave skills, but from the full, rather than class, skill list.


----------



## The Little Raven

Vayden said:
			
		

> 4 - Seems like AC is generally going to be lower than Reflex defense (see the extra abilities available in the one power, which is identical to the other except the one with more options targets Reflex instead of AC)




Only one power targets Reflex in the article, and that's it's only advantage, since it only bypasses armor to get a success strike.

All in all, this is lookin' pretty rockin'.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Flat hp=very, very good
> 
> Massive array of melee attacks that don't target AC:  :\
> I'm guessing that NPCs don't get such, or Defenders are going to have massive issues.
> Attacks that force (lots) of movement: again, PC only or Defenders are going to *cry*.
> 
> If the above holds, any remaining whisper of a hope of NPC/PC transparency fades (and by that I mean making NPCs with PC rules).  Forget NPC abilities that would break the game if PCs got them, the rogue abilities threaten to break the game if *NPCs* got them.
> 
> Melee PCs are never, ever, going to make a normal attack.  But we kind of already knew that.  As noted above, the int/skill thing is interesting.  It wouldn't completely shock me if int gave skills, but from the full, rather than class, skill list.




Perhaps Defenders can use Combat Advantage outside of their turn when a enemy uses a movement ability/attack to stop them in their tracks or at the least damage them.

Perhaps the attacks that don't target AC means there is more then likely going to be the whole Defender-swashbuckler sooner or later.


----------



## Intrope

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Wow! This is crunchtastic!!!
> 
> 
> 
> A little lower starting hp than I predicted, but my HP per level prediction was RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!
> 
> Who called flat hp per level and strikers getting 5 per level?? Huh? Me!! BAM!!



 Note that that's Con SCORE not Modifier; they're getting (effectively) 22 + 2xCon Mod hit points, which is pretty nice! A heck of a lot more than before!


----------



## Voss

OK.  Lots of crunch.  Very good.

The class itself, and some observations.

Armor Training.  Ouch.  No options.

Weapons.  Uh-huh.  Thats a short list.  I wondered how they would differentiate between the various weapons.  This suggests that many went away.  And... wow, color me displeased that a rogues melee options are daggers or shortswords.  Light mace, club, sap, slashing weapons?  I'll come back to this.

Class bonuses- interesting.  Just reflex.  So a first level rogue has a Bab of 0, Fort of 10 and Wil of 10. (maybe 1/11/11, I suppose)  Hmm.  Need to see more to know if this is good or bad.

Hit points.  12+Con score and then 5/level.  Wow, good catch(es). Con score makes a big difference at level one, but no per level reins the hit points in a lot.  Interesting.  Caps out at around 60-70 at level 10, 110-120 at level 20, 160-170 at level 30.
Healing Surges- interesting. Wow, is Con important.  Be nice to know for certain if this was per day.  I suspect so, since 6+ per encounter would just be stupid.  I wonder how much you get back...

Trained skills.  6 of 10, total.  No int bonus.  Initiative doesn't seem to be a skill, unless its covered under insight in some way (which I doubt since we see it on all the monster previews).  I really, really dislike the fact that 2 are chosen for you, and yes, before any one else says it, it could be houseruled, but I dislike the design decision that (and the limited choices of weapons) implies.  A rogue is a very limited definition now.   Also, why are stealth and thievery listed again?

Build Options- not sure how I feel about this, it again, feels really limited.  I think I see some of what will happen in PH II to X, however. (And martial [or whatever] power).  Class X will get additional builds Y and Z.


Class Features-

First Strike.   Ok.  Good way to do this, I suppose.  It implies that most people get no bonuses for winning initiative, however, which is potentially boring.

Rogue Tactics.   Hmm.  The builds again. I think the bonuses to powers are more significant than the base effects.  Artful dodger (heh) looks like it ate mobility, unless things are going to stack excessively.  The base bonus for brutality may come up more often, especially since there is that tumble power later.

Weapon talents- Ouch, even worse on the 'you will take the weapons we give you and like it' scale.  daggers and shuriken, close combat is apparently what you're required to do.  Crossbow if you need to snipe.

Sneak Attack- ouch.  Damage curve is much lower than I thought strikers would have.  (except at first and second level, where its significantly higher, with the powers and all, than 3e rogues can manage).  And even if you do learn how to use more weapons, they don't qualify for use with this class feature.  I'm not liking these developer imposed limitations.  Reminds me too much of the 1e short list of things you are permitted to backstab with.  On the upside, no stupid range limitation.  Too bad you can't use bows...  But, until we see more, I don't know that this damage is too low for 4e.  A brute can really stack up some damage.  weapon +str +dex +2d6 +str again on several of the at will and encounter powers, assuming he has combat advantage. That isn't bad.  Its also notable that even if you can get multiple attacks, sneak attack is once per round.


Powers- Deft Strike
Move and attack is nice, partly when combined with a normal move action, or the tumble power, which effectively allows you to slip throw the front line and attack people in the back of the group.  Essentially normal damage + dex.  Pretty good for an at will power... not much point in attacking normally.  the doubling normal damage [W] (explained in the paladin smite article) at 21 is... interesting.  more so that it doesn't double at 11 and triple at 21.   Essentially eats weapon finesse, by the way, as do most of these.

Piercing strike...  took me a moment but, ooo, nice.  A rogue never has to care about armor with at will attacks.  Thats good.

Positioning strike.  OK.  Nice, but... shifting targets isn't provoking AoOs from your friends. Don't like the Dodger ability with <cha mod> squares. You can't do less?  Eh.  And why is it will defense?  You can shift a giant easier than a wizard?  Flavor wise, that seems wrong. And you must be using a light blade, which.. isn't going to help.  You can't even do this bare-handed which really seems wrong.

Tumble-
this is good, mostly.  If you can get a movement of 8, its *really* good, because then you never have to enter the threatened area of someone with no reach.  If you have a movement of 4 or 5... not so good.  Dwarves and halflings may lose out on one of the more interesting abilities.

Crimson Edge is just nasty, unless they make their save, afterwards, and then it doesn't matter.  Its notable that by the wording, you still gain combat advantage even if you miss (missing just means half damage and no ongoing damage, which unless there is a caveat in the actual rules, doesn't include the combat advantage).


So, thoughts.  Largely good crunch.  I dislike the areas where the developers stepped in and made decrees (the short weapon and armor list, the light blade requirement for every melee attack, and pre-selecting two of your six skills for you.

Don't really like the lack of additional skills based on intelligence.  It makes me wonder what INT is for.  CON and DEX certainly have uses for everyone...  And there don't seem to be any int based skills for the rogue. Guess what there dump stat is? Don't much care for that flavor either.  While its fine to have rogues that aren't geniuses, I don't like they get absolutely *nothing* for being intelligent.

So apart from the devs intruding overmuch on character creation... I think I largely like the mechanics.  I am intrigued by the possibility (with class training) of doing a Vlad Taltos type character, and I don't even think I have to ignore anything to do it.  Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to do a club wielding street thug with no training in stealth or locks & traps, and that does bother me.  Especially with brutality being a class subrole...


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Flat hp=very, very good
> 
> Massive array of melee attacks that don't target AC:  :\
> I'm guessing that NPCs don't get such, or Defenders are going to have massive issues.
> Attacks that force (lots) of movement: again, PC only or Defenders are going to *cry*.




Alternately, Defenders might get powers that let them use their Armor Class instead of, or as a bonus to, other defenses.

Remember the bit about how Fighters can use Shields to deflect Area Attacks?


----------



## Intrope

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> - What is the difference between moving and shifting?



Shifting is the new 5' step, apparently.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Voss said:
			
		

> Hit points.  12+Con score and then 5+Con MOD/level.  Wow, good catch. Con score makes a big difference.




The preview says nothing about adding Con mod at every level. It just says "5 hp."


----------



## mach1.9pants

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> - What is the difference between moving and shifting?



I reckon shifting was 5 foot step. It can now be more than 5 feet/one square; but the main thing it doesn't provoke AoO. Thus if you shift some one they are not subject to a pasting from your fellows and if you shift yourself (hello, rogue to get into a flanking position) you can do it without fear of AoO (or whatever they call em).
Thus the Tumble power is the same as using tumble to avoid AoO's in 3E. However instead of a roll to see if you get it to work it is a once per encounter only power.


----------



## Voss

Vayden said:
			
		

> Dollars to donuts says that [W] is weapon dmg - playtest reports confirm that weapon damage is still expressed in dice of different sizes, so 1[W] = standard weapon dmg dice, 2[W] = double dmg dice, etc.




[W] was explained in the paladin smites article.  Its all your normal damage.  Damage die +str bonus +1/2 level bonus +weapon bonus.  So its quite a bit, and scales with level.


----------



## Voss

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The preview says nothing about adding Con mod at every level. It just says "5 hp."




Whooops, so it does.  Huh.  That reins in hit points a lot.  So a level 30 rogue is going to have about 170 odd hit points.  Thats... interesting.  I might like the lower absurdity.


----------



## Hussar

I'm going to chime in with the idea that the weapon limitations are a bit much as well.  I certainly hope there are options to expand that weapon list.  Would seem like a good place for feats to step in.  A feat that gives you a couple of weapon options and allows you to use your class abilities seems like a no-brainer to me.

Shuriken?  Really?  Did they really have to go there?  Sigh.  Would have preferred throwing knife.  Or dart.  A trifle more generic anyway.  

Surprisingly enough, I find myself agreeing mostly with Voss.


----------



## Voss

Hussar said:
			
		

> Surprisingly enough, I find myself agreeing mostly with Voss.




Heh.  Most of whats aggravated me about 4e is how the devs have been handling the PR and the bland as heck fluff.  I was hoping that the mechanics would still be good, which largely, this seems to be (except these restrictions, of course).


----------



## Dragonblade

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Seeing this just reinforces my opinion that 4e is not my D&D.




And reinforces my opinion that this will be the best D&D edition ever published.


----------



## CleverNickName

Intrope said:
			
		

> Shifting is the new 5' step, apparently.



So, shifting is a five-foot step, except when it isn't?   :\   Sounds like the developers are trying to use clever vocabulary to work around opportunity attacks.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Voss said:
			
		

> Heh.  Most of whats aggravated me about 4e is how the devs have been handling the PR and the bland as heck fluff.  I was hoping that the mechanics would still be good, which largely, this seems to be (except these restrictions, of course).




Though luckily those restrictions are really quite minor  and I still get the feeling something is left out there... I dunno what, but something.


----------



## Intrope

Voss said:
			
		

> Also, why are stealth and thievery listed again?
> 
> ...
> 
> Don't really like the lack of additional skills based on intelligence.  It makes me wonder what INT is for.  CON and DEX certainly have uses for everyone...  And there don't seem to be any int based skills for the rogue. Guess what there dump stat is? Don't much care for that flavor either.  While its fine to have rogues that aren't geniuses, I don't like they get absolutely *nothing* for being intelligent.




I suspect the oddly-repetitious skills are related to a mistake in SAGA; in that the 'free' feats a SAGA class starts with at 1st level weren't put on the bonus feat list for the class--which is a problem if you multiclass into a class (because you only get one of the starting free feats, not all of them). 

In other words, the repetition is probably related to multiclassing or class training. How, I'm not sure...

Beyond that, I suspect that--like SAGA--you'll gain new skills by spending a feat to train in it.


----------



## MaelStorm

Wow this is so clean cut, no place for misrepresenting the rules.


----------



## Voss

Intrope said:
			
		

> I suspect the oddly-repetitious skills are related to a mistake in SAGA; in that the 'free' feats a SAGA class starts with at 1st level weren't put on the bonus feat list for the class--which is a problem if you multiclass into a class (because you only get one of the starting free feats, not all of them).
> 
> In other words, the repetition is probably related to multiclassing or class training. How, I'm not sure...
> 
> Beyond that, I suspect that--like SAGA--you'll gain new skills by spending a feat to train in it.




Ah, with class training that could indeed make sense.  A possibility at least.  Very good.

@Clevernickname- shifting is essentially movement that doesn't provoke an attack.  It isn't limited to a 5' step (or one square, to use the new lingo   )  But PCs will default to one square for shift movement.  Powers, effects, and some monsters will allow for shifting different distances.


----------



## Zamkaizer

The Rapier, assuming it still exists within in 4E, seems as though it would be a more powerful 'light blade' than a shortsword, which a rogue could exchange one of his feats for, increasing his damage and critical threat.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Religion: Rogues prefer deities of the night, luck, freedom, and adventure, such as Sehanine and Avandra. Evil and chaotic evil rogues often favor Lolth or Zehir.



This at least confirms that Chaotic Evil is still an alignment.


----------



## shilsen

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Wow this is so clean cut, no place for misrepresenting the rules.



 You clearly have not spent enough time on the Rules Forum here


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Voss said:
			
		

> Don't really like the lack of additional skills based on intelligence.  It makes me wonder what INT is for.  CON and DEX certainly have uses for everyone...  And there don't seem to be any int based skills for the rogue. Guess what there dump stat is? Don't much care for that flavor either.  While its fine to have rogues that aren't geniuses, I don't like they get absolutely *nothing* for being intelligent.
> 
> So apart from the devs intruding overmuch on character creation... I think I largely like the mechanics.  I am intrigued by the possibility (with class training) of doing a Vlad Taltos type character, and I don't even think I have to ignore anything to do it.  Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to do a club wielding street thug with no training in stealth or locks & traps, and that does bother me.  Especially with brutality being a class subrole...




Well, there are a couple of things we aren't seeing:

1.) We don't know what the additional training feats look like.  I'm guessing that we might see something like Feat - Additional Training - if taken at first level gain 1+INT modifier additional skills.  Minimum of 1 additional skill.

2.) We also aren't seeing how many different sources there are for weapon proficiencies.  So far we know that you can get them from your Class - this write up - and your Race - Elf write up.  But we haven't seen what the training feats for weapons and armor look like and don't know if there is a really basic weapons category for stuff like clubs and spears.  Or even what the rules for not being proficient are.  Proficiency could be more about leveraging bonuses then avoiding penalties.

3.) To be fair in 3E a thug-thief without search would still have training in traps*.  And it might be that thief simply isn't the best choice for Rocky and other Thug enforcer types.




* - Holy Bahamut on a Stick!  There's no special thief anti-trap feature!  Just the everlovin Thievery skill.  I assume no one else** gets that as a class skill, yet, but still Wowser!

** - Unless the Warlock, or certain Warlock builds***, does, that'd be sweet. 

*** - Which by the Way the Rogue Tactics option probably does a lot to explain how Warlock Vows function.


----------



## The Shadow

Voss said:
			
		

> @Clevernickname- shifting is essentially movement that doesn't provoke an attack.  It isn't limited to a 5' step (or one square, to use the new lingo   )  But PCs will default to one square for shift movement.  Powers, effects, and some monsters will allow for shifting different distances.




Whereas presumably "sliding" (as in Positioning Strike and the pit fiend's exploding-minion ability) *does* provoke attacks.

So I see rogues doing damage while simultaneously sliding a foe right into their friendly neighborhood Defender.  He shoots, he scores!


----------



## mach1.9pants

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Wow this is so clean cut, no place for misrepresenting the rules.



To an extent, we still are guessing what some of the meanings are, even if we are pretty sure (e.g. shift)

But you could almost stat yourself out a 1st level elf rogue, if you fancy. Use a 25 (or, I reckon in going with the heroic 4E, 28 point buy) and '&' and off you go! Any takers...?


----------



## Mouseferatu

shilsen said:
			
		

> You clearly have not spent enough  *any* time on the Rules Forum here




FIFY. 

(And hey, you should feel honored. That's my very first use of "FIFY" ever. And possibly my last. )


----------



## Mistwell

ainatan said:
			
		

> So crimson edge is something like an auto-hit? If I put some deadly poison on my light blade and use this power....




I am not sure if half-damage on a miss will carry with it associated damage or effects from other things like poison.  Now that hit point damage represents more than just physical damage, a miss causing half damage is probably more a representation of a loss of non-physical hit points like fatigue or luck.


----------



## Khuxan

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> So, shifting is a five-foot step, except when it isn't?   :\   Sounds like the developers are trying to use clever vocabulary to work around opportunity attacks.




In 3.5, you could 5-foot step to avoid opportunity attacks. But what if I wanted to make a monster that could 10-foot step? I'd have to say, "This monster can move 10 feet with a 5-foot step". Now I don't have to say that, I just have to say "This monster can shift 2 squares". Much simpler, much easier. 

I think I agree I would've preferred throwing knives to shurikens. 
Not getting Int to skills scares me, but there's almost certainly something we're missing. 
I wanted the end of class skills, which I'm afraid isn't happening.
It surprises me that there's a level 2 power, since I'd assumed they'd only be available at odd levels.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well it is a "Utility" Power so perhaps "Combat" Powers are odd and Utility even?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Khuxan said:
			
		

> It surprises me that there's a level 2 power, since I'd assumed they'd only be available at odd levels.




I'm guessing that the numbers refer to the tiers of powers not the character level, though the tier are probably tied to character level.

Of course, it could just be that you get utility powers are even levels and attack powers at odd levels.

----ooooo, beaten to the punch.


----------



## shilsen

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> FIFY.
> 
> (And hey, you should feel honored. That's my very first use of "FIFY" ever. And possibly my last. )



 I _am_ honored. The attention of the vampire mouse is beyond all reward


----------



## Kobold Avenger

With the type of campaign I'd want to run, I'd probably house rule pistols to be weapons that you can sneak attack with.  Rifles I might restrict from that.


----------



## half-dragon dragon

I have to say that I do like a lot of what I'm seeing, but like others, I'm seeing more restrictions in places I wasn't expecting/wanting. I mostly would have liked to see the rogue specialize in "light weapons" rather than having a majority of the powers (shown to us at least) and sneak attack and such limited in weapons able to be used with them. 

Now the only thing about this is that I'm disappointed where pretty much everything else I;ve seen about 4E has made me rather excited. Then again I realize that a lot of this might very well be taken out of context, and there may be options to "fix" these restrictions. Don't get me wrong though, I do like a lot of what I'm seeing, this is just the first preview that has me feeling ambivalent about what it did show.

Although, one thing I can see in this article is what things you might be able to pick up with the [Class] Training feats in the class features section of the class.


----------



## Voss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Well, there are a couple of things we aren't seeing:




True... but I have no way of anticipating the stuff I haven't seen in any way whatsoever.  I realize there may be things that modify it (I considered the existence of a feat that allows you to use real weapons with your class features), but I'd rather comment on what I know is there rather than drive myself crazy with maybes.  YMMV


----------



## Henry

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> ...Just kidding.  That's easy enough to houserule right off my table (you say "shuriken," I say "throwing knife.")  Not a deal-breaker.




Keep in mind that these are shuriken too:







"Throwing Knives" pretty much are slightly larger "shuriken", anyway.


----------



## MaelStorm

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> This at least confirms that Chaotic Evil is still an alignment.




EDIT: This is the only downside IMO. Well, that's life!


To Shilsen: Yes, I'm a newbie here!


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> With the type of campaign I'd want to run, I'd probably house rule pistols to be weapons that you can sneak attack with.  Rifles I might restrict from that.




Same here, I am looking forward to my rogue with a pair of thigh-holsters sneaking behind a person and popping one in the head with his revolver


----------



## Voss

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> This is the only moot point




How is it irrelevant?  Or rather, why does it no longer matter?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Voss said:
			
		

> True... but I have no way of anticipating the stuff I haven't seen in any way whatsoever.  I realize there may be things that modify it (I considered the existence of a feat that allows you to use real weapons with your class features), but I'd rather comment on what I know is there rather than drive myself crazy with maybes.  YMMV




No doubt, but I think it goes the other way too where you can't drive yourself crazy with information you know is incomplete.

And there are educated guesses to make - like that the extremely specific proficiencies probably make the rest of the classes consistent with the Fighter's emphasis on weapon specialization.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

Voss said:
			
		

> [W] was explained in the paladin smites article.  Its all your normal damage.  Damage die +str bonus +1/2 level bonus +weapon bonus.  So its quite a bit, and scales with level.



You're assuming a fair bit here.  The paladin smites article described "2[W] + Cha" as "double her base weapon's damage plus her Charisma modifier in damage".  We still have no clear idea what "the base weapon's damage" means.  It could be just the weapon's damage die.


----------



## MaelStorm

Voss said:
			
		

> How is it irrelevant?  Or rather, why does it no longer matter?




Uh, no extremely relevant. I mean it's one of the downside.

I didn't mean it as literal sense. Sorry if it was offensive.

English is not my native tongue so, I used it in an inappropriate context I guess.


----------



## cthulhu_duck

Maybe it's just me, but... does the information give you any feel for how the rogue handles in social combat (politics, diplomacy etc) instead of martial combat (I hit the orc for 5 damage, I want their pie!) ?


----------



## HeinorNY

My best guess is that 2[W] means rolling 2d6 instead of 1d6 when hitting with a short sword, for example.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but... does the information give you any feel for how the rogue handles in social combat (politics, diplomacy etc) instead of martial combat (I hit the orc for 5 damage, I want their pie!) ?




Well they said they won't showcase how the social combat works till the books are out so they very well could have left it out.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Have I missed attack bonus? So the rogue has the same attack bonus as, say, a Wizard. 1/2 levels or whatever it is?
At least he basically seems to do all his attack rolls (and damage) using dex, str not necessary


----------



## Voss

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Uh, no extremely relevant. I mean it's one of the downside.
> 
> I didn't mean it as literal sense. Sorry if it was offensive.
> 
> English is not my native tongue so, I used it in an inappropriate context I guess.




Ah, no problem.   I tend to view it as a downside too, I was just curious since moot tends to mean something that doesn't matter anymore.   Sorry.

cthulu_duck.  Nope.  We know a rogue can be decent at bluff and intimidate, but thats all.

@Altalt Jones- Nope.  The article in question states near the end-


> while the numbers in their base form seem similar when not taking into account the accuracy and damage boosts that merely gaining levels (and having better weapons) affords. It just gets … well, better



.  So some bonus is coming just from level gain, and is included in the multiplier.


----------



## Doug McCrae

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> does the information give you any feel for how the rogue handles in social combat (politics, diplomacy etc)



The rogue has the skills Bluff and Intimidate. I'm sure those will be important in social combat. Maybe Insight too.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

I like it!

I actually approve of giving classes certain core skills automatically - I've never liked clerics who don't have Knowledge (religion) for example, or making bards pay for Perform to use their buffs. I'm not sure about all rogues getting Thievery, but Stealth should be there.

I see that Tumble is "Rogue Utility 2", but all the attack powers are at 1st level or 9th. All the Paladin smites were at odd levels as well. Do characters get attack powers at odd levels and defensive/utility ones at evens? In addition to feats?

Sneak attack is explicitly once per round. To stop too-powerful synergies with other powers that give more than one attack?

Dungeoneering(Wis) - not just a renamed Know(dungeoneering) then.

I wonder if we'll see new builds in the Martial Powers splatbook?


----------



## jasonbostwick

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Same here, I am looking forward to my rogue with a pair of thigh-holsters sneaking behind a person and popping one in the head with his revolver




I'd been thinking myself that firearms would be the first thing I'd have to house-rule into my 4e campaign... but the Rogue's proficiency with handcrossbows makes me think I might be better off simply declaring that crossbows are pistols, and bows are rifles, and not bothering with the mechanics of it all.


----------



## TPK

On the damage: If I recall the Spined Devil correctly, the numbers made sense if half it's level was added to just about everything _except_ damage. Everything you added a d20 to, it just occurs to me.

So [W]+Dex probably means just the weapon die + stat bonus IMO.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

*Some thoughts...*

1. I get the feeling that when you're a game designer, and you're essentially locked in a room with a bunch of other game designers for two years and told to create D&D all over again, you start to lose your grip on your ability to not sound like a complete cheese-ball.  I figure that when your only frame of reference for how to write your fluff text is the other fluff text you have scattered in piles around you, and a brain full of the fluff of the past 20 years, you might not be the best judge of how your prose might come across.  I know that if I were a curious potential new player, and I read the following: 


			
				What the rogue is supposed to be like said:
			
		

> With a blade up your sleeve and a concealing cloak across your shoulders, you stride forth, eyes alight with anticipation. What worldly wonders and rewards are yours for the taking?



...my first thought would be, "holy crap what kind of flaccid garbage is this?  It's like unexpectedly sparkly teenage poetry for the Lord of the Rings crowd.  Do they seriously expect me to recite bull like this while I'm playing it?"  Once again, the fluff hits the runway without lowering the landing gear.

2. On religion: there is nothing on religion.  The religion section consists of "pick a god.  Here's some."  Where is the discussion of why I might want to follow a god as a rogue?  What sorts of attitudes do rogues have toward religion?  Are they often devout in a "throw the dice and see what the gods give me" sort of way, or are they generally a bunch of godless heathens who put more trust in their own daggers and lockpicks?  I think this got pretty short shrift, and could use some fleshing out, if only just for the sort of roleplaying hooks that they threw in for the "why you're a rogue" section above it.

3. On rogue powers: hey, check it out.  The names don't suck.  Although the pun in "Artful Dodger" kind of grates on me.  But that's puns for you.  I also like the way that you pick whether you're going to be a thug or finesse rogue, and then get synergies with the powers you pick.  The last power listed is exactly the sort of thing I expected to see: it sets up enemies for sneak attacks.  I bet there's a lot of those.

4. Weapon talent: neato.  Saves you having to take feats to be good at signature weapons.

5. Dex to hit: also neato.


----------



## Voss

TPK said:
			
		

> On the damage: If I recall the Spined Devil correctly, the numbers made sense if half it's level was added to just about everything _except_ damage. Everything you added a d20 to, it just occurs to me.
> 
> So [W]+Dex probably means just the weapon die + stat bonus IMO.




Actually, I do believe that particular bonus is just one of those things that monsters just don't get but PCs do.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I image the fluff given is only a VERY small part of the actual PHB section for Rogues. Since this mainly to give a taste for people going to D&D Experience just as much as it is for the rest of us, and thus crunch is more important then fluff for this.


----------



## Incenjucar

:\ 

I'm a little uncomfortable with the lack of club/sap/improvised weapon proficiency, and the forced Thievery skill, and I think I'll be throwing down some house rules unless the 4E club is some massive death dealer and Thievery has some serious use for an honorable fencer.

I also wish "shuriken" was "throwing blade" to represent "throwing knives, shuriken, and darts."

I also really wish they had shown at least one example of rogues doing special stuff with skills.


----------



## Rechan

What's the pun of Artful Dodger?

I had no clue so many people hated the word 'shuriken'.


----------



## MaelStorm

Voss said:
			
		

> Ah, no problem.   I tend to view it as a downside too, I was just curious since moot tends to mean something that doesn't matter anymore.   Sorry.




I should be more careful in the future. 

It's because there is a word that is very close in French [mou, pronounced in Englished moo] that means: feeble, not strong, etc. 

I didn't know it was meaning irrelevant only, because I always related that word to: low, not strong or feeble and it always made perfect sense.

Anyway, it's a good lesson I learned tonight.


----------



## Greenfaun

Rechan said:
			
		

> What's the pun of Artful Dodger?




I think it's a literary allusion, not a pun. But that's just me being pedantic. 

IIRC, Artful Dodger was the name of the urchin who tutored Oliver in being a pickpocket in Oliver Twist.

EDIT: Geez, I completely forgot to mention how much I love this article! Crunchy goodness! I am now even more confident that I will like 4e.


----------



## mach1.9pants

My 2p:


			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 2. On religion: there is nothing on religion.  The religion section consists of "pick a god.  Here's some."  Where is the discussion of why I might want to follow a god as a rogue?  What sorts of attitudes do rogues have toward religion?  Are they often devout in a "throw the dice and see what the gods give me" sort of way, or are they generally a bunch of godless heathens who put more trust in their own daggers and lockpicks?  I think this got pretty short shrift, and could use some fleshing out, if only just for the sort of roleplaying hooks that they threw in for the "why you're a rogue" section above it.



I like this, I reckon that the descriptions in 3E PHB about religion suck. Yes, We are all individuals! (..I'm not..sorry a bit of Python). Religion is a very personal thing, yes these are gods that a lot of rogues like thats enough. I don't want the PHB saying rogues are irreligious, fervent or otherwise some are some aren't and please don't shoe horn me! It is bad enough that every rogue has theivery and stealth, what if my rogue is a complete acrobat and wants other skills. He doesn't steal things he leaps over baddies and sneak attacks 'em?


			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 3. On rogue powers: hey, check it out.  The names don't suck.  Although the pun in "Artful Dodger" kind of grates on me.  But that's puns for you.  I also like the way that you pick whether you're going to be a thug or finesse rogue, and then get synergies with the powers you pick.  The last power listed is exactly the sort of thing I expected to see: it sets up enemies for sneak attacks.  I bet there's a lot of those.



I think the 2 builds reduce your options a lot. Ok you can choose what you want but if you choose 'positioning strike' as a thug..sorry Brutal Scoundrel you are really nerfing your power. I think you are going to be stuck with the recommended build to a certain extent uless you are happy nerfing your power for your character ideal- this is not what 4E said it will be about!


			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 4. Weapon talent: neato.  Saves you having to take feats to be good at signature weapons.
> 5. Dex to hit: also neato.



Oh yes tho, these I like.

EDIT and this I agree with:


			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> I'm a little uncomfortable with the lack of club/sap/improvised weapon proficiency, and the forced Thievery skill, and I think I'll be throwing down some house rules unless the 4E club is some massive death dealer and Thievery has some serious use for an honorable fencer.
> 
> I also wish "shuriken" was "throwing blade" to represent "throwing knives, shuriken, and darts."
> 
> I also really wish they had shown at least one example of rogues doing special stuff with skills.


----------



## Darth Cyric

Three things that are giving me pause:

- I hope they're clarifying the description of Positioning Strike because I can think of quite a few situations where this could be really broken the way it's currently written (especially with Artful Dodger).

- Weapon Proficiency list looks thin. I liked the sap, too. And no rapier? I guess that means the Ranger is the rapier-wielding swashbuckler? Or maybe it is *gasp* the Fighter, after all?

- This one's more curiosity than anything else, but it is kinda weird that intelligence has no effect on trained skills.

Other than that, I like it a lot. Static HPs are great, and it looks like HPs in general are being scaled back. The powers in general are written up very cleanly and well, and other than the one in question above, are all very cool.


----------



## Imp

I hope the full version of the class isn't so damn narrow. Disappointed. Especially if 4e multiclassing is as restrictive as it sounds like it might be.


----------



## Voss

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I should be more careful in the future.
> 
> It's because there is a word that is very close in French [mou, pronounced in Englished moo] that means: feeble, not strong, etc.
> 
> I didn't know it was meaning irrelevant only, because I always related that word to: low, not strong or feeble and it always made perfect sense.
> 
> Anyway, it's a good lesson I learned tonight.




Hope I didn't come across as too much of a jerk about it.


----------



## Khuxan

For those who are interested, I statted up a first-level elven rogue as best as I could. 28-point buy.

[sblock]*Elf Rogue Level 1*
Medium mortal humanoid (elf)
*Initiative* +4 *Senses* Perception +3, low-light vision
*HP* 26; *Bloodied* 12; *Healing Surges* 8
*AC* 16; *Fortitude* 12, *Reflex* 16, *Will* 11
*Saving Throws* +0
*Speed* 7
*Action Points* ?

*Melee Dagger (standard; at-will) • Weapon*
+3 vs. AC; 1d?+1
*At Will Powers: * Deft Strike, Piercing Strike
*Encounter Powers: * Elven Accuracy, Positioning Strike
*Daily Power: * [One]
*Constant Powers: * Group Awareness, Artful Dodger, Wild Step, First Strike, Sneak Attack, Rogue Weapon Talent

*Alignment* Unaligned
*Languages *Common, Elven
*Feat* Elven Precision
*Skills* Nature +2, Perception +8, Stealth +9, Thievery +9, Insight +6, Acrobatics +9, Dungeoneering +6
*Str* 12 *Dex* 18 *Con* 14
*Int* 10 *Wis* 12 *Cha* 12
*Equipment* hippogriff , dagger
*Training and Proficiencies* Leather; longbow, shortbow, dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword[/sblock]

EDIT: I know the rogue gets one daily power, but since we don't know the details of any daily powers I didn't choose one. I wanted to limit this stat block to what we know.

EDIT 2: I forgot the bonus to attack for wielding a dagger.

EDIT 3: Good catch on the hp, MasterGarrow05


----------



## Primal

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> I'm a little uncomfortable with the lack of club/sap/improvised weapon proficiency, and the forced Thievery skill, and I think I'll be throwing down some house rules unless the 4E club is some massive death dealer and Thievery has some serious use for an honorable fencer.
> 
> I also wish "shuriken" was "throwing blade" to represent "throwing knives, shuriken, and darts."
> 
> I also really wish they had shown at least one example of rogues doing special stuff with skills.




Naah, you gotta have Ninjas in D&D, so that's why you have to include shuriken in the weapon profs. Rapier? What's that?  :\ 

Alright, seriously, I was disappointed -- it seems that while combat may have fewer *rolls*, it's become a *LOT* more complex and tactical in nature. And I pity the groups who try to play a 4E combat without minis (we have had no trouble doing so in 3E).

I *loved* to roll for hit points -- takes a lot of excitement out of the game if you have static HPs and Con modifier (as Ari hinted) no longer applies to HPs. If you know an NPCs level, you can pretty much estimate his HPs quite accurately. And two characters with the same Con and level have *exactly* the same amount of HPs, unless one of them has Toughness or similar Feats/Talents.


----------



## Incenjucar

Imp said:
			
		

> I hope the full version of the class isn't so damn narrow. Disappointed. Especially if 4e multiclassing is as restrictive as it sounds like it might be.




Yeah, I'm thinking that this is just a really really partial look at the class.  It's just also a very awkwardly chosen one that really should come with a few notes to prevent alarmism.

For the sake of rogue players, I -really- hope there aren't a lot of enemies who have any kind of damage resistant to non-blunt weapons.

--

Primal:  I'm fine with the static and tactical stuff, at least while there's no context to put it in.  I'm just mildly annoyed at seeing a possible reason to houserule already, considering I'm one of the least experienced or particular DMs around here (I got to DM a total of one adventure this century.  ).

Hopefully, I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I'll be removing those forced skill choices right out of the box, regardless.  I have no interest in cramming the Thief down anyone's throats.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Khuxan said:
			
		

> For those who are interested, I statted up a first-level elven rogue as best as I could. 28-point buy.
> <snip>



Hey nice thanks, I would play one of those!


----------



## The Ubbergeek

Imp said:
			
		

> I hope the full version of the class isn't so damn narrow. Disappointed. Especially if 4e multiclassing is as restrictive as it sounds like it might be.




BTW, classes are now in modern D&D as much set of skills and powers than a job path in itself. One should maybe stops thinking of such thing as 'restrictive'  perhaps... it's a part of the whole.

and we only saw a bit of the whole class.


----------



## The Ubbergeek

Primal said:
			
		

> Naah, you gotta have Ninjas in D&D, so that's why you have to include shuriken in the weapon profs. Rapier? What's that?  :\
> 
> Alright, seriously, I was disappointed -- it seems that while combat may have fewer *rolls*, it's become a *LOT* more complex and tactical in nature. And I pity the groups who try to play a 4E combat without minis (we have had no trouble doing so in 3E).
> 
> I *loved* to roll for hit points -- takes a lot of excitement out of the game if you have static HPs and Con modifier (as Ari hinted) no longer applies to HPs. If you know an NPCs level, you can pretty much estimate his HPs quite accurately. And two characters with the same Con and level have *exactly* the same amount of HPs, unless one of them has Toughness or similar Feats/Talents.




Sounds a bit like, asia bad, occident good again. >>

Not really, if we don't see the rules.

But it can really screw things at random. And no, it don't removes excitement.


----------



## Imban

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> BTW, classes are now in modern D&D as much set of skills and powers than a job path in itself. One should maybe stops thinking of such thing as 'restrictive'  perhaps... it's a part of the whole.
> 
> and we only saw a bit of the whole class.




They *were* a set of skills and powers in 3e. They appear to be much, much more restrictive now.


----------



## CleverNickName

The Shadow said:
			
		

> Whereas presumably "sliding" (as in Positioning Strike and the pit fiend's exploding-minion ability) *does* provoke attacks.
> 
> So I see rogues doing damage while simultaneously sliding a foe right into their friendly neighborhood Defender.  He shoots, he scores!



Still, it's all just clever vocabulary.  I would have been happier with calling all movement "movement," and making different rules to suit it...rather than creating different ways of moving, and applying a single rule.

It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other, I suppose.  I just got confused there for a minute.  But I'm feeling much better now.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that these are shuriken too:
> [picture]
> "Throwing Knives" pretty much are slightly larger "shuriken", anyway.



Depends on the knife.      You are right, of course.  But really, what I was trying to say was it doesn't matter what you call them.  If the word "shuriken" offends you, you could always call them something else..."heavy darts," "pointy bits of shrapnel" or "Iron Fingers of Xlagbnazz," it uses the same stack of weapon data.


----------



## MaelStorm

Voss said:
			
		

> Hope I didn't come across as too much of a jerk about it.




LOL! No, not at all. I would have repeated the same mistake over and over. So no, by any mean thank you.


----------



## Incenjucar

The thing with "Shuriken" is that most people are going to link that directly to a specific culture.

When working with a "generic" system, you generally want to use "generic" names.

You don't call a short sword "wakizashi" as a default.


----------



## The Ubbergeek

Imban said:
			
		

> They *were* a set of skills and powers in 3e. They appear to be much, much more restrictive now.




1. A preview of some stuff.

2. I don't thinks so, unless you saw the finished product.


----------



## HeinorNY

Regarding Weapon Proficiencies: Maybe characters gain a bonus to BAB with weapons they are proficient with, instead of a penalty with non-proficient weapons.


----------



## Voss

So, for the people who think that we are only being shown part of the class, what makes you think so?  

I know we only got a sampling of the powers, but I do believe that is the entire entry from the class chapter.  At least, I don't see any reason to think it isn't  Advancement is a unified chart, you have the class features, and all the basic stuff, so... there it all is, bar the powers and unified advancement chart.


----------



## The Ubbergeek

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> The thing with "Shuriken" is that most people are going to link that directly to a specific culture.
> 
> When working with a "generic" system, you generally want to use "generic" names.
> 
> You don't call a short sword "wakizashi" as a default.




Sorry, but that is hypocrite. European and near names are good, but not foreign?

Flamberge, main gauche, falchion, etc... it's good? But not shuriken or kwan do?

Sounds like chauvinism a bit.


----------



## The Ubbergeek

Voss said:
			
		

> So, for the people who think that we are only being shown part of the class, what makes you think so?
> 
> I know we only got a sampling of the powers, but I do believe that is the entire entry from the class chapter.




It's a preview, clearly incomplete on some things. Your 'only thieving' bit is a show of it.


----------



## Incenjucar

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that is hypocrite. European and near names are good, but not foreign?
> 
> Flamberge, main gauche, falchion, etc... it's good? But not shuriken or kwan do?
> 
> Sounds like chauvinism a bit.




Don't put words in my mouth.

I did NOT say "oh hey let's use *French* words for specific versions of generic weapons."

I said "oh hey let's use generic words in ENGLISH for the ENGLISH edition of the game."

Hence why I said "short sword" and not "Le petit stabby" or whatever.


----------



## CleverNickName

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that is hypocrite. European and near names are good, but not foreign?
> 
> Flamberge, main gauche, falchion, etc... it's good? But not shuriken or kwan do?
> 
> Sounds like chauvinism a bit.



Aw man, this again?  Come on, guys...I'm sorry I even brought it up.  We are all friends here...let's compromise, agree to call it a knif-ken, and get back to discussing that brand-spanking new rogue.


----------



## Incenjucar

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Aw man, this again?  Come on, guys...I'm sorry I even brought it up.  We are all friends here...let's compromise, agree to call it a knifken, and get back to discussing the brand-spanking new rogue.




Why not daggerborn?


----------



## Voss

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> It's a preview, clearly incomplete on some things. Your 'only thieving' bit is a show of it.




Sorry, but I am entirely at a loss for any aspect (beyond the full power list) thats 'clearly incomplete'.  There are a couple things that aren't class specific that I don't know exactly how they work (like healing surge), but everything else seems to be there.

The limitiations (such as the automatic thievery & stealth skills) seem to be intentional design decisions, not a product of something left out- the class prints out on an almost solid two pages (just the class info, not the intro or powers), which seems about right.  It even includes suggested builds,and I expect most class features are powers now, so you don't need anything beyond that basic handful.


----------



## mach1.9pants

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that is hypocrite. European and near names are good, but not foreign?
> 
> Flamberge, main gauche, falchion, etc... it's good? But not shuriken or kwan do?
> 
> Sounds like chauvinism a bit.



Not really DnD is, and always has been, based on quasi medieval Europe. Other cultures are there but they are in campaign extras or different campaign worlds


----------



## Doug McCrae

How about wardagger?


----------



## Eridanis

Let's nip this in the bud. Please keep the discussion respectful when speaking to one another.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That's a race. You mean wardagger.



...of red ruin


----------



## The Ubbergeek

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Not really DnD is, and always has been, based on quasi medieval Europe. Other cultures are there but they are in campaign extras or different campaign worlds




And that's one of the big problems.  Cultural exotism - the 'quaint exotic' cultural bits like katana or monks, they HAVE to be asian and not 'sully' D&D. 

But that's anotehr debate. And still hypocrite a bit, as non-english but european languages names are 'good enough'.



btw, It,s not even the full of Europe but the celtic/germanic fringes that D&D emulate the closest. That italian Shadowrun fan remarked it quite about the elves in italian lands thing.


----------



## Rechan

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> The thing with "Shuriken" is that most people are going to link that directly to a specific culture.



You mean like Barbarians?

And Druids?


----------



## MasterGarrow05

In your elven rogue example, shouldn't that be 26 hp not 24? 12 +14 con. . . 

Anywho, I got the impression on first read that the "healing surges" wasn't so much the number you get per day, but the number of hit points you get back per healing surge.

A few reasons why:

we've only heard of per encounter and daily abilities, no mention of "2 per encounter" or "6 per day."  My guess is they've done their best to not put those kind of numbers in there.  My guess continuing that you usually get only 1 second wind or healing surge per encounter (barring any cleric or warlord help, who might grant you an immediate healing surge as an action, in which case you would heal the number of hp listed under "healing surges.")

we have also heard stuff about hearty dwarves and all, and it would make sense that they would get more hp from a healing surge than others because of their high constitution.

also makes sense that fighters and paladins and such recover more hp every time they use healing surge to make up for the fact that they have a higher max hp than the rogue.

your thoughts?


----------



## Incenjucar

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That's a race. You mean wardagger.




But it is a dagger born from my hand.

So maybe Handborn Blade.

--

Anyways, back to the rogue.  Like anything else with 4E, we won't be able to judge much until everything is right in front of us.  They made a very large deal about rogues being able to do special things with skills, which we haven't seen.  We also don't know what percentage of the options they've shown us.  As someone suggested, there may be a generic "simple weapons" style weapon group that anyone could use off the bat without penalty, though with the Dagger being mentioned, I'm doubting that.  But, as someone else suggested, non-proficiency may note a significant issue, and rapiers may in fact be just so damned good that they're worth burning a feat on.

I'm still really not sure on why they shoe-horned stealth and thievery in.  3E was great for rogues in that it freed them from HAVING to be thieves to be useful, and so much that we've heard of 4E eliminates the absolute need of having a thief in the party.  It just seems a very odd decision at this point.

--

Rechen:  I've nothing to do with those decisions, so don't ask me about them.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I assume everyone will be a ninja, like the X-Men.


----------



## Kurotowa

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> For the sake of rogue players, I -really- hope there aren't a lot of enemies who have any kind of damage resistant to non-blunt weapons.




Given what we know, I think it would be dangerous to assume that DR of any type is extant in 4e, much less damage typed DR.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Primal said:
			
		

> I *loved* to roll for hit points -- takes a lot of excitement out of the game if you have static HPs and Con modifier (as Ari hinted) no longer applies to HPs. If you know an NPCs level, you can pretty much estimate his HPs quite accurately. And two characters with the same Con and level have *exactly* the same amount of HPs, unless one of them has Toughness or similar Feats/Talents.



I *loved* to roll for HP as well, until I got 3 1's in a row level 2, 3 and 4! No thanks I'll stick with, *for PCs*, static HP. 
Now for NPCs, as a DM, it seems to me that the rogue is based on d6. I.e. 2x max die at first level, then max minus one thereafter. Obviously this may not be true but for NPCs I would give them the HPs in the range of d6 per level. I never rolled for HP for my NPCs anyway, always gave tough ones high HP weak ones ow, but within the range of the hit dice.


----------



## WyzardWhately

Huh.  That bit where some of the skills are auto-picked?  I called that weeks ago.  I will now dance the dance of triumph.


----------



## Incenjucar

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Given what we know, I think it would be dangerous to assume that DR of any type is extant in 4e, much less damage typed DR.




I'm aware that they've said they're moving away from that kind of thing.  But with the forced skills, I'm a little more wary than usual at the moment.   

--

Wyzard:  So this is _your_ doing!  *shakes fist*


----------



## Voss

MasterGarrow05 said:
			
		

> Anywho, I got the impression on first read that the "healing surges" wasn't so much the number you get per day, but the number of hit points you get back per healing surge.
> 
> your thoughts?




This is possible, however... past about 3rd level, you're getting an absurdly small (and decreasing) percentage of your hit points back if it is just 6+con mod.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Voss said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I am entirely at a loss for any aspect (beyond the full power list) thats 'clearly incomplete'.




The only thing apart from the power list that I would say is missing is power and feat progression as it levels, but I suspect that's unified for all the classes.

I don't know why this looks incomplete either.


----------



## Gundark

way cool. I so wanna play a rogue now.


Can't wait


----------



## MaelStorm

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Not really DnD is, and always has been, based on quasi medieval Europe. Other cultures are there but they are in campaign extras or different campaign worlds




Have you read Worlds & Monster?

THE BURDEN OF HISTORY 
In it, it said that since 'Chainmail' D&D have been influenced by European history and culture. ... The various editions of D&D continued this trend. ... The 3rd editiontion took a step away from reliance on the real world by designing new and unique appearances for armor and weapons. ... The setting remained historic medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted. The two concept don't blend well. ... 

In other words 4E is a clean break from the past, and rely less on medieval history, but is now more fantasy oriented. So I'm not surprised that they mix foreign elements like shuriken and treat it as fantasy. Healing potions and Griffon as mount (instead of only Mule and Horse) in the PHB.

Man, this is so anime!
(but yes, people are right when they are joking about it)


----------



## MasterGarrow05

maybe i'm wrong. but even if it is times per day + con bonus, it still isn't scaling . . . 

unless there's a separate table of some kind, maybe you get x hp from 1st-10th, y hp from 11th-20th, etc. or i could be right and there's a separate table for how many times a day you can use a healing surge. . . ah hell, too much conjecture

also:

why the heck shuriken? if you don't get to use it on ANY of the 1st level powers listed?  Even the deft shot allows crossbows but not shuriken?


----------



## Primal

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> The thing with "Shuriken" is that most people are going to link that directly to a specific culture.
> 
> When working with a "generic" system, you generally want to use "generic" names.
> 
> You don't call a short sword "wakizashi" as a default.




I'm actually stunned that they didn't rename short sword "wakizashi". What were they thinking?!?


----------



## bording

Voss said:
			
		

> This is possible, however... past about 3rd level, you're getting an absurdly small (and decreasing) percentage of your hit points back if it is just 6+con mod.




But if the Con modifier is including 1/2 level in it, then it would scale much better.


----------



## Incenjucar

Primal said:
			
		

> I'm actually stunned that they didn't rename short sword "wakizashi". What were they thinking?!?




Shoulda been gladius.


----------



## Lizard

Hunh.

Very nice and interesting. I'm assuming there's a LOT more talents in the 'real' version, but what we've seen thus far is quite interesting.

SEE, WOTC? When you stop telling us about how tall halflings are and START showing us the real meat of the system, even us whiny grognards shut up.

Overall, I like it. Some specific things I like:
The fact that a talent can be magnified by a fighting style. Why do I like this? Opportunity to add new styles, and thus change the way a single talent works.
Sneak Attack damage isn't quite as overwhelming, balancing the fact it seems to be much easier.
Non-stupid names for the abilities. No 'Leaping Wombat Strike' crap.
Talents dependent on trained skills, making skill training more than just a +5. 

Things I don't like:
TOO FEW GOD DAMN SKILLS! With 6 skills out of 10 total, there's going to be a lot of overlap in rogues. This is a flaw of 4e design which is going to be hard to overcome. And 'Thievery' is just waaaay too broad. (Unless there's a lot more to skills 'under the hood' than there currently seems to be..)

Dammit, WOTC. You might be selling me on this thing. If you'd posted cool stuff like this six months ago, we could all have been spared a lot of grief.


----------



## EATherrian

Interesting, but there are some points I don't like.  I'm a huge fan of rolling for HPs, this is still a game afterall, so I'll add that back in to the games I run.  The skill list is very shallow.  I'm a fan of the "useless" skills like the various knowledges, professions, and crafts.  I need to see the whole deal before I can really decide what to do about skills though.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Yeah really when it comes to skills, those are only the class skills for all we know there could be 200 other skill (obvious exaggeration but the point holds).


----------



## Lizard

Rechan said:
			
		

> Not a lot of weapon options, there.




I assume you'll be able to blow feats/talents on weapon training, or cross-train to fighter. Frankly, I like it. I'd have preferred something more like "Pick 3 out of the following 10", but this works. I *do not* like "Masters of all arms" style games, and the 3e fighter is particularly egregious example of this. (One of the few, few, few areas where 1e/2e got it right over 3e, IMO)


----------



## mach1.9pants

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Have you read Worlds & Monster?
> <SNIP>



Whoops! OK DnD  *was* based on quasi europe in the middle ages, and now it is not. Didn't really get that into my thick head to mean that the 'base' cultural weapons can be from anywhere. 
So, therefore, there will never be a OA version 4E, oh well it was one of my favs ...


----------



## Lucius Drake

The only thing I didn't really like at first glance is that there appears to be a very limited amount that a rogue can use as a weapon.

On the other hand, a few aberrant examples notwithstanding, every rogue I can remember _has_ used a light blade.  

There may well be weapon training options that allow for a broader range, or perhaps it is simply a decision that must be made.  If one cross-classes then perhaps certain powers mix rather well.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well it may not be called OA but there could certainly be a setting that is more specific to those things.


----------



## MaelStorm

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Whoops! OK DnD  *was* based on quasi europe in the middle ages, and now it is not. Didn't really get that into my thick head to mean that the 'base' cultural weapons can be from anywhere.
> So, therefore, there will never be a OA version 4E, oh well it was one of my favs ...




Not entirely gone, but a much less predominant influence.


----------



## hong

That there's a monster labelled "oni" in W&M would seem to suggest there will be an OA at some stage.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Lucius Drake said:
			
		

> The only thing I didn't really like at first glance is that there appears to be a very limited amount that a rogue can use as a weapon.
> 
> On the other hand, a few aberrant examples notwithstanding, every rogue I can remember _has_ used a light blade.
> 
> There may well be weapon training options that allow for a broader range, or perhaps it is simply a decision that must be made.  If one cross-classes then perhaps certain powers mix rather well.




It honestly doesn't faze me that much since when I was still worried about whether there would be basic/martial/exotic I was already planning on breaking it down to the point where basically anyone can use any weapon within reason.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> That there's a monster labelled "oni" in W&M would seem to suggest there will be an OA at some stage.




If you tear off its bikini, will it try to marry you?


----------



## Khuxan

hong said:
			
		

> That there's a monster labelled "oni" in W&M would seem to suggest there will be an OA at some stage.




I thought that was the new name for the ogre mage, acknowledging its roots.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well it may not be called OA but there could certainly be a setting that is more specific to those things.



How can it; if one of the 10 major 4E world design philosphies is "The setting remained historic medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted. The two concept don't blend well"? *IF* a quasi Anglo/European fantasy setting doesn't work, why should a quasi Japanese/Oriental fantasy setting be fine? There is no reason for one to work and the other not that I can see.
Aside from:
1. Being 'PC' 'cos anything european based is chauvanistic and has cultural exotism.
or
2. Every body in WotC thinks Ninja are cooool 

Edit:


			
				hong said:
			
		

> That there's a monster labelled "oni" in W&M would seem to suggest there will be an OA at some stage.



Nope I reckon this is just now RAW as are shurikens. The 4E PoL setting is mix and match cultures, which I don't have a prob with. I jsut think it is ridiculous to say that the european fantasy mix doesn't work- it has for a long time and still does in a lot of literature


----------



## WyzardWhately

I suspect the limited weapon selection is tied into the weapon trait thing that 4E is going to be pushing.  Different weapons are probably going to be much more different - there will be more than a few different damage types, crit ranges, multipliers, and the occasional special +2 to something.  That is, there will be much more mechanical differentiation.

So, that gives a reason for any one character's selection to be toned down, because his choice of weapon has a greater impact.  Rapiers, for example, probably get some spiffy stuff and so require a feat pick.

At least, that's my suspicion.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well maybe not in the 4e core world. But that doesn't mean another setting can't, hell if that was the case then places like Calimport in Forgotten Realms would cease to exist.


----------



## scrubkai

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Not really DnD is, and always has been, based on quasi medieval Europe. Other cultures are there but they are in campaign extras or different campaign worlds




Lets see...
My 1978 PHB has Monks, Bo Sticks, Jo Sticks and Scimitars all of which are distinctly non-european. (Not to mention way too many french pole arms.)

So to me I don't see shuriken as being odd at all for D&D.  It's always been an odd mixed bag of cultures thrown together for a game.


----------



## mach1.9pants

scrubkai said:
			
		

> Lets see...
> My 1978 PHB has Monks, Bo Sticks, Jo Sticks and Scimitars all of which are distinctly non-european. (Not to mention way too many french pole arms.)
> 
> So to me I don't see shuriken as being odd at all for D&D.  It's always been an odd mixed bag of cultures thrown together for a game.



Yeah as I edited above I don't see shurikens as a problem. I just really disagree that:
1. DnD is not- in the majority- based on europe (up until now, yes I remember bo and jo but they and the monk are such a small part)
2. Quasi-Euro fantasy doesn't work- man it worked for Tolkien and every one afterwards!

But I'll repeat, I like the cultural mix but the premise behind why they are doing it I think is poor.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Yeah, D&D has always been more medieval European than anything else but it ain't that medieval and it ain't that European. The monsters tend to be more exotic than the PC stuff.


----------



## mach1.9pants

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> But I'll repeat, I like the cultural mix but the premise behind why they are doing it I think is poor.



Not that it really matters! Nerd Rage


----------



## Sunsword

So what if Weapon Proficiency grants a +5 bonus to Attack ala Skill Training & Weapon Specialization (if it exists) grants an additional +5 bonus ala Skill Expertise (or whatever its called is SWSE)?


----------



## MaelStorm

EDIT: The game is still the same. But a lot of items (exotic and magic) were hidden in the DMG. Now it's not anymore. It's in the PHB.


----------



## hong

"Nerd Rage" should so be a wizard power in 4E.


----------



## frankthedm

I am VERY pleased the designers placed limitations on the weapons the rogue gets to sneak attack with. An attack that is supposed to be about striking with surgical precision should have to be done with a weapon that HAS surgical precision. My only disappointment is that they will allow slings to deal sneak, but at least there will be no more "sneak attacking with a great axe" B.S.


----------



## hong

Sneak attacking with a greataxe may be OTT, but sneak attacking with a long sword shouldn't be....


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> Sneak attacking with a greataxe may be OTT, but sneak attacking with a long sword shouldn't be....




What about a ballista?


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> What about a ballista?



 Sneak attacking a ballista with a long sword shouldn't be OTT, no.


----------



## WyzardWhately

Anybody else notice there isn't a range limitation on Sneak Attack?


----------



## hong

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> Anybody else notice there isn't a range limitation on Sneak Attack?



 That is awesome. It means I won't have to resort to hacks like this anymore.


----------



## mach1.9pants

deleted


----------



## mach1.9pants

deleted


----------



## mach1.9pants

deleted


----------



## mach1.9pants

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> Anybody else notice there isn't a range limitation on Sneak Attack?



[lie]Of course I did![/lie]
Good point-can you get combat advantage at range? (apart from rogue in the suprise part of the encounter)


----------



## frankthedm

Lizard said:
			
		

> If you tear off its bikini, will it try to marry you?



 That's just the start...







Now, maybe it was pure coincidence Mike Mearls switched the Ogre mage's _Cone of Cold_ over to _Lightning Bolt_. I suspect otherwise.


----------



## mach1.9pants

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Good point-can you get combat advantage at range? (apart from rogue in the suprise part of the encounter)



And of course you can- if you can use the crossbow or sling- d'oh my brain is slow


----------



## Voss

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I am VERY pleased the designers placed limitations on the weapons the rogue gets to sneak attack with. An attack that is supposed to be about striking with surgical precision should have to be done with a weapon that HAS surgical precision. My only disappointment is that they will allow slings to deal sneak, but at least there will be no more "sneak attacking with a great axe" B.S.




Interesting reaction.  Are you still as pleased when you realize you can't use any of your powers or sneak attack with a *sap*?


@mach- hand crossbow.  That seems signficant.  If the rogue is more than 50' out, he isn't doing so well.


----------



## Silvergriffon

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Why not daggerborn?



Only if they have boobs.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Voss said:
			
		

> Interesting reaction.  Are you still as pleased when you realize you can't use any of your powers or sneak attack with a *sap*?



That is a part of a real big question- how will 4E deal with subdual?


			
				Voss said:
			
		

> @mach- hand crossbow.  That seems signficant.  If the rogue is more than 50' out, he isn't doing so well.



I dunno, slings have a decent range in most editions


----------



## Rechan

Silvergriffon said:
			
		

> Only if they have boobs.



I have the feeling Daggerborn's boobs are too sharp to be of any use.


----------



## Sammael

My first reaction to the rogue write-up is... not enough options. 3.x rogues were one of the most flexible classes. I've played, DMed, or seen played at least 5 different core rogue archetypes, all of which were pretty distinct. Heck, even in 2.5 (Skills and Powers), there were more options for 1st level rogues than what 4E seems to be offering. 

Feats and Powers are the only meaningful choices; the rest - weapons, armor, and skills - is pretty much pre-selected. And call me bitter, but the only reason I can see at the moment is that the PH now comes with a built-in incentive to buy the future "Complete Rogue." Or subscribe to DDI to get the "bonus online weapons package." Whatever.

What particularly puzzles me is that the shortbow, an iconic rogue weapon (q.v. Order of the Stick) is no longer on the list. This means that, if I don't house-rule it back in, my rogue player, who's built his entire combat concept on the shortbow (and he's played his character from level 1 to level 20 over the course of 5 years), will not be able to re-imagine his character. This is... not good. I can understand the lack of some of the more obscure weapons, but c'mon - shortbow?

Generally, the other stuff is nice, but, overall, I don't like it.


----------



## Victim

We might be needing too much into the lack of mention of attribute mods in several places.  If the effects of stats are clearly spelled out in other areas, then they might not be mentioned in the class section.

However, since stat modifiers seem to be increasing with level, then adding INT mod to skills trained might be problematic.


----------



## Zamkaizer

Voss said:
			
		

> Interesting reaction.  Are you still as pleased when you realize you can't use any of your powers or sneak attack with a *sap*?




I, for one, am.

I see little about a weapon which, by it's very definition, works in an inefficient manner and is only truly effective when applied to the head, that lends itself to subtleties of technique and optimization of use. I would agree though, that the rogue would benefit from access to cudgels or blackjacks.


----------



## Lizard

Sammael said:
			
		

> My first reaction to the rogue write-up is... not enough options. 3.x rogues were one of the most flexible classes. I've played, DMed, or seen played at least 5 different core rogue archetypes, all of which were pretty distinct. Heck, even in 2.5 (Skills and Powers), there were more options for 1st level rogues than what 4E seems to be offering.




I am going to guess that there's a lot of "Options for all classes", and what we're seeing for the rogue is the 'freebies'. It would not surprise me if, for example, every class got a 'free' weapon proficiency at first level, over and above their class proficiencies.

If something like this doesn't exist, then, yeah, the classes have become a lot more restrictive. (And I think spelling out 'builds', instead of players discovering them organically, is a Really Bad Idea, but not one which remotely surprises me. But it has no real rules impact, and, since the fluff in 4e tends to give me migraines if I think too hard about it, I'm just going to ignore anything that doesn't have a mechanical effect.


----------



## Sammael

BTW, why would anyone pick Piercing Strike over Deft Strike? Is Ref generally so much lower than AC, that it's worth losing the ability to use the maneuver with two other weapons and the ability to move 2 squares prior to the attack?


----------



## small pumpkin man

I do like it, although I am getting slightly worried about the skill stuff, if the skill training feat still only gives one skill I'm going to be disappointed, although it's possible all classes get 4-6 skills, in which case I'll be happy.

Not surprised about the short weapon list though, the fact that they were making weapons more unique pretty much ensured that the list of available weapons was going to be shortened (I assume several weapons are going to have their stats combined).


----------



## Reaper Steve

Wow! Further proof that 4E is exceeding my wildest expectations about what D&D could become!

I'd go into detail about what I like, but that would pretty much mean a cut-and-paste of the article.


----------



## WyzardWhately

Sammael said:
			
		

> BTW, why would anyone pick Piercing Strike over Deft Strike? Is Ref generally so much lower than AC, that it's worth losing the ability to use the maneuver with two other weapons and the ability to move 2 squares prior to the attack?




Well, some of us suspect that AC is going to be Reflex + Armor Bonus.  So, you'd basically be ignoring their armor bonus.


----------



## Lizard

Sammael said:
			
		

> BTW, why would anyone pick Piercing Strike over Deft Strike? Is Ref generally so much lower than AC, that it's worth losing the ability to use the maneuver with two other weapons and the ability to move 2 squares prior to the attack?




AC is Reflex+Armor Bonus. So against armored foes, it matters a great deal. Reflex is Touch Defense, for all practical purposes. Assume that, say, plate armor is still +8 armor, being able to avoid that is pretty nice...


----------



## Silvergriffon

A few thoughts:

chaotic evil
For those who were hoping (like I am) that Law and Chaos have gone away, it is possible that the reference to "evil or chaotic evil rogues" may indicate that Law and Chaos are presented as an optional advanced alignment system. Or maybe I'm reaching.

2 builds
Notice that everything under the two builds is presented as "suggested". I'm pretty sure that these are not restrictive choices, but rather sample paths for new players, possibly replacing the more detailed sample character write-ups of 3e.

thievery and stealth mandatory
I kind of like that rogues are returning to their thieving roots. For those of you concerned that this means the demise of other types of rogues, it could just indicate that if you want a swashbuckling scoundrel (or whatever) there are other ways to do it. Perhaps as possible paths for the fighter or through multiclassing and/or class training. In fact, I wish they named this class Thief and either retired the Rogue or saved it for a future class. Its also worth noting that we don't yet know the full extent of what is rolled into the thievery skill. It may have uses applicable to many different types of rogue.

too few weapons (and skills)
This could be because there are multiple ways to acquire new ones. Feats, multi-classing, class training, race, etc. And I actually prefer that sneak attack and other rogue powers shown remain usable only with a limited selection of rogue weapons.


----------



## Ahglock

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Hence why I said "short sword" and not "Le petit stabby" or whatever.




I so want to wield the "Le petit stabby".  I kill you, I kill you with my "Le petit stabby" +5.


----------



## Lizard

Silvergriffon said:
			
		

> thievery and stealth mandatory
> I kind of like that rogues are returning to their thieving roots. For those of you concerned that this means the demise of other types of rogues, it could just indicate that if you want a swashbuckling scoundrel (or whatever) there are other ways to do it. Perhaps as possible paths for the fighter or through multiclassing and/or class training. In fact, I wish they named this class Thief and either retired the Rogue or saved it for a future class. Its also worth noting that we don't yet know the full extent of what is rolled into the thievery skill. It may have uses applicable to many different types of rogue.




I can't see a problem with simply saying "You get 6 skills. Probably good to get Thievery and Stealth, but if you don't want to, you don't have to."


----------



## Incenjucar

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I so want to wield the "Le petit stabby".  I kill you, I kill you with my "Le petit stabby" +5.




Monty Python Campaign?  <3


----------



## mach1.9pants

Lizard said:
			
		

> I can't see a problem with simply saying "You get 6 skills. Probably good to get Thievery and Stealth, but if you don't want to, you don't have to."



Same but thankfully so easily houseruled


----------



## Mouseferatu

Primal said:
			
		

> Alright, seriously, I was disappointed -- it seems that while combat may have fewer *rolls*, it's become a *LOT* more complex and tactical in nature.




Well, let me offer you my own experience.

First, you should know that I'm one of the guys who hated using minis in 3E. Second, you should know that while I enjoy a good combat, I'm a storyteller and roleplayer first and foremost, and a tactics guy a distant second.

That said, I've been playing a rogue in my 4E playtest group for several months now. And what I can tell you is that combat has become a _lot_ more _interesting_. I find myself a lot more invested in it, and a lot more enthused about it, than I'd been in 3E for years (if not from the beginning). It took us very little time to get the basic rules down, and I've found that combat in 4E runs faster than 3E, but each individual round is a lot more fun. I'm making choices, taking actions, and--yes--performing tactical maneuvers that I'd either never have tried in 3E, or that would have felt like a wasted round in 3E.


----------



## tombowings

This is one of the first things about 4e I really don't like. Mainly the skills. I thought (hoped) that we were getting rid of class skills. Also, all the skills I never take seem to make up the rogues class skill list. As least Bluff is there, but what happened to Diplomacy? What happened to Gather Information? It looks like they are going back to the rogue being a combat thief.

I guess I'm just rapped up in may own playing style though. I enjoy only having 5% of out sessions dedicated to combat, however, the rogue looks like it's build for combat and little else. I want my low Dex high Cha and Int rogues! Not this sneaky swordsman.

Ok, sorry, if I accept what the rogue has become, I will say that it looks like a new match. However, this isn't what the rogue is to me.


----------



## Lab_Monkey

*A couple thoughts...*

I think that it is likely that there are a number of base character attributes we are not seeing here.  We already know that all characters have the same attack and defense progressions, with class specific bonuses.  It is possible that other attributes are available outside of your class, including weapon proficiencies and skills.  I could easily imagine a scenario where all characters are proficient in a few basic weapons (e.g., club) with a class specific list as a bonus.  Same with skills: it is possible that your intelligence gives you a number of bonus skills chosen from a general list in addition to the skills you receive as a part of your class.

Also, I understand how some may be frustrated by being forced to have Stealth and Thievery as skills for your rogue.  Remember though that the designers are trying to remove some of the system mastery requirements from the game.  Specifically they want all rogue builds to be viable.  It seems possible that as the party rogue you are expected to cover certain key roles involving stealth and traps/locks/etc.  Instead of requiring new players to figure this out over time, they've just automatically granted these skills to every rogue player. 

Just some speculative thoughts.  Even if the class description is complete, we are missing a lot of information here.


----------



## mach1.9pants

tombowings said:
			
		

> This is one of the first things about 4e I really don't like. Mainly the skills. I thought (hoped) that we were getting rid of class skills. Also, all the skills I never take seem to make up the rogues class skill list. As least Bluff is there, but what happened to Diplomacy? What happened to Gather Information? It looks like they are going back to the rogue being a combat thief.



I hope that diplomacy is part of another skill- I am pretty sure that GI is now part of streetwise. 
I am happy that some skills have been folded together but I really hope that no class has lost skill breadth (apart from craft etc, I like 'em but I know they are gone). A reduction in the breadth of available skill options is not a good thing, unlike the untrained=1/2 your level which I like.


----------



## tombowings

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I hope that diplomacy is part of another skill- I am pretty sure that GI is now part of streetwise.
> I am happy that some skills have been folded together but I really hope that no class has lost skill breadth (apart from craft etc, I like 'em but I know they are gone). A reduction in the breadth of available skill options is not a good thing, unlike the untrained=1/2 your level which I like.




Gather information is streetwise would be good; and untrained=1/2 your level is great! I'm just wondering if I will be able to make effective characters out of the archtypes I enjoy playing. I know I'm ranting, but I just got done with a 9 hour rehearsal, so bare with me.


----------



## mach1.9pants

tombowings said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering if I will be able to make effective characters out of the archtypes I enjoy playing. I know I'm ranting, but I just got done with a 9 hour rehearsal, so bare with me.



Rant away, my friend, what else are fan forums for?


----------



## RodneyThompson

Lizard said:
			
		

> (And I think spelling out 'builds', instead of players discovering them organically, is a Really Bad Idea, but not one which remotely surprises me. But it has no real rules impact, and, since the fluff in 4e tends to give me migraines if I think too hard about it, I'm just going to ignore anything that doesn't have a mechanical effect.




I don't think I'm going to get in trouble for posting this, but back about a year ago the rules didn't have suggested builds. Each class' powers were just laid out for them. While players might have discovered builds "organically," it actually ended up being extremely overwhelming when creating a character. Not just for new players, but for veteran game designers and editors. I remember sitting down to create a rogue and thinking, "Man, what powers should I pick?"

One thing I had discovered with Saga Edition's design is that grouping abilities in some way helps make choices more obvious when a player is creating the character. That's why Saga Edition's talent trees are more like talent bushes--they don't necessarily have a progression, but they do have a cohesive theme, and grouping them together makes it easier to figure out what you want to do. Players will still find builds, given the number of options sitting in talents (and, in D&D, powers), that are not spelled out in cleanly sliced groups. Skip on over to the non-D&D character optimization boards if you don't believe me. Players will still be able to make all kinds of discoveries.

Now, granted, D&D doesn't bunch things together in quite as small of groups as Saga Edition's talent trees...but you get the idea. It's one of those subtle bits of player psychology that doesn't become immediately obvious until playtesting comes around.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

tombowings said:
			
		

> Gather information is streetwise would be good; and untrained=1/2 your level is great! I'm just wondering if I will be able to make effective characters out of the archtypes I enjoy playing. I know I'm ranting, but I just got done with a 9 hour rehearsal, so bare with me.




I suspect you'll be able to hit your archetype as well as before, but it could be that you hit the 'archer's delimma' where 4E gives you just as if not better archers as you got in 3X you just can't do it by making a fighter.

I was sort of shocked to see Initimidate as a seperate skill, and it's interesting to note that Persuasion/Diplomacy isn't on the skill list.

I wonder if this means that they're 'niche protecting' the cleric and leader classes as diplomats.


----------



## pukunui

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> * - Holy Bahamut on a Stick!  There's no special thief anti-trap feature!  Just the everlovin Thievery skill.  I assume no one else** gets that as a class skill, yet, but still Wowser!



They've said on more than one occasion that Trapfinding is now a feat that anyone can take.



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> I am VERY pleased the designers placed limitations on the weapons the rogue gets to sneak attack with. An attack that is supposed to be about striking with surgical precision should have to be done with a weapon that HAS surgical precision. My only disappointment is that they will allow slings to deal sneak, but at least there will be no more "sneak attacking with a great axe" B.S.



I'd say a sling stone can have "surgical precision". It's small. It can be sharp but doesn't really need to be. Think David and Goliath ...



Also, for those complaining that the preview seems too restrictive and is focused solely on combat, I feel fairly confident that it really _isn't_ the full write-up for this single reason: WotC has stated quite firmly that they are not going to be previewing the social encounter stuff at all. We're going to have to wait until the books are out before we learn anything about it. This was said by Chris Perkins in one of those video snippets. So my guess is that the rogue preview is not complete because the social encounter stuff has been left out (whether it takes the form of social encounter powers or special uses of skills or whatever).


----------



## MaelStorm

Why is everybody jumping out of the roof!

I mean, at first, everybody was like: Oh Cool!

And now: What are they doing to skills? Grrrrr!!!


----------



## Khuxan

pukunui said:
			
		

> They've said on more than one occasion that Trapfinding is now a feat that anyone can take.




But if I remember correctly, they said that every rogue got it as a bonus feat - which they don't here.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Khuxan said:
			
		

> But if I remember correctly, they said that every rogue got it as a bonus feat - which they don't here.




Indeed, I think Trapfinding is gone.  Replaced with simple skill in Thievery.

Or possibly still limited to a trained aspect of Thievery.


----------



## mach1.9pants

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Why is everybody jumping out of the roof!
> 
> I mean, at first, everybody was like: Oh Cool!
> 
> And now: What are they doing to skills! Grrrrr!!!




Of course it takes time to get the Grrrr going. Nerd Rage can only be used as an immediate action if you have the appropriate feat, otherwise it can only be done on your turn.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Indeed, I think Trapfinding is gone.  Replaced with simple skill in Thievery.
> 
> Or possibly still limited to a trained aspect of Thievery.




That makes heaps of sense, Rogues don't get it as 'a bonus feat' but 'cos they are all trained in thievery they can all trap find. Like it. Edit: like it as an explanation to why we don't see the feat on class description. I don't like the all rogues trained in thievery rule 
Or this above Bro 


			
				pukunui said:
			
		

> Hmm ... you're right. This means either a) Trapfinding is gone, b) rogues no longer get Trapfinding for free, or c) this is not a complete preview.


----------



## pukunui

Khuxan said:
			
		

> But if I remember correctly, they said that every rogue got it as a bonus feat - which they don't here.



 Hmm ... you're right. This means either a) Trapfinding is gone, b) rogues no longer get Trapfinding for free, or c) this is not a complete preview.


BTW, is anyone else unable to view the actual Ampersand article? I keep getting an error message whenever I try to open it.


----------



## epochrpg

> Piercing Strike
> Rogue Attack 1
> A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh.
> 
> At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
> Standard Action
> Melee weapon
> Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
> Target: One creature
> Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
> 
> Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
> Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.




OMG.  I already found something totally broken!  Armor is now worthless if you are fighting a rogue.  At will they can AUTOMATICALLY bypass your armor!  AUTOMATICALLY.  Well I can guess people will be saying how totally screwed over Fighters are by the current edition... all over again!


----------



## MaelStorm

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Of course it takes time to get the Grrrr going. Nerd Rage can only be used as an immediate action if you have the appropriate feat, otherwise it can only be done on your turn.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Piercing Strike


			
				epochrpg said:
			
		

> OMG.  I already found something totally broken!  Armor is now worthless if you are fighting a rogue.  At will they can AUTOMATICALLY bypass your armor!  AUTOMATICALLY.  Well I can guess people will be saying how totally screwed over Fighters are by the current edition... all over again!



The only thing I can say about this (and it hit me as a pretty useful at will power!) is that Deft Strike specifically says: "Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack." 
As a lightly armoured striker I wonder if staying still is that risky that it offsets the ignore armour (if that is what ref defence means) bonus?


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

*Something Witty Here.*

I'm definitely hoping this is simply an incomplete preview, simply for the fact that some terms need defining, and without the complete set of character creation rules set along with this, makes it hard to descern what's truly in and what's actually out.

And as to Epochrpg,
I'm sure there is a decent explanation for this percieved whomping of armor's usefulness.  If not.... well, every system/edition's got to have something completely broken in it, right?  Isn't it a rule somewhere?  So they have something to fix with errata and such?

Either way, wow... that would completely suck for anyone going toe-to-toe with a Rogue (who happened to have Piercing Strike, and if this is the case, what Rogue _wouldn't_ have it?).

IMHO, Homebrew Optional/Additional Rules create a certain joy in me, so if this is the case, a worthwhile DM will be able to deal with these problems easily, or an experienced player will be able to deal with it in conjunction with said DM.

Then again, I also happen to believe that any truly worthwhile DM has at least a few homebrew rules they impliment into any gaming system.


Peace, Love and Bloodstains,
~ Me.

PS - Don't mind me, I'm kinda nuts.


----------



## Sammael

Don't worry, fighters will probably have a power called Defy Piercing Strike, which will allow them to add 1/2 of their armor bonus to Ref against Piercing Strike. Then, come Complete Martial, there will be a rogue power called Penetrate Advanced Defense, which will negate fighters' Defy Piercing Strike. In Complete Martial II, fighters will make a comeback, and so on, and so forth...


----------



## Mouseferatu

epochrpg said:
			
		

> OMG.  I already found something totally broken!  Armor is now worthless if you are fighting a rogue.  At will they can AUTOMATICALLY bypass your armor!  AUTOMATICALLY.  Well I can guess people will be saying how totally screwed over Fighters are by the current edition... all over again!




Yes, because seeing this power as part of a preview, without knowing what other powers or combat rules are in place, places one in a perfect position to decide what's broken.

As someone who's been playing a rogue in 4E for months now, let me assure you that while it's a nice power to have, it's not even _remotely_ game-breaking. In fact, I think it's the at-will power I've used _least_, of those I've chosen.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Sammael said:
			
		

> Don't worry, fighters will probably have a power called Defy Piercing Strike, which will allow them to add 1/2 of their armor bonus to Ref against Piercing Strike. Then, come Complete Martial, there will be a rogue power called Penetrate Advanced Defense, which will negate fighters' Defy Piercing Strike. In Complete Martial II, fighters will make a comeback, and so on, and so forth...



You are a bitter, twisted man..errm ...archdevil...

Edit:And LOL, the Mouseferatu post above!


----------



## MaelStorm

@ Mouseferatu

I'm really happy with the preview. And, yes, the tactical choices are definitely going to make 4E one notch above all the previous editions.


----------



## Darth Cyric

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As someone who's been playing a rogue in 4E for months now, let me assure you that while it's a nice power to have, it's not even _remotely_ game-breaking. In fact, I think it's the at-will power I've used _least_, of those I've chosen.



So I take it it's not exactly the equivalent of a Persisted Wraithstrike or Find the Gap? Because those spells got quite nasty.

What about Positioning Strike with Artful Dodger? That's the main one that gave me pause. (It's a per-encounter strike, I know, but I've thought up a few situations where it could be pretty insane).


----------



## fuindordm

Excellent article!  I'm going to enjoy the new rogue, I can tell. 

Skills: 

I'm really happy to see that the social skills haven't been bundled. I think having separate ones really encouraged PCs to role-play (a nice incentive to use the kind of interaction you're good at).

Weapons:

I note that most of the powers rely on "light blades". I hope there are also powers that rely on other kinds of weapons, or that can be used with any weapon.  Key example: Positioning Strike. Why should that one depend on what weapon you're using?

Powers: 

Crimson Edge: So, is that "half damage on a miss" supposed to mean ([2W]+Dex)/2, ([W]+Dex)/2, or [W]+Dex? I could make a case for any one.


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale

Something I just noticed about the preview and have not seen mentioned.

Sneak attack: ....when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a *crossbow*, or a sling....

Take a little time to learn how to use a Heavy or Regular crossbow and you will have some hefty range on your sneak attack. Not sure how you would work in combat advantage at such a distance - barring First Strike or perhaps Crimson Edge with a quick teleported retreat perhaps. However I am sure that it is a viable strategy.


----------



## Darth Cyric

fuindordm said:
			
		

> Key example: Positioning Strike. Why should that one depend on what weapon you're using?



Hmm, well I thought of it as the Rogue making the "false stumble" to mislead his target. If he really sells it (hits the target's Will), then the target is mislead in the direction the Rogue intends and stumbles in that direction, and then all of a sudden the Rogue sneaks the other way, hamstrings the target with his light blade (hard to do with any other type of weapon) and uses the target's momentum as well as the pain from the hamstringing to send his target in the desired direction.


----------



## TheArcane

I, too, hope that this is a limited preview, mainly because there are clearly a ton more powers available for selection, but also because this article has absolutely zero non-combat reference. I'm not just talking about social combat, I mean that all that's written here is "combat this" and "combat that", as if the character class exists purely to fight. This bothers me especially because this is the rogue class, which has a lot of potential for interesting non-combat fluff and even mechanics. I really hope that the PHB entry contains more fluff and background, although I guess my hopes for non-combat mechanical differencs between classes are going to be shattered. A lack of background, motivation, other fluff writeup would be pretty ironic, in light of the ever so restricted weapon and skill choises.

Also, I'm hoping for another rogue tactic. Only two seems a little lacking, three would offer more variety. Surely they can find another rogue archtype besides "thug" and "dodger". Although if you take only combat styles into consideration, as the developers obviously did, there's probably little more to find.

There are things that I do like. The powers look imaginitive and varied, the HP progression looks nicely balanced with average 3E die rolls with approximately expected CON bonus for the class. I'm still worried about combat complexity, and the regular attack seems pretty obsolete with all these at-will powers, but I guess only playing it will give me an accurate impression.


----------



## The Little Raven

Archangel_Zer0 said:
			
		

> I'm sure there is a decent explanation for this percieved whomping of armor's usefulness.




I remember people claiming the 3e monk was overpowered at first, and there was a decent explanation for it: kneejerk responses to limited information are often wrong.


----------



## frankthedm

The Shadow said:
			
		

> * A feat called Backstabber... since they've already got Sneak Attack, I wonder just what this does?



I'm guessing it lets you use your sneak attack on AoOs when foes leave your threatened area. That's the only way someone gives up their back without facing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Interesting article. The crunchy bits are coming! And it was definitely a Sneak Attack on me. I go to sleep, just having posted something on out of combat roles for d20 modern, and planned at looking at the responses in the morning. But what happens? Suddenly, a Rogue sneak attacks the boards, there are no replies to my post, but several pages - hell, even threads - inspired by this WotC article! 

My observations, comments and speculations so far: 
- Healing Surges: The number probably describes how often you can use a Second-Wind like mechanic per day. (healing probably 1/2 or 1/4 of your normal characters hit points). My guess is that actually triggering such a surge requires using another per day or per encounter power (never an at will power). This means a Fighters time to call it a day is when he has had enough encounters to deplete all his Healing Surges - but this can never be only a single encounter, since there are not enough "triggers" for him available.

- Weapon Profiency: The list looks awfully short. I suspect that there will be no longer a profiency penalty for weapons, but a bonus (wether it's +1, +2 or +5 remains to be seen. I suspect towards the latter). This would imply that, unlike in 3E, Fighters don't automatically hit better - but their range of weapons they can employ will probably be bigger of others. It might even mean that Wizards could compete with a Fighter if wielding a weapon their proficient in (like a Staff) - at least in the pure to-hit area. I guess a major part of the actual combat power for a weapon stems from powers, not from anything else. (And a Wizard will use his Staff to sling fireballs, not to hit the enemy fighter over the head with it)

- Skills: The skill list is short, but it doesn't seem to miss anything I would find cruicial for playing a Rogue. But I really wonder how INT will factor in into skill points. As others, I liked playing smart characters (icluding Rogues) with loads of skills. 
It's noticeable that the Rogue doesn't have Diplomacy on his list, which means he probably isn't the party's speaker anymore. (But who will be it? Warlords and Clerics? Fighters?). So he is still there "middle-man" (Streetwise) and can still read people (Insight). Lying and finding information, people or goods are also still covered.
The set of "social" skills might explain how social encounters can become more interesting for the party as a whole - if not one character can cover all social skills, that the party needs to work together to "survive" in a social encounter scenario.


----------



## frankthedm

Archangel_Zer0 said:
			
		

> I'm sure there is a decent explanation for this perceived whomping of armor's usefulness.



Rogues bypass armor seems to be fairly constant, but a big thing is, bypassing armor is NOT as big as it was in 3E. Even a fighter's Reflex defense is nowhere near as pitiful as his 3E touch AC was. But yes, now the fighter has GOOD reason to want to face foes other than the thieves guild. This is a GOOD THINGtm, the party is supposed to be facing dungeons filled with *monsters,* not towns filled with _rogues_.


 In party balance wise, a rogue seems to be hurting for attack bonus, he does not have the "to hit" to go through AC.


----------



## Dragonblade

Anyone else have trouble viewing the article? The only way I can see it is by typing in the URL for the printer friendly version. Otherwise, I get an HTTP 500 server error.

Yet, when I went to my friend's house earlier and showed him the article we could pull it right up.


----------



## Mentat55

Overall, I think the rogue looks pretty good.  I wish we could see some more of the trickster rogue build powers, because I am curious how Bluff, Intimidate, and some of these other skills might be used in powers, and how class powers might have lots of interesting non-combat applications, but I guess I must make due with what I have.

The limited choice of weapons is a bit surprising, but aside from the cudgel or sap, I think it captures the core flavor of the rogue nicely -- these are all smaller, concealable weapons.  The rapier and shortbow are notable omissions.

I like the powers!  3.5E started to attack this with feats based around the rogue's sneak attack (like Ambush feats from _Complete Scoundrel_), but I think divorcing it from sneak attack is the way to go.

Sneak attack -- no mention of conditions that prevent its use!  Immune to crit creatures is the obvious example, but my parties ran into the problem with concealment as well.  The damage isn't as ridiculous now, so it doesn't need the same level of restrictions, probably.

Some thoughts:

1. The choice of two Rogue Tactics (Brutal Scoundrel and Artful Dodger) and their associated two builds seems rather limiting.  But it does open up space (in the Martial Power supplement, for example) for something like the witty rogue build and Rapier-Sharp Wits as a new Rogue Tactic, and then a slew of powers that interact with this new, Int-based ability.

2. Related to my 1st point, but perhaps one of the trade-offs in trying to make the new system work, and to avoid obvious exploits and problems off the bat, is that they have to narrow the initial set of options a bit.  Essentially, go for quality over quantity.  Could they achieve both quality AND quantity?  Hard to say -- my experience in non-RPG things says this is difficult regardless of the discipline, but I am sure there are counter examples.

3. The only non-combat, non-trap related abilities the 3E rogue received was its skill list.  Everything else--sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge, trapfinding, trap sense--pertain to combat and traps.  So this approach to the rogue is not new; of course, it doesn't mean they couldn't have tried something new.  But I think what we are seeing is one of the core design philosophies of 4E: balance each class in combat, and balance each class outside of combat, but don't balance these aspects with each other.  Balanced combat options requires many different abilities, powers, etc., since there are so many facets to a fight, and because the way a wizard operates should be different that a fighter or rogue.  Balancing outside of combat -- could it be they are achieving balance and relevancy for every class by primarily trying to tune the skill system?  Already the ability mod + 1/2 level math makes it so the difference between a trained and untrained character is smaller than in 3E (where, at 1st level, the diff. could be easily be +5, and could exceed +20 at high levels).  

After all, when people talk about non-combat abilities, it typically boils down to the skills they choose, and perhaps a few feats that interact with them.  If each class has a skill space where it is immediately useful, and then through feats can choose other skills to fill out the character and do things that are non-canonical for the class (like a fighter with Diplomacy, for example), I think this is a good thing.

4. Skill choice: Hmm, the rogue gets two trained skills for free, then gets to choose 4 more from a list of 8 others.  Seems limiting.  But math says there are 70 unique combinations of 4 skills selected from a list of 8.  That seems like a fair number of options -- certainly less than 3E, but that largely comes from consolidating the skill list.  Certain combos probably make more sense than others.  The only complaint I see here is that all rogues must be stealthy (but this seems a bit silly -- this is the D&D thief/rogue to a tee) and good at picking pockets, disarming traps, and opening locks (this objection I understand).  But this is probably just like complaining about every rogue getting sneak attack -- each class is going to have defining features.  It is the limitation of a class-based system.


----------



## frankthedm

Kirnon_Bhale said:
			
		

> Take a little time to learn how to use a Heavy or Regular crossbow and you will have some hefty range on your sneak attack. Not sure how you would work in combat advantage at such a distance - barring First Strike or perhaps Crimson Edge with a quick teleported retreat perhaps. However I am sure that it is a viable strategy.



Very viable for night time aand underground attackers. Lethally so.


----------



## epochrpg

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> Overall, I think the rogue looks pretty good.  I wish we could see some more of the trickster rogue build powers, because I am curious how Bluff, Intimidate, and some of these other skills might be used in powers, and how class powers might have lots of interesting non-combat applications, but I guess I must make due with what I have.
> 
> The limited choice of weapons is a bit surprising, but aside from the cudgel or sap, I think it captures the core flavor of the rogue nicely -- these are all smaller, concealable weapons.  The rapier and shortbow are notable omissions.
> 
> I like the powers!  3.5E started to attack this with feats based around the rogue's sneak attack (like Ambush feats from _Complete Scoundrel_), but I think divorcing it from sneak attack is the way to go.
> 
> Sneak attack -- no mention of conditions that prevent its use!  Immune to crit creatures is the obvious example, but my parties ran into the problem with concealment as well.  The damage isn't as ridiculous now, so it doesn't need the same level of restrictions, probably.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> 1. The choice of two Rogue Tactics (Brutal Scoundrel and Artful Dodger) and their associated two builds seems rather limiting.  But it does open up space (in the Martial Power supplement, for example) for something like the witty rogue build and Rapier-Sharp Wits as a new Rogue Tactic, and then a slew of powers that interact with this new, Int-based ability.
> 
> 2. Related to my 1st point, but perhaps one of the trade-offs in trying to make the new system work, and to avoid obvious exploits and problems off the bat, is that they have to narrow the initial set of options a bit.  Essentially, go for quality over quantity.  Could they achieve both quality AND quantity?  Hard to say -- my experience in non-RPG things says this is difficult regardless of the discipline, but I am sure there are counter examples.
> 
> 3. The only non-combat, non-trap related abilities the 3E rogue received was its skill list.  Everything else--sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge, trapfinding, trap sense--pertain to combat and traps.  So this approach to the rogue is not new; of course, it doesn't mean they couldn't have tried something new.  But I think what we are seeing is one of the core design philosophies of 4E: balance each class in combat, and balance each class outside of combat, but don't balance these aspects with each other.  Balanced combat options requires many different abilities, powers, etc., since there are so many facets to a fight, and because the way a wizard operates should be different that a fighter or rogue.  Balancing outside of combat -- could it be they are achieving balance and relevancy for every class by primarily trying to tune the skill system?  Already the ability mod + 1/2 level math makes it so the difference between a trained and untrained character is smaller than in 3E (where, at 1st level, the diff. could be easily be +5, and could exceed +20 at high levels).
> 
> After all, when people talk about non-combat abilities, it typically boils down to the skills they choose, and perhaps a few feats that interact with them.  If each class has a skill space where it is immediately useful, and then through feats can choose other skills to fill out the character and do things that are non-canonical for the class (like a fighter with Diplomacy, for example), I think this is a good thing.
> 
> 4. Skill choice: Hmm, the rogue gets two trained skills for free, then gets to choose 4 more from a list of 8 others.  Seems limiting.  But math says there are 70 unique combinations of 4 skills selected from a list of 8.  That seems like a fair number of options -- certainly less than 3E, but that largely comes from consolidating the skill list.  Certain combos probably make more sense than others.  The only complaint I see here is that all rogues must be stealthy (but this seems a bit silly -- this is the D&D thief/rogue to a tee) and good at picking pockets, disarming traps, and opening locks (this objection I understand).  But this is probably just like complaining about every rogue getting sneak attack -- each class is going to have defining features.  It is the limitation of a class-based system.




My Rogue/Master Thrower/Thief Acrobat in a 3.5 campaign has 0 ranks in Open Lock, Move Silently, Hide, or Disable Device.  Jump, Tumble, Balance, Use Rope, got the most attention.  The character is a tough sailor whose main weapon is a Harpoon, and cutlass for boarding actions.  The Thief Acrobat stuff is so he can run around up in the rigging, swing down onto the deck, etc.  So I guess he cannot be a rogue in 4e-- since he doesn't have "thievery" or "stealth".  

As for the Armor being useless comment, I stand by it.  Reflex defense is your AC without armor.  The attack hits your Reflex-- thus, the armor does nothing to stop it from hitting you.  If I'm wrong, please explain how so.  

I can only make conjecture based upon the available evidence.  Top secret hidden unavailable facts cannot really be used as evidence to counter my argument...  

I guess I could infer that some Kewl Powerz are better than the ability to bypass armor, which is why it is not used so much-- but I stand by my statement that the ability to automatically bypass armor at will makes armor useless vs. that opponent.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

*My thoughts..*

Nothing like waking up on a weekend to find an awesome new &!


Shuriken is almost certainly the generic term being used for thrown weapons.
HP includes your Con _score_, my that's a departure from the d20 system!
There seem to be quite a few healing surges, so I'm hoping that you can only use a certain number each encounter, or boss battles will be a little easy.
I've no problem forcing skills on the character, but I'd also allow a passionate plea from a player to change one or both.
No Initiative skill? That's.. odd.. I guess it's just your Dex mod + 1/2 level?
Here's my secret hope: you get further skills equal to your Int mod, but they don't have to be class skills!
Die size increase with shuriken - I think that's the new 'you're good with weapon X' and might also work for 'you use a weapon bigger than the PHB one'. At least the Pit Fiend mace was d12 and he was large and perhaps good with it?
Sneak attack progression - my inner modron hates that it doesn't scale 2d6/4d6/6d6!!!
Isn't it obvious that the [W] entry for all these attacks is the printing code for the sword-symbol from the miniatures stat cards?
Piercing strike does seem too good. But it won't be. Perhaps AC is not just Reflex + Bonus after all? Perhaps AC represents a non-dodging defence. Defences currently scale from 10 + stat to 25 + stat, so why not have the best armour reach that at top level? Full Plate + 5 is AC 25 + Dex? Str? I mean, unless they heavily scale down Armour Bonus anyway, won't AC values be through the roof?
Crimson Edge has a 'Miss' entry - which I guess is like the 'you saved against my fireball' of 3E. So Fireball will probably read something like 'Fire blasts area X. Int vs. Reflex for ? + Int damage. Miss: Half damage.'


----------



## The Little Raven

epochrpg said:
			
		

> My Rogue/Master Thrower/Thief Acrobat in a 3.5 campaign has 0 ranks in Open Lock, Move Silently, Hide, or Disable Device.  Jump, Tumble, Balance, Use Rope, got the most attention.  The character is a tough sailor whose main weapon is a Harpoon, and cutlass for boarding actions.  The Thief Acrobat stuff is so he can run around up in the rigging, swing down onto the deck, etc.  So I guess he cannot be a rogue in 4e-- since he doesn't have "thievery" or "stealth".




If the only skills you worried about were Jump, Tumble, Balance, and Use Rope, then you're in luck, because Jump is in Athletics, Tumble and Balance are in Acrobatics, and Use Rope is either subsumed into other skills or an ability score check (so it's still possible). So, your guy will need Athletics and Acrobatics to cover those bases... and with a free Thievery and Stealth, he's got more stuff to do now... with two more skills to choose, for even more stuff to do. A couple feats in the right place (Weapon Proficiencies; no different than 3e, since harpoon and cutlass is not on the rogue list), and he's what he was before AND more.


----------



## hong

Piercing strike might or might not be too good depending on what the other classes get. Eg, if fighters get an at-will +Nd6 damage attack 1/round, that would be roughly comparable to what the rogue gets. It all depends on what combat style you prefer.


----------



## hong

Also, the reaction to piercing strike seems to be based on how touch attacks work in 3E, where 1) touch AC is often way lower than regular AC; and 2) Power Attack lets you convert that difference into insane damage.

Both of these are unlikely to remain the same in 4E. The equivalent of touch AC is Reflex, which scales with level. I will also bet money that PA will be limited to a specific subset of weapons, which is disjoint with the set that you can piercing strike with. This is based on experience with IH, where sneak attack is limited to "finesse weapons" and Power Attack limited to "power weapons".


----------



## nerfherder

Moridin said:
			
		

> I don't think I'm going to get in trouble for posting this, but back about a year ago the rules didn't have suggested builds. Each class' powers were just laid out for them. While players might have discovered builds "organically," it actually ended up being extremely overwhelming when creating a character. Not just for new players, but for veteran game designers and editors. I remember sitting down to create a rogue and thinking, "Man, what powers should I pick?"



Sounds like me trying to create a Champions character!

I like the suggested builds, and I like the Talent trees in SWSE.  It helps me overcome my natural indecisiveness.


----------



## frankthedm

hong said:
			
		

> Both of these are unlikely to remain the same in 4E. The equivalent of touch AC is Reflex, which scales with level. I will also bet money that PA will be limited to a specific subset of weapons, which is disjoint with the set that you can piercing strike with. This is based on experience with IH, where sneak attack is limited to "finesse weapons" and Power Attack limited to "power weapons".



IF power attack is even 'in' 4e. Given what has been shown of 4E, the unquantifiable damage of a sliding scale power attack does not seem like something that will get in.


----------



## Sammael

Didn't one of the designers confirm Power Attack in 4E? It will be a fighter power, and deal +1d6 damage or something...


----------



## frankthedm

Sammael said:
			
		

> Didn't one of the designers confirm Power Attack in 4E? It will be a fighter power, and deal +1d6 damage or something...



But could the fighter keep taking the penalty over and over for another bonus die? That's the open ended-ness I do not think wotc will let in.


----------



## Klaus

> *Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword*




Hello, ninja.


----------



## WhatGravitas

hong said:
			
		

> Both of these are unlikely to remain the same in 4E. The equivalent of touch AC is Reflex, which scales with level. I will also bet money that PA will be limited to a specific subset of weapons, which is disjoint with the set that you can piercing strike with. This is based on experience with IH, where sneak attack is limited to "finesse weapons" and Power Attack limited to "power weapons".



Not only that - the power is only truly useful against heavily armoured opponents. And if an opponent is heavily armoured, it's probably very defender-like. Which means lots of HP, which makes it hard to kill in the first place, so you gonna need it!

Additionally, a defender may whack you back very hard, so a power allowing you to move around (in-and-out of the defender's reach) may be more helpful - with Deft Strike, you can make a poor man's Spring attack, with Piercing Strike, you either stand close to the defender or only attack every other round.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## fnwc

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I can only make conjecture based upon the available evidence.




Definitions of  conjecture on the Web:

* speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome ...
* guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
* reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence
* speculate: to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds; "Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps"


----------



## AllisterH

Some comments.

1. I don't think the Healing surge line indicates how many times you can use it per (encounter/day) but how many HP you get back as another poster mentioned. Reason why I suspect this is that we are still thinking 3.x with regard to the word MODIFIER.

Look at the monster examples and the "modifier" next to the actual ability score always has the half-level already included in. You no longer seem to actually NEED the ability score modifier a la 3.x. Thu's the actual 4E ability modifier formula is

Thus, Modifer = (Actual Ability Score - 10)/2 + (0.5*level)

Healing Surge, I'm willing to bet, is either once a day or once per encounter and they're are abilites/talents/feats/powers that grant you another healing surge.


2. Similarly, I don't think Weapon proficiencies mean the same thing as they did in previous editions. Remember, they talked about how Weapon Choice is more interesting/fun? I suspect weapons are stated more along the lines of *Positioning Strike  * where everyone can use the weapon but if you are proficient with it, you have more options.

As well, since we know that they retooled the math, as another poster mentioned, I suspect that being proficient in a weapon only grants a bonus to hit. Thus, a 10th level rogue has a +5 BAB with ALL weapons and a (+1 or +2, +5 is way to high on the math end IMHO) bonus when using a weapon that she is proficient in.

I think the same thing probably applies to the Armour proficiency as well.


----------



## Mentat55

epochrpg said:
			
		

> My Rogue/Master Thrower/Thief Acrobat in a 3.5 campaign has 0 ranks in Open Lock, Move Silently, Hide, or Disable Device.  Jump, Tumble, Balance, Use Rope, got the most attention.  The character is a tough sailor whose main weapon is a Harpoon, and cutlass for boarding actions.  The Thief Acrobat stuff is so he can run around up in the rigging, swing down onto the deck, etc.  So I guess he cannot be a rogue in 4e-- since he doesn't have "thievery" or "stealth".




I dunno, seems like he could be a 4E rogue - you take Acrobatics and Athletics as 2 of your 4 trained skills, Thievery may or may not include Use Rope functionality, it is unknown.  Yes, you have skills that you don't have in 3.5E automatically, but it doesn't mean you have to use them -- depending on how you view it, they are either (1) bonus choices, so they are gravy, since you already get to choose 4 skills, or (2) you have 6 skills, but 2 are forced on you.  As Obi-Wan said, "from a certain point of view."  Plenty of precedent for ignoring class features to fulfill a character design -- see high Dex, Weapon Finesse-based fighters that eschew medium/heavy armor and shields.  You yourself chose to not take Disable Device, thus making your trapfinding ability useless.  I think that is a perfectly reasonable choice, one I make all the time in characters.  

You can take the rogue utility power Tumble and get your acrobatics on.  

Re: the cutlass and harpoon, presumably you need to spend feat(s) to get them, but you had to do so in 3.5E as well for the rogue -- harpoon is exotic, and the cutlass is martial (going by _Stormwrack_).  And the cutlass was a light slashing weapon in 3.5E, so it stands to reason that it or whatever weapon stands in for a cutlass in 4E is usable with any rogue power that calls for a light blade.  The harpoon does not work with sneak attack or any of the listed rogue powers, so you'd be giving up something there.

EDIT: Mourn already covered most of my salient points, and much more succinctly, too.


----------



## Falling Icicle

I like the fixed hit points, special abilities and the new sneak attack. I don't like the very limited weapon choices. It would be nice to have the option to play something other than a ninja.


----------



## hong

One thing that seems to have slipped below the radar amidst the angst about skills, piercing strike and whatnot, is that Tumble is now a per-encounter ability. Hmm.


----------



## hazel monday

No more random hit points. Truly this a day that will live in infamy. D&D just became a little more sterile and a little less fun.


Oh well, at least I like the more limited weapon prof. and skill lists. The more limits that are placed on player's characters the more 4E seems like 1E to me. And that's a good thing from my perspective.


----------



## Primal

hong said:
			
		

> One thing that seems to have slipped below the radar amidst the angst about skills, piercing strike and whatnot, is that Tumble is now a per-encounter ability. Hmm.




My honest guess is that that is due to Acrobatics replacing Tumble as a skill. In 4E Tumble probably enables you to do what you could in 3E with Spring Attack.


----------



## Primal

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Sounds a bit like, asia bad, occident good again. >>
> 
> Not really, if we don't see the rules.
> 
> But it can really screw things at random. And no, it don't removes excitement.




To some it does and to some it doesn't. It removes a lot of the excitement for me. I'd compare this to removing other "random" factors from the game -- I feel that by removing them you also remove some of the sense of threat and danger in the game. Traps that are no longer "unfair"? Hey, I don't have to worry about dashing through every corridor anymore. Undead no longer being able to use "Energy Drain"? Bring them on, 'coz they are just another funny pile of HPs (and XP) that you can slay as easily as any other monster. 

And if it's just about "staying power" or that you feel a PC with low HPs (due to bad rolls) becomes "unplayable", why don't we just all houserule that all PC classes get +10 HP/level and the monsters only +5/level. That would probably adjust the "danger curve" so that the PCs have to rely less on healing, but it'd also remove a lot of the threat of dying. IMO this would translate to PCs becoming way more reckless in the game -- why care about stealth or being careful, ever, if you have twice the HPs (plus all those new Self-Healing and whatnot 'Leader' abilities) the monsters have?


----------



## Primal

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Shoulda been gladius.




Nah, that smacks of Romans too much, and Rome is not cool! Anything Oriental and Spartan... now that's cool!


----------



## Derren

The rogue looks more or less ok, but there are some things I am not happy about.

1. Reduced weapons list. Rogues where never known for their many weapon profiencies but this is a very short list.

2. It requires a class ability to get an advantage when you surprise the enemy/act before them in combat? That doesn't seem right.

3. Where is the acrobatic rogue? Didn't he have enough combat application?

4. I think its not a good idea to allow a class to ignore armor at will.

5. Assuming that rogues are still the "skill monkeys" it seems that for some classes it can become quite hard in becoming trained in skills which are not on their class skill list (when they get less than the 4 free picks the rogue has). Isn't that the 3E fighter skill problem redux?



			
				Mentat55 said:
			
		

> I dunno, seems like he could be a 4E rogue - you take Acrobatics and Athletics as 2 of your 4 trained skills, Thievery may or may not include Use Rope functionality, it is unknown. Yes, you have skills that you don't have in 3.5E automatically, but it doesn't mean you have to use them --




Yes, thats a problem with SAGA skills. You can't choose to be not good at something. You can of course simply not use the skills you don't want to have but this is a inelegant solution.


----------



## Primal

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Yeah really when it comes to skills, those are only the class skills for all we know there could be 200 other skill (obvious exaggeration but the point holds).




I hope so. I mean, you only get to pick 6 out of ten choices? Sheesh. I feel It'd be boring if almost every Rogue has pretty much the same skill selection -- not to mention the same skill modifiers, to boot! So my 10th level Elven Rogue with Dex 18 and another 10th level Human Rogue with Dex 18 would be mechanically equal (+5 from the skill, +5 from your level, and +4 from Dex = +14) at every level, unless you burn a Talent/Feat to "specialize" for another +5. It may remove the "headache" of spending your Skill Ranks (and prevent you from burning them on "non-heroic" skills) but I hope I'm missing something here, because I don't want all Rogues becoming mechanically sort of like clones.


----------



## Primal

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well maybe not in the 4e core world. But that doesn't mean another setting can't, hell if that was the case then places like Calimport in Forgotten Realms would cease to exist.




Now that you mention it, I think I've read somewhere that the FR Designers intentionally "blew up" the FR countries that have direct cultural ties to RW, such as the Old Empires. Most likely they are going to get rid of Calimshan, too.


----------



## Primal

scrubkai said:
			
		

> Lets see...
> My 1978 PHB has Monks, Bo Sticks, Jo Sticks and Scimitars all of which are distinctly non-european. (Not to mention way too many french pole arms.)
> 
> So to me I don't see shuriken as being odd at all for D&D.  It's always been an odd mixed bag of cultures thrown together for a game.




Uh, "french pole arms" *are* European, right? If you meant that you were annoyed by their names being in french, I *think* (I'm not an expert on medieval weaponry) most pole arms don't have any corresponding names in english.


----------



## hong

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, thats a problem with SAGA skills. You can't choose to be not good at something. You can of course simply not use the skills you don't want to have but this is a inelegant solution.




It is a much more elegant solution than not choosing to be not good at something.


----------



## Derren

hong said:
			
		

> It is a much more elegant solution than not choosing to be not good at something.




No one can do everything, which is also a core concept in D&D and also "realistic" from a role playing standpoint. Don't make D&D PCs cape wearing superheroes by default.


----------



## Mostlyjoe

I'm happy with this mechanic. My 'math' happiness continues.


----------



## hong

Derren said:
			
		

> No one can do everything, which is also a core concept in D&D and also "realistic" from a role playing standpoint.




The difference between "good" and "great" will be there, even if not necessarily represented as flat numeric bonuses. The ability to reroll 1/day or use a skill in combat in a class-specific way are all ways that serve to differentiate between the former and the latter. That some people still choose to fixate on flat numeric bonuses indicates a lack of imagination.



> Don't make D&D PCs cape wearing superheroes by default.




Who said anything about capes?


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Primal said:
			
		

> And two characters with the same Con and level have *exactly* the same amount of HPs, unless one of them has Toughness or similar Feats/Talents.



True, but after each takes, say, three attacks from a longsword, they'll no longer have the same hit points, right?  (Most likely.)

There's really no need to randomize both "damage taking" and "damage dealt."  In fact, if you randomize both, you increase the effect of bad luck, which as we all know by now disproportionately affects PCs.  So you randomize only weapon/spell damage, because that makes things more uncertain in combat, thus adding excitement.  And if you get unlucky in the "HP and damage" department, it's only for one encounter, not for the entire life of the character.

Static HP is clearly a change for the better, IMO.


----------



## hong

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Static HP is clearly a change for the better, IMO.




Someone should have told that to Carly Fiorina.


Hong "only Bradd Szszszonye will get this joke" Ooi


----------



## Hjorimir

I absolutely love what I'm seeing in this article. My only real complaint is that they should have called the class Thief in lieu of Rogue.

I'm completely stoked about the lower damage we're seeing. If the rogue, as a striker, is only adding +2d6/3d6/5d6 most other classes will be doing even less (if I understand what the striker role is about).

I personally hope that if 2[W] means double weapon damage it is just that; double the weapon damage but not the other modifiers. When we were playing 1e - back in the day - rolling max damage on your attack was huge. The bonuses in 3e completely overshadow the importance of the die (at least in my opinion) and that just rubs me wrong for some dumb reason.

As for the skills, I'm happy that all thieves...err, rogues...has Stealth and Thievery. Having a rogue who can't help with locked doors, sneaking, and traps is like having clerics who can't heal. I can't count the number of times we've come to a locked door or trap situation and turned to the rogue looking for help only to be told that they had none of those skills.

"Okay, Mr. Fighter, you got the most HPs...good luck...the rest of us will be back here out of harms way rooting for you to leave enough of a corpse behind for a raise dead spell."


----------



## Anax

hong said:
			
		

> Someone should have told that to Carly Fiorina.




*wince*



On the "Artful Dodger" with "Positioning Strike" being able to more easily move a giant than a wizard, from way way back in the thread: Actually, that makes a lot of sense.  This ability is a kind of bluffing ability, not a shoving ability.  You're drawing the enemy off balance and causing them to stumble in a direction you choose.  A wiser opponent will notice that something is amiss and not be drawn off balance to the same degree.


On the power of "Piercing Strike": A number of people have noted that because Reflex defense is not going to be as atrophied in most characters as Touch AC was in 3E, this is less powerful than it might otherwise seem.  Someone else pointed out that if Power Attack cannot be used with Piercing Strike for some reason, that removes an additional big chunk of power.  I would suggest that one reason Power Attack might not be usable at the same time as Piercing Strike is that it may be a power rather than a feat.

Even if it's not, the most likely explanation for why Piercing Strike won't be used *all the time* is that if you choose to use Piercing Strike, you can't use any other powers that round.  This is a *first level* power.  Chances are pretty good that you'll soon have much better things to do with your time instead of searching for a chink in your enemy's armor... at least until you come up against an enemy who's really heavily armored.    Which makes it a good interesting ability, really.  


Edit to add an additional thought: It's interesting to note that Stealth and Thievery are listed as both automatic and in the list of class skills.  This fits very well with the idea that you extend your list of class skills when you cross-class, but you do not gain automatic skills.  A fighter who takes rogue levels will be able to use feats to gain access to these skills, but every rogue has them.  That makes a lot of sense on the "what class you are sets the foundation of your character" side of things.  Every rogue knows Stealth (how to move quickly, quietly, and unseen) and Thievery (how to palm something, how to maneuver around a place guarded by devices), and how to fight well with light sneaky weapons.  A fighter who's cross-trained knows some of these things as well, but not all of them.  He's still a fighter, not a rogue.  Likewise, a rogue who's cross-trained as a fighter knows some of the things a fighter knows, but not all of them.  He's still a rogue, not a fighter.

I'm looking forward to seeing how to build certain types of characters—I think Wizards probably has a pretty good idea that the fast smart fighter was a popular idea in 3E (although non-optimal mechanically), and I can't imagine they'd turn their back on that.  I think that there will be some real trade-offs now depending on how you build that—starting from a base of a level of Rogue for the skills will no longer be a no-brainer—and that's definitely a good thing.  My hope is that from a base of Rogue you'll be able to build a rogue that has more flexible head-on combat by multiclassing into fighter (but is still at heart a rogue), and that from a base of Fighter you'll be able to build a fighter that has more flexible sneaky combat by multiclassing into rogue.

We'll see, in the not too terribly distant future.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Hmmm.  Interesting.  Not convincing, but interesting.  Nice to see some concentrated crunch for a change after months of waiting.  Of course, all of this is out of context, so we don't really know what it all means.  For example: combat advantage includes flanking, flat-footed, what else?  Thievery skill encompasses what abilities?

I like the fact that powers are clearly defined and there are options there.  But I'm disappointed about what appears to be the lack of other customization options:

1.  Fixed skills.  Why Stealth + Thievery + Pick 4 ... why not Pick 6 to allow some character creation flexibilty.  Depending on what's in Thievery ... whya are all rogues automatically thieves? And no impact of Int on skill choice?  Unless we aren't see that ... but I'd certainly like to have the ability to build a skillful rogue base on high Int.

2.  Fixed hit points.  Though I personally like this, I hope there is an optional rule that allows for rolling hit points at each level.

3.  Weapon list.  Seems too short (where's the short bow? club? sap?).  And I dislike "shuriken" ... rather see "throwing knife" with "throwing knife being a category that include all sorts of thrown stabby things.  But again, no context.  Perhaps there is a "simple" weapon list that all characters can use that include things like clubs & maces.

What we really need to see is how the interaction of feats works with characters.  We know/suspect that characters gain feats every other level (roughly), and that feats are now geared more toward utility while the powers are the combat skills.  So it may be that there are enough feats that the way to get more skills, weapon, or armor choices is to simply use a feat.

And I'm wondering about TWF, too ... I really like TWF rogues, though the change of sneak attack to once per round would appear to completely nerf the utility of the TWF rogue.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> There's really no need to randomize both "damage taking" and "damage dealt."  In fact, if you randomize both, you increase the effect of bad luck, which as we all know by now disproportionately affects PCs.  So you randomize only weapon/spell damage, because that makes things more uncertain in combat, thus adding excitement.  And if you get unlucky in the "HP and damage" department, it's only for one encounter, not for the entire life of the character.



Additionally, healing is perhaps random as well. If we read the healing surges as available healing surges per day/whatever (because of the plural of "surges"), and the amount healed is partially random, we already have sort of random hit points - rolling hit points as well, would double the potential to screw a character ("poor rogue, rolled 1s on his level HD, and needs more healing and now he also rolls 1s on his healing!").

Cheers, LT.


----------



## FireLance

Derren said:
			
		

> 2. It requires a class ability to get an advantage when you surprise the enemy/act before them in combat? That doesn't seem right.



I think you still grant combat advantage if you're surprised. However, if you are not surprised, you no longer grant combat advantage to those who act before you in combat, except for rogues, who are specially trained to take advantage of that.


----------



## AllisterH

Derren said:
			
		

> No one can do everything, which is also a core concept in D&D and also "realistic" from a role playing standpoint. Don't make D&D PCs cape wearing superheroes by default.




It really depends on what the skills are and what they represent. If skills represent the type of things a typical adventurer will do across their life, then yes, at 20th level, an adventurer should be better than he was at 1st level in all those skills. 

Going through the 3.x skill list, the only skills that I can see an adventurer not naturally getting better at would be the Craft and Profession skills and maybe, Swim. But the others though? Definitely should be better. Hell, take Appraise for example and use a barbarian (a class that doesn't have it on its skill list and one that at first glance seems not likely to have any skill with it). 

However, do you think Conan just before he became King wouldn't have seen/handled/examined more gems/diamonds/rubies/paintings/sculptures than a master appraiser or at the least, less likely to be taken in by a shady black market fencer when he tries to hock a blood red ruby he just stole than if he tried the same thing when he first left Cimmeria as a youth?

What I think 3.x did was have both "adventurer skills" and non-adventurer skills lumped under the same "silo".

What I think might happen in 4E (I hope) is that we will see the reintroduction of the secondary skills from 2E or at the least, a siloing of Craft/Profession into "background/hobby/apprenticeship" and THAT might use the 3E skill system.


----------



## shilsen

Derren said:
			
		

> No one can do everything, which is also a core concept in D&D and also "realistic" from a role playing standpoint. Don't make D&D PCs cape wearing superheroes by default.



 Too late. D&D PCs in 3e certainly are very akin to superheroes, and I'd argue that they always have been, to a significant extent. Or mythological hero, for that matter, which is pretty close to superhero. And I'll be damn glad if 4e just explicitly recognizes that and runs with it.


----------



## Knight Otu

Archangel_Zer0 said:
			
		

> I'm definitely hoping this is simply an incomplete preview, simply for the fact that some terms need defining, and without the complete set of character creation rules set along with this, makes it hard to descern what's truly in and what's actually out.



Well, the article does call this preview the "opening spread for the rogue class," so I think it is save to say that it is in some ways incomplete, but probably not in the way people may hope it is (I suspect much of the fluff is not part of the preview, but most crunch is part of it).


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Judging from the new DDM rules, you'll gain Combat Advantage in the same situations as, in 3.5, you'd be able to sneak attack.  Flanking, invisible, opponent denied Dex to AC, and so on.  There may be other situations that provide it as well ... higher ground, for instance.  (That one, in particular, would fit well with the new "mobile combat" 4E is stressing.)

The big difference seems to be that Combat Advantage is a binary state: you either have it (and gain a bonus to hit and ancillary effects (like sneak attack)) or you don't.  No more "+2 for flanking, +2 for invisibility;" it's just "+2 for Combat Advantage."

I imagine that there will be spells and character abilities (aside from _invisibility_ the obvious tactical maneuvering) that will give Combat Advantage and/or provide it to other characters.


----------



## Cam Banks

I'm a huge fan of static hit points.

I've often said that there's plenty of randomness in the game itself, there's no need to make your character random either. That's why I like point buy ability scores and fixed hit points.

I never rolled hit points for the monsters in 3rd edition, either. I just don't think it's as big a deal or adds anywhere near the kind of flavor (or "realism") as folks claim it does. Certainly not as much as the other elements of the game do.

Overall, I really like this preview. I cringe at the use of "builds" (despite my preference for point buy characters) and I really, really hope none of the other classes has "gish" as a suggested "build option."

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Sitara

Sweeet crunchiness. Can't wait to se other classes now. I like how classes are not TOTALLY generic, like they are in saga. ANyhow, will follow up with a more indepth analysis later.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> So apart from the devs intruding overmuch on character creation... I think I largely like the mechanics.  I am intrigued by the possibility (with class training) of doing a Vlad Taltos type character, and I don't even think I have to ignore anything to do it.  Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to do a club wielding street thug with no training in stealth or locks & traps, and that does bother me.  Especially with brutality being a class subrole...




I think the fighter class will allow you to make a club weilding thug. Otoh if you want a knife-weilding burglar, rogues your guy. Justr a matter of paradigm shift really.


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale

I have experienced an epiphany with regards to shuriken.

I think that we are not placing them correctly. When going through the list of rogue powers I notice that they have not once mentioned shuriken on their own. Since I am certain they have not excluded them from their design of the class powers I conjecture that the weapon is actually rolled into the light bladed weapon category. 

I would go so far as to say that it is possible that it has such a short range that it can be considered melee perhaps with reach. Usable for AoO's etc.

I cannot see them having shuriken in the class write up but not include them in the sneak attack section - since they are not crossbows nor a sling this leaves only small bladed weapons which in essence they are.


----------



## Doug McCrae

frankthedm said:
			
		

> IF power attack is even 'in' 4e. Given what has been shown of 4E, the unquantifiable damage of a sliding scale power attack does not seem like something that will get in.



Yes, damage seems *much* more controlled than it was in 3e.


----------



## ferratus

I think the biggest thing people who are saying "there are not enough options for the class" or assume that large chunks of the class description are missing are thinking in terms of a 3e mindset.  In 3e (and prior editions as well) the class was the primary way the character was defined.  That's why we had such a proliferation of kits, prestige classes, substitution levels and alternative class features, and not many new character races.  Heck, there weren't even as many feats as we expected.

I think there are more rogue powers than what we currently see, but otherwise I'm sure that what you see is pretty much what you get.  The limited weapons list, the limited skill list, and the smaller sneak attack is probably indicative of the class being about a 1/3 of the character's abilities and powers, rather than the 70-80% it was in 3e.

So here are my guesses for how it will go down.   We've been told that a elven fighter will play significantly different from a dwarven one right?  It seems that weapon lists will be part of that, judging by the elf racial entry which not only got proficiency in bows, but gets an "elven accuracy" ability as an encounter power.  Thus, if you want to play a rogue good with a shortbow playing an elf is probably your best bet.   

I also think feats will be a bigger part of the equation as well.  I would be very surprised if a fighter can take wizard training and trapfinding, but a rogue can't take abilities which train him in other weapons in the list.  I imagine training in the rapier and shield buckler will hopefully provide enough mechanical benefits to make it worthwhile.  The rapier was a shortsword with a higher crit range in 3e, so I imagine that the rapier in 4e will help with precise strikes and parrying.  They've also already said that shields are going to be better than a flat +1-3 to AC, so we'll have to wait and see about that.

I am also sure you could also use your  with a shortbow, but I imagine that it will always be difficult to be equal to an elf in archery.

I also imagine that feats and powers will allow you to add to class abilities.  For example, I don't think all rogues will sneak attack equally.  I imagine if you spend feats or powers to be a good swashbuckler, you'll still be doing +2d6 sneak attack at 10th level.   If you take feats or powers to make you a dirty rotten cheater, I imagine sneak attack will get a lot more interesting.

Oh, as a final note on the avoid armour class by targeting a defender's reflex save... yeah I can see that being annoying to a defender.   But I also fully expect that defenders are the guys rogues want to annoy with stabbing the least.  That's probably why Mouseferatu doesn't use it very often.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Derren said:
			
		

> No one can do everything, *except wizards.*



FIFY


----------



## Primal

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> True, but after each takes, say, three attacks from a longsword, they'll no longer have the same hit points, right?  (Most likely.)
> 
> There's really no need to randomize both "damage taking" and "damage dealt."  In fact, if you randomize both, you increase the effect of bad luck, which as we all know by now disproportionately affects PCs.  So you randomize only weapon/spell damage, because that makes things more uncertain in combat, thus adding excitement.  And if you get unlucky in the "HP and damage" department, it's only for one encounter, not for the entire life of the character.
> 
> Static HP is clearly a change for the better, IMO.




I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that PCs with less-than-average HPs are mechanically weaker in combat and this needs to balanced in some way (e.g. by giving monsters less than average HPs). Just as DMs usually use tougher variants for monsters against a more "effective" party (i.e. a party that has "combat-maximized" builds or powerful magical items). 

My favourite PC of all time was a (AD&D) half-elven 8th level fighter with 39 HPs (including +2 HPs/level for Con). It didn't make him "unplayable" or "unlucky", because his foes had lower-than-average HPs, too. And I never felt that he'd have been *more fun* to play just because he'd have doubled his HPs. 

IMO All this reducing of "randomness" will probably increase *meta-gaming* a lot during play.  For example, you can pretty guesstimate any NPC BBEG's HPs, and everyone just chooses their actions accordingly. A concrete example:

Player 1 (Warlord): "So this Elven Wizard holds an Orb but does not have any rings on his hands? Alright, he's probably 10th level in that case... he's got 50-60 HPs, assuming Con 14."
Player 2 (Wizards): "Yeah, and since it's an orb, we can expect Acid and Lightning... so I'm using my Fireblast ability at first round to dish out 25-30 points. Can you deal with the rest? Rogue?"
Player 3 (Rogue): "My First Strike ability combined with Precise Strike and Sneak Attack will dish out about 25 damage and since it's a Wizard, it's against his Ref defense... yeah, 25 from me."
Player 4 (Fighter): "I'll use my Bulwark of Defense to bolster your Defenses and it'll make him target me anyway, so no worries! Warlord, scream that 'Shaft yon beas... er, wizard... for me!' and you get all extra attacks just in case!"
Player 1 (Warlord): "Hell yeah! So we can take him out on round 1? Kewl beans..."
DM: "Alright, roll for initiative!"


----------



## hong

Primal said:
			
		

> I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that




Every time someone replies to "this rule doesn't work" with "but the DM can do..." or "but the DM can change...", GOD KILLS A KITTEN.

Please, think of the kittens.


----------



## ferratus

Primal said:
			
		

> I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that PCs with less-than-average HPs are mechanically weaker in combat and this needs to balanced in some way (e.g. by giving monsters less than average HPs).




Which leads to the exact same gameplay experience as having standardized hit points.  Why not just have standardized hit points and save yourself a lot of paperwork?

Plus, if you have a player who has had several bad rolls of the dice, and the rest of the party has had average rolls what do you do?  Direct the enemies away from the weak one?  I introduced a second wind mechanic to a one-shot 3.5 game and it was the best decision I made.  I could actually attack the wizard with a melee-based monster and take a good chunk out of her without shattering wizard like glass.   It still hurt (and it contributed to her not surviving to the end of the combat) but it allowed the players to react in time to pull her away from that monster.   I hope 4e, unlike 3e, can have all players handle aggro for a round or two, and standardized hit points will do a lot to help that.



> Player 1 (Warlord): "So this Elven Wizard holds an Orb but does not have any rings on his hands? Alright, he's probably 10th level in that case... he's got 50-60 HPs, assuming Con 14."
> .....
> Player 1 (Warlord): "Hell yeah! So we can take him out on round 1? Kewl beans..."
> DM: "Alright, roll for initiative!"




That doesn't happen in 3e?  That pretty much describes most conversations before a fight begins in the campaigns I play and DM...


----------



## Lizard

Primal said:
			
		

> Alright, seriously, I was disappointed -- it seems that while combat may have fewer *rolls*, it's become a *LOT* more complex and tactical in nature.




And here, it's the first thing that's really gotten me excited. I love RPing and storytelling and plot, but plot is about conflict, and if conflict resolution is too simple/boring, then, the game as awhole fails for me. I like crunch. Lots and lots of crunch. If there's a simple underlying system, bot lots of options which really matter, without a single obvious 'best choice' round after round...sign me up. The sign a game is boring is when combat consists of a lot of 'I do what I did last round'.


----------



## Lizard

tombowings said:
			
		

> This is one of the first things about 4e I really don't like. Mainly the skills. I thought (hoped) that we were getting rid of class skills. Also, all the skills I never take seem to make up the rogues class skill list. As least Bluff is there, but what happened to Diplomacy? What happened to Gather Information?




Streetwise, I guess.


----------



## Sitara

I wonder how crimson edge stacks up agains dragon's tail CUT!!!

Oh and what was the ability the rogue used in Rodney's traps article/blog?? Obviously it included a slide effect.


----------



## Hussar

> IMO All this reducing of "randomness" will probably increase *meta-gaming* a lot during play. For example, you can pretty guesstimate any NPC BBEG's HPs, and everyone just chooses their actions accordingly. A concrete example:




Is this different from 3e where bad guy HP's are stated in the Monster Manual?

Or, could this possibly be another example where monster design and PC design might be different?


----------



## Lizard

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> Why is everybody jumping out of the roof!
> 
> I mean, at first, everybody was like: Oh Cool!
> 
> And now: What are they doing to skills? Grrrrr!!!




Hey, I was BOTH. And skills are what started me on the long, rocky, path to whiny grognardism -- SWSE scared me. Scared me like seeing Tammy Faye Bakker naked.


----------



## Mercule

Without reading the whole 10 pages, my thoughts are:

I think it's fair to say that I'm less than impressed by this particular preview. I'm a rogue-oriented player and I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for this class.

I'm holding out hope that the un-abridged version will be a lot more interesting, though.


----------



## Lizard

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I'm guessing it lets you use your sneak attack on AoOs when foes leave your threatened area. That's the only way someone gives up their back without facing.




Or adds a die to SA damage, which is currently a bit lower than I'd expect. I think we're going to see many "Does more stabbity!" type feats/talents/power.

Though I'd kind of like SA to be lower damage than 3e overall, since they're made it much easier to do.


----------



## Sitara

I hope Katana'z are added to the weapon list at the last minute! (for how else will we play ninja's!)


----------



## Piratecat

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Seeing this just reinforces my opinion that 4e is not my D&D.



Then why in goodness' name are you in this thread? Stop threadcrapping, please. Shoo! Shoo!


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> Or adds a die to SA damage, which is currently a bit lower than I'd expect. I think we're going to see many "Does more stabbity!" type feats/talents/power.
> 
> Though I'd kind of like SA to be lower damage than 3e overall, since they're made it much easier to do.



 Er, it IS lower damage than 3E overall. It scales to a max of +5d6 from 21st level, and it only applies once per round. That's positively nerfed!


----------



## drothgery

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, thats a problem with SAGA skills. You can't choose to be not good at something. You can of course simply not use the skills you don't want to have but this is a inelegant solution.




As I (and others) said over and over again when SAGA skills were being discussed a lot here, you can't choose to completely suck at something at high levels. A first level character's modifiers with untrained skills in SWSE are exactly the same as they are in D&D3.x or SW RCR; it's just ability modifier. It's not until 10th level that the bonus to skill checks from being high level equals the bonus from training. And most SWSE skills have uses that can't be done untrained.

FWIW, it looks like 4e skills are slightly more fine-grained than SWSE skills.


----------



## drothgery

Also, a few random guesses here...

I'm going to guess that the 4e equivalent of the trapfinding ability is simply being trained in Thievery... and that the 4e equivalent of Track is simply being trained in Survival (the latter is exactly how it works in SWSE); since I always thought the 'you need this feat/class ability to really use this skill' mechanics were lame, I'm tenatively calling this a Good Thing

I'm going to take a really wild guess and say that you do get Int modifier bonus trained skills (and humans gets their one extra)... and that you can choose any skill with them, not just skills on your class skill list. This doesn't show up in the 'rogue' section because it's in the 'Intelligence' section and the 'human' section.

Guess number three is that initiative was probably a skill as late as last summer... and then they saw that nearly 100% of SWSE characters were trained in initiative, and so got rid of a skill tax on every character.


----------



## Ingolf

I apologize if this has been pointed out already, it's a long thread & I am packing for vacation, but -

With regards to the "Short Weapons List" - I think this is just a function of the new critical hit mechanic. The only thing that differentiates the short sword and the rapier in 3.5 is the threat range (and off-hand use if you want to pick nits.)

If 4e crits are like Saga (perhaps not a safe assumption, but bear with me) then there is no longer any functional difference between a "Short sword" and a "Rapier" aside from flavor.


----------



## HeinorNY

drothgery said:
			
		

> And most SWSE skills have uses that can't be done untrained.



And that's an important characteristic of this skills system. Character are potentially good in all skills.


----------



## Lizard

Moridin said:
			
		

> I don't think I'm going to get in trouble for posting this, but back about a year ago the rules didn't have suggested builds. Each class' powers were just laid out for them. While players might have discovered builds "organically," it actually ended up being extremely overwhelming when creating a character. Not just for new players, but for veteran game designers and editors. I remember sitting down to create a rogue and thinking, "Man, what powers should I pick?"




See, to me, that's the point where I fall in love with a game. If I sit down to create a character and see so many options and possibilities that there's no way I can get everything I want the first time out, or where I can read the lists and see patterns and synergies ("Hey, if I take A, B, and C, I will be a primo ass-kicker...but oh, wait, if I swap D for C, then I can do THIS instead, and that's cool, too..."), then I know the game is for me (assuming the rest of the mechanics hold).

I also have real issues with 'builds' due to MMORPGs, and not in the sense of "Oh noes! WOTC copied WOW!", but in the sense of:
"Hey guys, I just rolled up a new rogue!"
"How is he specced?"
"Uh...Artful Dodger?"
"Can't use him. This module works better with a Brute."

If you're marketing 4e to current MMORPGers, they'll be bringing their mindset with them, and if the rules seem to cater to that mindset, it will infect tabletop play. Just my opinion, of course.



> Now, granted, D&D doesn't bunch things together in quite as small of groups as Saga Edition's talent trees...but you get the idea. It's one of those subtle bits of player psychology that doesn't become immediately obvious until playtesting comes around.




You've done the playtesting and I haven't, so, obviously, I can't say you're wrong...but it still bugs me. People are lazy, take the path of least resistance, and tend to view even the most lightly phrased rules suggestions as Ordainments From God. I really see a LOT of players deciding there's only two ways to play a rogue and that there's "wrong" choices which can be made, driven purely by optimization and not character concept.


----------



## McBard

Just a quick return to the "fixed HP" situation. 

The fixed 12 + Con score at 1st level is, yes, "fixed", but there's at least some variance in the Con score element. However, the 5 HP per level thereafter is extremely fixed: there's not even a "+Con modifier" or anything. 

For everyone who is happy with "fixed HPs" in general, are you happy with this extremely fixed amount in the per level progression? (outside of feat effects, of course). 

I'm pro-fixed HP, in general, but still not sure how I feel about the flat (no Con mod) HP per level.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> One thing that seems to have slipped below the radar amidst the angst about skills, piercing strike and whatnot, is that Tumble is now a per-encounter ability. Hmm.




This was discussed in R&C.

Sheesh, do only us hat3rz read the actual rules pre-releases?


----------



## hong

McBard said:
			
		

> Just a quick return to the "fixed HP" situation.
> 
> The fixed 12 + Con score at 1st level is, yes, "fixed", but there's at least some variance in the Con score element. However, the 5 HP per level thereafter is extremely fixed: there's not even a "+Con modifier" or anything.
> 
> For everyone who is happy with "fixed HPs" in general, are you happy with this extremely fixed amount in the per level progression? (outside of feat effects, of course).
> 
> I'm pro-fixed HP, in general, but still not sure how I feel about the flat (no Con mod) HP per level.



 Don't mind it at all. Having extreme variations in hit points between characters just made for too much of a gap between the tanks and the squishies.


----------



## chaotix42

Hey, does anyone else get an HTTP 500 - Internal server error when they try to view the article? : /


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> Every time someone replies to "this rule doesn't work" with "but the DM can do..." or "but the DM can change...", GOD KILLS A KITTEN.
> 
> Please, think of the kittens.




Since 99% of my criticisms of 4e have been answered with "Well, houserule it" or "The DM can just...", PETA needs to look into some of 4e's more ardent defenders.

"Names like 'Golden Wyvern Adept' are stupid and immersion-breaking!"
"The DM can change the name to whatever they want!"

"Building monsters with extra-special-powers no one else gets is a throwback to 1e!"
"The DM can use the class level system if he wants to!"

"The skill system is too stripped down!"
"You can add more skills!"

"Halflings are too tall!"
"The DM can make them shorter!"

Etc, etc, etc...


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> Er, it IS lower damage than 3E overall. It scales to a max of +5d6 from 21st level, and it only applies once per round. That's positively nerfed!




We haven't seen how many things modify/increase it. I don't doubt they'll be in there...

Once per round is interesting, but without iterative attacks, I'm not sure what this means. Do I need to decide to 'hold off' on SA if I think I might get an AOO?


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> Since 99% of my criticisms of 4e have been answered with "Well, houserule it" or "The DM can just...", PETA needs to look into some of 4e's more ardent defenders.
> 
> "Names like 'Golden Wyvern Adept' are stupid and immersion-breaking!"
> "The DM can change the name to whatever they want!"




The names are fine and evocative, nitpicking notwithstanding.



> "Building monsters with extra-special-powers no one else gets is a throwback to 1e!"
> "The DM can use the class level system if he wants to!"




Building monsters with monster-specific powers streamlines the system, and is an idea that the vast majority of people have no problems with judging from what's out there.



> "The skill system is too stripped down!"
> "You can add more skills!"




The skill system is designed to meet the purposes of the majority of those playing the game, ie, those going into dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff.



> "Halflings are too tall!"
> "The DM can make them shorter!"




Actually, I'll just ban them.


----------



## Lizard

ainatan said:
			
		

> And that's an important characteristic of this skills system. Character are potentially good in all skills.




IIRC, in SWSE, you can't choose to be Trained in a skill not on your class list, so you have to multiclass to be good at a skill you 'shouldn't' be good at.


----------



## shilsen

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Hey, does anyone else get an HTTP 500 - Internal server error when they try to view the article? : /



 Yes, I do.



			
				McBard said:
			
		

> Just a quick return to the "fixed HP" situation.
> 
> The fixed 12 + Con score at 1st level is, yes, "fixed", but there's at least some variance in the Con score element. However, the 5 HP per level thereafter is extremely fixed: there's not even a "+Con modifier" or anything.
> 
> For everyone who is happy with "fixed HPs" in general, are you happy with this extremely fixed amount in the per level progression? (outside of feat effects, of course).
> 
> I'm pro-fixed HP, in general, but still not sure how I feel about the flat (no Con mod) HP per level.




I have no problem with it whatsoever. As Jeff Wilder and others have noted already, the fact that damage caused will be variable and healing will be variable means there's more than enough randomness to what the fixed hit points mean when one gets into a fight.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> The names are fine and evocative, nitpicking notwithstanding.




So, if God kills a kitten every time someone says "The DM can fix it!", what does He do when someone says "That's not a bug! That's a FEATURE!"

Just to clarify, I wasn't interested in re-opening old debates, just in pointing out that 4e's defenders have killed as many kittens as 3e's defenders...


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, if God kills a kitten every time someone says "The DM can fix it!", what does He do when someone says "That's not a bug! That's a FEATURE!"




I smile indulgently and point out that life wasn't meant to be easy.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Primal said:
			
		

> I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that PCs with less-than-average HPs are mechanically weaker in combat and this needs to balanced in some way (e.g. by giving monsters less than average HPs). Just as DMs usually use tougher variants for monsters against a more "effective" party (i.e. a party that has "combat-maximized" builds or powerful magical items).
> 
> ...
> 
> IMO All this reducing of "randomness" will probably increase *meta-gaming* a lot during play.  For example, you can pretty guesstimate any NPC BBEG's HPs, and everyone just chooses their actions accordingly.



What hong and Hussar said plus:

Your DM's solution to the problem was crap. It throws the balance off for all the PCs that *didn't* roll low and makes a lot of extra work for him, changing every monster. A much better solution would be to only change your PC's hit points. Which is what WotC are doing with their new house rule.

Your argument about metagaming applies only to NPCs, not PCs. If you want mysterious opponents there are lots of tools to do that. The NPC could hold off on some of his higher level powers, lulling the PCs into a false sense of security. He could have feats such as toughness. He could have a template or buffs. Or you could roll for his hit points if you must.

There are two huge problems with rolling for PCs hit points:
1) Imbalance between PCs.
2) Tanks who can't do their job.

While there are some good reasons for rolling for stats - they tell you something about the character and thus act as a spur to the imagination - there are *no* good reasons to roll PC hit points. They are abstract so tell you nothing in game-world terms. From 3e onwards there is no problem with 'cookie cutter' PCs as there are so many other ways to distinguish between them such as feats.


----------



## Wormwood

Vayden said:
			
		

> Yep, this definitely not 3.75 - this is a whole new D&D. June 6th can't come soon enough.



Nothing I hate more than useless 'me too' posts. . . 

But me too.


----------



## Derren

ainatan said:
			
		

> And that's an important characteristic of this skills system. Character are potentially good in all skills.




Which poses its own kind of problem as it looks like that classes have a very narrow list of what they can become trained in. (People who own SW told me this is also true in SAGA).
So when you play a fighter you can never really be good at stealth because its not on your class list unless you spend feats for it (which could have been used for combat techniques)
Thats the same problem as in 3E.


----------



## Fifth Element

I, too, predicted some small part of how classes will work in 4E. I will therefore brag about it, all the while neglecting to mention the 37 things I was completely wrong about.


----------



## Ahglock

McBard said:
			
		

> Just a quick return to the "fixed HP" situation.
> 
> The fixed 12 + Con score at 1st level is, yes, "fixed", but there's at least some variance in the Con score element. However, the 5 HP per level thereafter is extremely fixed: there's not even a "+Con modifier" or anything.
> 
> For everyone who is happy with "fixed HPs" in general, are you happy with this extremely fixed amount in the per level progression? (outside of feat effects, of course).
> 
> I'm pro-fixed HP, in general, but still not sure how I feel about the flat (no Con mod) HP per level.





If con doesn't help in HP per level I think it is lame.  But like Int bonus not adding to skills, it may be something that is described under the attribute and just not rehashed in every class.  Heck they keep telling us they couldn't fit crap in due to page count, maybe they actually did something to try and save page count.


----------



## hong

Actually, I suspect they're trying to reduce the importance of super-duper stats later on. In 3E, you practically had to have Con 20+ at high levels, unless you had a perverse liking for being knocked out early and often. Similarly, every fighter had Str 20+, every rogue had Dex 20+, wizards had Int 20+, and so on. While I'm all for gung-ho buttkicking, the idea of characters with half (or more) of their stats at godlike levels is one of the things about D&D I never really liked. If high Con gives you a bonus, but that bonus doesn't inflate over time, then getting Con 20 won't be as necessary as it is now. Maybe the same holds for Int not giving bonus skills.


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale

Rogue gets Five weapons - (My guesstimate)

*Ranged*
Long Range - Sling
Short Range - Hand Crossbow

*Melee* (all light blades)
Best Damage - Short Sword
Best Attack - Dagger
Best Reach - Shuriken


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> Actually, I suspect they're trying to reduce the importance of super-duper stats later on. In 3E, you practically had to have Con 20+ at high levels, unless you had a perverse liking for being knocked out early and often. Similarly, every fighter had Str 20+, every rogue had Dex 20+, wizards had Int 20+, and so on. While I'm all for gung-ho buttkicking, the idea of characters with half (or more) of their stats at godlike levels is one of the things about D&D I never really liked. If high Con gives you a bonus, but that bonus doesn't inflate over time, then getting Con 20 won't be as necessary as it is now. Maybe the same holds for Int not giving bonus skills.




So, a 3e Rogue getting +5 on all dex-based skills (20 dex) by 20th level bothers you more than a 4e Rogue getting +10 on ALL skills by 20th level? The +1/2 level bonuses inflate competence more than high stats did, and stats still add to skills....

IME, characters would have one 20+ stat by the time they were in their mid-teens, level-wise, with most stats in the 12-14 range, and usually one dump stat of less than 10.


----------



## AllisterH

Derren said:
			
		

> Which poses its own kind of problem as it looks like that classes have a very narrow list of what they can become trained in. (People who own SW told me this is also true in SAGA).
> So when you play a fighter you can never really be good at stealth because its not on your class list unless you spend feats for it (which could have been used for combat techniques)
> Thats the same problem as in 3E.




Er, do you actually know how SWSE actually works? 

The difference between a Trained rogue with Stealth and an untrained fighter with Stealth in SWSE is +5 at all levels compared to the current situation by where level 2, the rogue is at +5 advantage to a fighter and where it increases.

The fighter is not exactly a helpless guy.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizard said:
			
		

> Since 99% of my criticisms of 4e have been answered with "Well, houserule it" or "The DM can just...", PETA needs to look into some of 4e's more ardent defenders.



It's a valid answer to the extreme subjectivism of many of the 4e hatorz. They seem to be saying, "This isn't what I want in a game, therefore it shouldn't be in D&D."

Which is ridiculous. What's in D&D should be based on market research. It should be the tyranny of the majority. House ruling is the best solution for the individual here.

But if a complaint about a rule is that it doesn't work for anyone, or for the majority, then house ruling isn't a valid solution.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, a 3e Rogue getting +5 on all dex-based skills (20 dex) by 20th level




A 3E rogue with 20 Dex at 20th level isn't even trying. Try 30 Dex.



> bothers you more than a 4e Rogue getting +10 on ALL skills by 20th level? The +1/2 level bonuses inflate competence more than high stats did, and stats still add to skills....




Nobody said anything about inflating competence. The point was about inflating ability scores, to the point where they're almost surreal.


----------



## HeinorNY

Derren said:
			
		

> Which poses its own kind of problem as it looks like that classes have a very narrow list of what they can become trained in. (People who own SW told me this is also true in SAGA).
> So when you play a fighter you can never really be good at stealth because its not on your class list unless you spend feats for it (which could have been used for combat techniques)
> Thats the same problem as in 3E.



So it's problem that a character needs to ivnest resources to be good at something?
I see no problem with a fighter having to invest resources(feat) to be good at something that's not part of his class' concept.

That's the problem in 4E, 3E and in real life. 
It's called priority.


----------



## Sir Brennen

epochrpg said:
			
		

> OMG.  I already found something totally broken!  Armor is now worthless if you are fighting a rogue.  At will they can AUTOMATICALLY bypass your armor!  AUTOMATICALLY.  Well I can guess people will be saying how totally screwed over Fighters are by the current edition... all over again! [...] I guess I could infer that some Kewl Powerz are better than the ability to bypass armor, which is why it is not used so much-- but I stand by my statement that the ability to automatically bypass armor at will makes armor useless vs. that opponent.



I think Anax summed it up pretty good:


			
				Anax said:
			
		

> On the power of "Piercing Strike": A number of people have noted that because Reflex defense is not going to be as atrophied in most characters as Touch AC was in 3E, this is less powerful than it might otherwise seem.  Someone else pointed out that if Power Attack cannot be used with Piercing Strike for some reason, that removes an additional big chunk of power.  I would suggest that one reason Power Attack might not be usable at the same time as Piercing Strike is that it may be a power rather than a feat.
> 
> Even if it's not, the most likely explanation for why Piercing Strike won't be used *all the time* is that if you choose to use Piercing Strike, you can't use any other powers that round.  This is a *first level* power.  Chances are pretty good that you'll soon have much better things to do with your time instead of searching for a chink in your enemy's armor... at least until you come up against an enemy who's really heavily armored.    Which makes it a good interesting ability, really.



4E really has a model of "opportunity cost". Piercing Strike lets you bypass armor, sure, but you can't use it with Crimson Edge, for example, because both require a standard action. You can't use it if you've already used Deft Strike to get into position. Also, Piercing Strike only does [W]+Dex damage. Unless you're already in position to do Sneak Attack damage (without using another power to do so), that's not a whole lot. Especially if you're attacking a Fighter or Brute Monster. Also, ignoring armor is not the same as automatically hitting, so the rogue might not even get in that little bit of damage.

There was another power previewed (I think there was anyway... can't seem to find it) where a ranger gets +4 on bow attacks at will. Pretty awesome, right? But that would also come at the cost of not doing added damage or crippling or some other cool trick shot.

So it basically comes down to... you can do some cool stuff, you just can't do it all at once. As someone coined in another thread, It's the Action Economy, Stupid!


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> A 3E rogue with 20 Dex at 20th level isn't even trying. Try 30 Dex.




How many points does your DM give you, anyway? We use 28, which means getting an 18 at first level is nearly crippling if you don't have racial mods, then +1/4 levels. 




> Nobody said anything about inflating competence. The point was about inflating ability scores, to the point where they're almost surreal.




Shrug. Seems to me that all that matters is the final die roll. Does it matter if the plusses come from an obscenely-high stat or a generalized level-based competence bonus? No matter how you slice it, a 4e character will be able to do a lot more things a lot better than his 3e counterpart, and changing it from "You place stat picks in your primary stat" to "You just get better!" doesn't seem to be that big a deal to me.


----------



## McBard

shilsen said:
			
		

> As Jeff Wilder and others have noted already, the fact that damage caused will be variable and healing will be variable means there's more than enough randomness to what the fixed hit points mean when one gets into a fight.



 Actually, you can have variance in HP, but still be fixed and non-random--12 HP + Con score is an example of this. 

So, the fact of "randomness in the attack's damage roll" has nothing to do with the point about the fixed/*non*-variant nature of the 5 HP per level, and whether this non-variance bothers people.

If we can assume fairly confidently that the Con score bonus is retroactive after 1st level, then I suppose there's a bit of post-1st level variance in HP (i.e. an increase in Con score increases HP on a 1:1 basis). It's just that the flat 5 HP per level is not only non-random, it's also non-variant with regards to Con's affect on HP.

A 4E Rogue at 1st level with an 8 Con will have 20 HP. One with a 16 Con will 28 HP.
At 10th level, the 8 Con Rogue will have 65 HP, and the 16 Con Rogue will have 73 HP. 

For the Rogue with the much, much higher Con (16 to 8), the difference in HP (73 to 65) just doesn't seem to reflect that.

It seems like that Con has gone from mattering too much with regards to HP in 3E, to not mattering much at all in 4E. (And, yes, I realize all this is based merely upon what info we've been given so far).


----------



## Derren

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, do you actually know how SWSE actually works?
> 
> The difference between a Trained rogue with Stealth and an untrained fighter with Stealth in SWSE is +5 at all levels compared to the current situation by where level 2, the rogue is at +5 advantage to a fighter and where it increases.
> 
> The fighter is not exactly a helpless guy.




Except when it comes to things which require you to be trained in that skill. Stealth might not have such "tricks" but other skills have (See drothgery post).



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> So it's problem that a character needs to ivnest resources to be good at something?
> I see no problem with a fighter having to invest resources(feat) to be good at something that's not part of his class' concept.




Using that reasoning, the 3E skill system worked too. But in reality it recieved a lot of criticism because, for example, fighters had to spend their feats on skill focus to become good on a non-fighter skill which means you have one combat feat less.
The same will apparently be happening in 4E. Either the Fighter takes Warthog power slam (to use 4E naming conventions    ) or training in stealth.

3E complain: the fighter just has uninteresting class skills and it costs too much to get good in non class skills.
4E complain: The fighter has just boring skills on in his skill list in and it costs too much to get trained in a skill not on his list.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizard said:
			
		

> This was discussed in R&C.
> 
> Sheesh, do only us hat3rz read the actual rules pre-releases?



You bought the preview books? I'm beginning to question your hator credentials. Are you sure your heart is black with rancor?

All the way to the middle, mind, not just the outside.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> How many points does your DM give you, anyway? We use 28, which means getting an 18 at first level is nearly crippling if you don't have racial mods, then +1/4 levels.




+6 from an item, +5 from a tome. 760,000gp, remember?



> Shrug. Seems to me that all that matters is the final die roll. Does it matter if the plusses come from an obscenely-high stat or a generalized level-based competence bonus? No matter how you slice it, a 4e character will be able to do a lot more things a lot better than his 3e counterpart, and changing it from "You place stat picks in your primary stat" to "You just get better!" doesn't seem to be that big a deal to me.




It's an aesthetic thing. I can grok someone with 20 ranks in Tumble, no problem. +10 from Dex is a bit weird.


----------



## Campbell

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, if God kills a kitten every time someone says "The DM can fix it!", what does He do when someone says "That's not a bug! That's a FEATURE!"
> 
> Just to clarify, I wasn't interested in re-opening old debates, just in pointing out that 4e's defenders have killed as many kittens as 3e's defenders...




To be fair all your examples listed above are features and not bugs. For something to be a bug its existence has to be unintentional. Trust me - I'm a programmer.

We can of course discuss the relative merits of those features.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> +6 from an item, +5 from a tome. 760,000gp, remember?




You have DMs much more generous than mine. Such items are rarely found, and there are no wal-magics around to buy them at. Our  high-level character usually just have uber weapons. (+3 Flaming Burst Keen Speed Rapier FTW!....I was doing something like 8 attacks per round w/2-weapon fighting and a 15-20 crit range plus sneak attack...)


----------



## Cam Banks

Lizard said:
			
		

> You have DMs much more generous than mine. Such items are rarely found, and there are no wal-magics around to buy them at. Our  high-level character usually just have uber weapons. (+3 Flaming Burst Keen Speed Rapier FTW!....I was doing something like 8 attacks per round w/2-weapon fighting and a 15-20 crit range plus sneak attack...)




Right. I ran a couple of high-level campaigns and there wasn't a single +6 item or tome of any description in the game.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Felon

Kirnon_Bhale said:
			
		

> Rogue gets Five weapons - (My guesstimate)
> 
> *Ranged*
> Long Range - Sling
> Short Range - Hand Crossbow
> 
> *Melee* (all light blades)
> Best Damage - Short Sword
> Best Attack - Dagger
> Best Reach - Shuriken



I don't think a shuriken is what you think it is...


----------



## McBard

Ahglok said:
			
		

> ...[Con modifier to HP after 1st level] may be something that is described under the attribute and just not rehashed in every class.



 Good point: perhaps that explains the apparent non-variant nature of the "5 HP per level" Rogue class entry.


----------



## Lizard

Campbell said:
			
		

> To be fair all your examples listed above are features and not bugs. For something to be a bug its existence has to be unintentional. Trust me - I'm a programmer.
> 
> .




So am I.

And, what, you've never had an "accidental feature"?  Or discovered that an intentional feature worked in a way you hadn't expected/desired, and thus became a bug?

(I suppose that, generally, a feature users don't like, or which makes life harder, is a misfeature ...)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Campbell said:
			
		

> To be fair all your examples listed above are features and not bugs. For something to be a bug its existence has to be unintentional. Trust me - I'm a programmer.
> 
> We can of course discuss the relative merits of those features.



But I think hong is right. Life isn't fair. We all are responsible for the death of innocent kittens, regardless if h4ter or f4nboy or something in between. 

I can only hope that there is no one actually enjoying it!


----------



## Belphanior

Lizard said:
			
		

> You have DMs much more generous than mine. Such items are rarely found, and there are no wal-magics around to buy them at. Our  high-level character usually just have uber weapons. (+3 Flaming Burst Keen Speed Rapier FTW!....I was doing something like 8 attacks per round w/2-weapon fighting and a 15-20 crit range plus sneak attack...)




A +6 item and a +5 tome are together worth 173.500 gp. A level 20 character is expected to have 760.000 gp worth of stuff. Hong's DM isn't generous, he just plays the game by the RAW. It's yours who is stingy and has ingrained a perception of 3E into you that isn't accurate.

No personal offense meant by that, don't get me wrong. You're just using a houseruled version of 3E that's all.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> You have DMs much more generous than mine. Such items are rarely found, and there are no wal-magics around to buy them at.




Nobody said anything about wal-magics either. (Go find some mage to craft them as a special commission, or craft them yourself. These were our two most common options.)



> Our  high-level character usually just have uber weapons. (+3 Flaming Burst Keen Speed Rapier FTW!....I was doing something like 8 attacks per round w/2-weapon fighting and a 15-20 crit range plus sneak attack...)




You can have uber weapons and 30 Dex/Str/Int/whatnot. Trust me on this, whether or not I'm a statistician.


----------



## Campbell

Lizard said:
			
		

> (I suppose that, generally, a feature users don't like, or which makes life harder, is a misfeature ...)




Indeed. See, this isn't so hard. Of course there is obviously some debate over the design validity of these features.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Right. I ran a couple of high-level campaigns and there wasn't a single +6 item or tome of any description in the game.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



I got to 20th level and all I got was this lousy Shirt of Constitution +4?


----------



## Ahglock

hong said:
			
		

> +6 from an item, +5 from a tome. 760,000gp, remember?




And they were already getting rid of the magic items helping your stats thing, so 11 points of absurd stats are gone.  Now they say, stats also don't really help you as much as well.  So less bonuses, and they work in less areas.  If it ends up being true, I really don't like this.


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't think a shuriken is what you think it is...




I know what they are   What I am saying is that they will change - thrown as they are they will be short range melee. It is after all a simple flick of the wrist not worth an AoO usable in close quarters and at a short distance but their size precludes any real range etc.


----------



## shilsen

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But I think hong is right. Life isn't fair. We all are responsible for the death of innocent kittens, regardless if h4ter or f4nboy or something in between.
> 
> I can only hope that there is no one actually enjoying it!




*raises hand*

Oh, wait - was that rhetorical?


----------



## HeinorNY

Derren said:
			
		

> using that reasoning, the 3E skill system worked too. But in reality it recieved a lot of criticism because, for example, fighters had to spend their feats on skill focus to become good on a non-fighter skill which means you have one combat feat less.
> The same will apparently be happening in 4E. Either the Fighter takes Warthog power slam (to use 4E naming conventions    ) or training in stealth.



Most of the criticism on 3.5 skill system was about the fact it was too cumbersome and that's the mains reason they changed it.

I still can't see the point of those complains. Priority and character choices are a base of RPGs. And so it is in real life. 

How can it be different? 
You could just be good at everything? If so, isn't that the complain about SWSE skill system?

SWSE skill system is bad because characters are "good" at everything and 3.5 skill system is bad because characters can't be "good" at everthing?

I think I'm lost. What are you complaining about?


----------



## Mentat55

Derren said:
			
		

> Using that reasoning, the 3E skill system worked too. But in reality it recieved a lot of criticism because, for example, fighters had to spend their feats on skill focus to become good on a non-fighter skill which means you have one combat feat less.
> The same will apparently be happening in 4E. Either the Fighter takes Warthog power slam (to use 4E naming conventions    ) or training in stealth.




I am not sure this is true.

3.5E: 20th level fighter, max cross-class ranks in Hide/Move Silently, plus Stealthy, plus Skill Focus (Hide) and Skill Focus (Move Silently) = +17
20th level rogue, max ranks in Hide/Move Silently = +23

4E (of course, no one knows for certain how skills and skill training feats are really working, but based on reasonable conjecture): 20th level fighter = +10 Stealth
20th level fighter with Skill Training (Stealth) = +15 Stealth
20th level rogue = +15 Stealth

So the 3.5E fighter is frittering away skill points AND took 3 feats AND still is inferior to the rogue by a fairly large margin.  In 4E, for the cost of 1 (speculated) feat, the fighter and rogue are equivalent at sneaking around, barring differences in Dexterity and armor.

In 3.5E, being good at cross-class skills usually requires multiclassing, which adds its own baggage.  A feat (or several) seems like a more elegant solution to this situation.


----------



## Felon

Lizard said:
			
		

> You have DMs much more generous than mine. Such items are rarely found, and there are no wal-magics around to buy them at. Our  high-level character usually just have uber weapons. (+3 Flaming Burst Keen Speed Rapier FTW!....I was doing something like 8 attacks per round w/2-weapon fighting and a 15-20 crit range plus sneak attack...)





			
				Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Right. I ran a couple of high-level campaigns and there wasn't a single +6 item or tome of any description in the game.



There are prescribed amounts of wealth by level in the DMG. If your DM wasn't adhering to them, he's deviating from the RAW. Deciding a character isn't going to have as much in the way of magic items as he's supposed to at a given level is like taking the feats out of a fighter's mouth. But by RAW, that +6 tome is very attainable.


----------



## hong

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't think a shuriken is what you think it is...



 What KB noticed before is that shuriken doesn't appear on the list of weapons you can sneak attack with. This makes no sense thematically (they're an iconic weapon of the ninjae, after all) so the conclusion is that shuriken are lumped under the "light blades" category. It's crazy but it just might work.


----------



## Derren

ainatan said:
			
		

> I think I'm lost. What are you complaining about?




That the 4E skill system is unnecessary as it doesn't fix anything. The same "problems" (although imo they are not problems at all) are still there.


----------



## drothgery

Lizard said:
			
		

> You have DMs much more generous than mine. Such items are rarely found, and there are no wal-magics around to buy them at. Our  high-level character usually just have uber weapons. (+3 Flaming Burst Keen Speed Rapier FTW!....I was doing something like 8 attacks per round w/2-weapon fighting and a 15-20 crit range plus sneak attack...)




The common baseline we've got for how much treasure PCs of a given level have is the table on page 135 of the DMG... where +6 stat boosters become affordable between 12th (less than 1/2 of your wealth) and 14th (less than 1/4 of your wealth) level depending on how much of your resources you want to devote to them. Certainly my recently retired 19th level character had a +6 stat booster and had had one for a while, even though he had nowhere near 580,000 gp worth of gear (though he started out with DMG wealth at 13th level).


----------



## 3d6

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080222a
> 
> An article revealing the Rogue. I'll post my impressions later, first I'm going to read cthe article.



Did anyone else get the impression that Strength is no longer automatically added to melee damage rolls? As I was reading through the descriptions of Brawny Rogue and Trickster Rogue build suggestions, it seemed like the writer felt the only use for Strength for a Trickster Rogue was to use "powers intended for the other rogue build", instead of as a general boost to damage.

I wonder if the powers just deal the listed damage with no other additions? For example, If I use _deft strike_, do I just deal my weapon damage + my Dexterity modifier?


----------



## Lizard

Belphanior said:
			
		

> A +6 item and a +5 tome are together worth 173.500 gp. A level 20 character is expected to have 760.000 gp worth of stuff. Hong's DM isn't generous, he just plays the game by the RAW. It's yours who is stingy and has ingrained a perception of 3E into you that isn't accurate.
> 
> No personal offense meant by that, don't get me wrong. You're just using a houseruled version of 3E that's all.




Actually, my DM is obssessed with wealth-by-level guidelines; he's just very particular about what he hands out. Magic items are not easily come by, and while I assume a player mage could make one, my group rarely produces PCs who want to. (Last long-term D&D game...a swashbuckler/rogue[1], a ninja, a psion who never made items, and a warlock who ditto. We got to about 15h level and pretty much only made potions or scrolls.) In our current game (around 7th level now), we are a strike forces team for a powerful NPC; she pays us in magic items, in essence. So we get what the DM wants us to get. (All 'found loot' is her property, other than coin, preventing the 'bodies of our enemies are treasure troves for us!' problem. We can fight properly-equipped foes and not have +1 weapons dripping off us.)

In my last game, I think we had one pair of Gloves of Dexterity +4 as the most powerful ability-enhancing item. The ninja had them. Her hide skill was something like +25 or more when all was said and done. The joke was that she had invisibility at will.

Current game is a paladin, that warlock/cleric hybrid class, a ranger/sorcerer who didn't take magic missile, a rogue, and an ogre mage who won't gain a class level 'till he hits 12th...So far, there's been little interest in manufacutring magic items among the caster types. In this game, I have a +1 holy longsword, and I am "in debt" because of it; I don't get any magic or more than a stipend to live off of until my wealth-by-level syncs up with the item. (It's a plot-important weapon, that's why I've got it...)

But as you said, it's all aesthetics. When you were talking about "godlike" abilities, I assumed you mean natural, unenhanced. There's nothing extra-impressive about someone whose power comes from magic items. By contrast, in 4e, a high level character is frightfully good at everything simply by virtue of existing; at 20th level, he's got a minimum of +10 in every skill even when he's buck naked. I find this less aesthetically acceptable, simply because I can more easily "believe" in magic items than in natural uber-competence.

[1]Me. He had mostly charisma-enhancing stuff, because that fit his character concept better. I think he had a cloak+2 and one of those psion masks that give +ridiculous to Diplomacy and Bluff.


----------



## Felon

I can see why this post is 12 pages long before it's even noon. A post every 30 seconds or so. Doesn't somebody have some laundry to do or something? 

Seriously, I'm a little underwhelmed. The impression I get is that the class has a lot of hardwired restrictions defining the class, particularly class skills and weapons. And other than the Tumble ability, everything is an attack. There aren't any maneuvers that set up the character for another maneuver, or provide defensive benefits, or anything very tactical at all. Nothing I see is very juicy at all.


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale

hong said:
			
		

> What KB noticed before is that shuriken doesn't appear on the list of weapons you can sneak attack with. This makes no sense thematically (they're an iconic weapon of the ninjae, after all) so the conclusion is that shuriken are lumped under the "light blades" category. It's crazy but it just might work.




This... (Thanks Hong)

If you look at the write up the shuriken can only fit into light blades (I feel like I am repeating myself) then when you look at the powers light blades are only associated with melee attacks thus the assumption that shuriken are going to be considered melee.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Felon said:
			
		

> Seriously, I'm a little underwhelmed. The impression I get is that the class has a lot of hardwired restrictions defining the class, particularly class skills and weapons. And other than the Tumble ability, everything is an attack. There aren't any maneuvers that set up the character for another maneuver, or provide defensive benefits, or anything very tactical at all. Nothing I see is very juicy at all.



I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that we're only seeing a fraction of the powers available to the rogue. (And how is something like feinting and prodding your opponent with your sword to move to a square of your choice not tactical? Especially when considering how this might interact with the other PCs present? Yes, it's an attack, but if you move an opponent into a flanked position - voila! You've set him up for more of your abilities. Or moved him so he's not flanking *you*. Now it's defensive.)


----------



## HeinorNY

Derren said:
			
		

> That the 4E skill system is unnecessary as it doesn't fix anything. The same "problems" (although imo they are not problems at all) are still there.



The problems they wanted to fix are listed in R&C:
-High maintenance and full of little complexities.
-Skills too similar or too useless
-There are two strategies for handling skills, but only one really works. 

It's still about priorities and character choices. You refer to it as 'problems' god knows why.
If the 4E skill system keeps that same characteristic from 3.5 skill system and it's also simpler and more straightfoward, than it fixed everything.

I'm still lost, are you complaining because 4E skill system didn't fix a problem that wasn't a problem in your POV??


----------



## Lizard

Felon said:
			
		

> I can see why this post is 12 pages long before it's even noon. A post every 30 seconds or so. Doesn't somebody have some laundry to do or something?
> 
> Seriously, I'm a little underwhelmed. The impression I get is that the class has a lot of hardwired restrictions defining the class, particularly class skills and weapons. And other than the Tumble ability, everything is an attack. There aren't any maneuvers that set up the character for another maneuver, or provide defensive benefits, or anything very tactical at all. Nothing I see is very juicy at all.




Uhm...we've seen, what, 5 powers from the whole list? Let's be a little fair.

I think it's the equivalent of seeing magic missile, burning hands, and fireball, and concluding that all wizards can do is blow things up...

And the fact is, 4e wants you to be rolling to attack every round, so just about every power is going to involve an attack roll. Remember -- you are only having fun when you are attacking. If you are not attacking, you are not having fun. In 4e, you will have fun. The computer says so. The computer is your friend. Do you doubt the computer?


----------



## Ahglock

Kirnon_Bhale said:
			
		

> This... (Thanks Hong)
> 
> If you look at the write up the shuriken can only fit into light blades (I feel like I am repeating myself) then when you look at the powers light blades are only associated with melee attacks thus the assumption that shuriken are going to be considered melee.




yeah they definitely could be melee that can be thrown style weapons.   I'm kind of thinking kunai knives, which i only know of through naruto might be what the shuriken look like.  End result small stabby knives good for throwing.


----------



## chaotix42

Felon said:
			
		

> I can see why this post is 12 pages long before it's even noon. A post every 30 seconds or so. Doesn't somebody have some laundry to do or something?
> 
> Seriously, I'm a little underwhelmed. The impression I get is that the class has a lot of hardwired restrictions defining the class, particularly class skills and weapons. And other than the Tumble ability, everything is an attack. There aren't any maneuvers that set up the character for another maneuver, or provide defensive benefits, or anything very tactical at all. Nothing I see is very juicy at all.




LOL I _do_ have some laundry to do, thanks for the reminder!

I figure we've only seen a portion of the class, as Crimson Edge is "Rogue Attack 9" which to me signifies the level of the ability. That leaves us with 21-levels-worth of abilities left, and I'm also inclined to believe some of the other low-level abilities were snipped. I too hope (and expect) that the rogue gets a bit more than just attacks, but since she's a "striker" I can understand.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Felon said:
			
		

> Seriously, I'm a little underwhelmed.



I was a little disappointed that it's so similar to 3e.

<- 4e hator.


----------



## Cam Banks

Felon said:
			
		

> There are prescribed amounts of wealth by level in the DMG. If your DM wasn't adhering to them, he's deviating from the RAW. Deciding a character isn't going to have as much in the way of magic items as he's supposed to at a given level is like taking the feats out of a fighter's mouth. But by RAW, that +6 tome is very attainable.




I didn't say that I wasn't following the guidelines for wealth. What I'm saying is that the players didn't get to shop around for their items in order to score the tome +5 and stat booster +6. The RAW don't say "they should all have +X item Y at this level."

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Wormwood

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I was a little disappointed that it's so similar to 3e.



Oh thank the gods. 

I thought I was the only one.


----------



## Lizard

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Oh thank the gods.
> 
> I thought I was the only one.




I know you two are being sarcastic, but I have to wonder how many of the 4e fanboys (esp. on RPG.net) will be disappointed to find 4e may have DIFFERENT crunch from 3e, but it will have just as much...


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizard said:
			
		

> I know you two are being sarcastic



I wasn't.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Oh thank the gods.
> 
> I thought I was the only one.



Ah, I don't know. I think the fact that each class has powers (really powers, resource management included) changes a lot from 3E. We haven't seen enough of them to really understand how it can change the dynamics - though I am willing to believe that some of them have a better "mental model" of that then others.

What I noticed it - the game mechanics look "cleaner", easier to identify and understand. Everything is a neat, contained package that you can look at individually. The rules for a power are in the power. Once you understand some basic terms (per encounter, defenses, slide/shift/move/attack), you will be able to understand each power. There seems less space for special synergy or counter-effects. 
Different from 3.x, where you have to look carefully whether a special ability might work. Works against flat-footed foes - unless they have uncanny dodge - and also on foes that just lost their dex bonus - unless they have uncanny dodge, except when they're helpless, or when you're flanking the target, unless it has improved uncanny dodge, except when you're five levels higher then him, unless he is undead, elemental, construct or just has a special immunity unique to him or his species, or the target enjoys concealment against you ...

4E seems more user-friendly in that regard.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Felon said:
			
		

> I can see why this post is 12 pages long before it's even noon. A post every 30 seconds or so. Doesn't somebody have some laundry to do or something?
> 
> Seriously, I'm a little underwhelmed. The impression I get is that the class has a lot of hardwired restrictions defining the class, particularly class skills and weapons. And other than the Tumble ability, everything is an attack. There aren't any maneuvers that set up the character for another maneuver, or provide defensive benefits, or anything very tactical at all. Nothing I see is very juicy at all.




Don't forget this is a very abridged preview. Some of the suggested abilities in the builds aren't listed in full below, like riposte attack, sounds defensive, non?


----------



## Ahglock

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I didn't say that I wasn't following the guidelines for wealth. What I'm saying is that the players didn't get to shop around for their items in order to score the tome +5 and stat booster +6. The RAW don't say "they should all have +X item Y at this level."
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




I got to say the +5 tomes rarely showed up in any of my games.  I didn't really evolve into 3.5 especially the I catch up every time I do something that costs me XP model.  So virtually no one was willing to make a +5 tomb that basically costs a level to make, and trying to convince an NPC to craft one was impossible.  "High Mr. Level 20 wizard I know you are rich and all, but I am rich to, why don't you give up a ton of life essense to make me an item and I will give you more money you probably don't need."

The +6 items well I gave time for crafting so those showed up kind of early.


----------



## Dave Turner

I suspect that the "Healing Surge" rule interacts with clerics and warlords who, I seem to recall, have the ability to trigger a Healing Surge.  This suggests that healing surges return different amounts of hit points based on class.  Second Wind is another rule that likely works independent of Healing Surges.


----------



## Wolfspider

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Oh thank the gods.
> 
> I thought I was the only one.




So why would you prefer if Dungeons & Dragons changed even more from what it has been in the past?

What do you want D&D to be?

If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?


----------



## HeinorNY

Felon said:
			
		

> There aren't any maneuvers that set up the character for another maneuver



"and grants combat advantage to you"


> or provide defensive benefits



"Effect: You can shift a number of squares equal to one-half your speed"
"and you slide the target 1 square."


> or anything very tactical at all.



"and grants combat advantage to you"
"Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack."
"Effect: You can shift a number of squares equal to one-half your speed"
"and you slide the target 1 square."


----------



## hong

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So why would you prefer if Dungeons & Dragons changed even more from what it has been in the past?




Why not?



> What do you want D&D to be?




Something closer to what I want.



> If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?




I am playing D&D. It just happens to have no wizards, paladins or elves.


----------



## Jack99

hong said:
			
		

> I am playing D&D. It just happens to have no wizards, paladins or elves.




You are weird. Funny but weird. Does the fact that mearls included elves and wizards in 4e not affect how your wee-wee feels about him?


----------



## hong

Jack99 said:
			
		

> You are weird. Funny but weird. Does the fact that mearls included elves and wizards in 4e not affect how your wee-wee feels about him?



Crap.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?



I think D&D 3.5 is the best rpg ever published, it's certainly my favourite and I've played dozens and dozens and own a pretty extensive collection. But I think 4e will be even better because it's taking 3e and attempting to fix what's wrong with it after 8 years of experience and market research.

You probably think your houseruled 3e is better than RAW right? Well 4e is like if someone had spent three years and a million dollars coming up with the best 3e houserules they could.


----------



## Henry

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think D&D 3.5 is the best rpg ever published, it's certainly my favourite and I've played dozens and dozens and own a pretty extensive collection. But I think 4e will be even better beacuse it's taking 3e and attempting to fix what's wrong with it after 8 years of experience and market research.
> 
> You probably think your houseruled 3e is better than RAW right? Well 4e is like if someone had spent three years and a million dollars coming up with the best 3e houserules they could.




How about those of us who had maybe a quarter-page of house rules, if that much? The reason I'll probably be splitting my time between this and other versions is because it looks like it's going to change things so extensively from the older editions. It's like the steak was dark pink, and to make it light-pink to got cooked an extra two hours. 

But sadly, because I like games like a besotted fool, I am coming to appreciate quite a few things about this version - the DMing changes, the defenses, the emphasis on archetypes again - all on their own merits. But because so much of it seems to be so far away from the D&D I've been playing for decades, I still have an attachment to the older games, too. I just don't know if I'll be buying a lot of supplements for this one.


----------



## Wormwood

Lizard said:
			
		

> I know you two are being sarcastic...



I'm not being sarcastic in the least.

I was hoping to see a lot fewer 3e artifacts.


----------



## Wormwood

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So why would you prefer if Dungeons & Dragons changed even more from what it has been in the past?



Because I want it to be closer to the way _I _actually play it. I'm selfish in that regard.



> What do you want D&D to be?



Cleaner, faster, and more fun. Specifically: Fewer bits of _un_fun.



> If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?



D&D is just one of the many games I regularly play and enjoy. The fact that I've managed to make D&D work doesn't mean that I think the system isn't in need of some improvement. 

4e seems to be heading in a Wormwood-friendly direction. I'm only slightly concerned that it's not going far enough.


----------



## Lizard

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'm not being sarcastic in the least.
> 
> I was hoping to see a lot fewer 3e artifacts.




I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.

Skill points are gone.
Skills are truncated dramatically.
Hit points are fixed.
Sneak attack damage is now 'tiered'.
There's no apparent default attribute for attacks -- different attacks use different attributes for 'to hit' and 'damage'.
Etc, etc, etc.

Other than very basic concepts -- classes/levels -- and the D20 mechanic (which was never going away), I'm not sure what you see that's a 3e holdover. Really, it's SWSE:Fantasy, so if you liked that, I assume you'll like this.


----------



## ferratus

This turn of conversation, of whether change for change's sake in edition changes is rather interesting.  I myself am looking forward to 4e precisely because it is a change.  I have become comfortable enough with 3e that I know how to do optimum builds, that certain classes, feats, and races suck, that certain rules make no sense, multiclassing has clumsy mechanics and there really isn't a good system in place to handle social encounters.   Now, one could shell out for another errata set, but why not try out new things like spellcasting classes without Vancian magic, martial powers, a new cosmology and a couple new races?


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

*Somewhat of an Epiphany*

Call me crazy, but all of us (including me, I'm guilty too) of speculating in the positive, are only getting our hopes up for something that is possibly much different than the reality of it, and those that are speculating in the negative are just trying to find any scrap of evidence (whether it's concrete or not) to bash the new game?

Sure, I've been disappointed, and I've perceived a bit of munchkining, nerfing, and crunchy goodness, but come on.... making a definitive opinion before the game even comes out does seem a bit silly (at least, it does when it's based on speculation and limited, not to mention, incomplete data.)  The ones who've got the best grasp of what's going on are the playtesters - and so far they've been fairly generous about their continuing experience with the new system.

With that being said, No, I'm not happy about everything I've read for the rogue, but I'm not so disgusted that I'm going to make some comment about how crap-tastic it is.  It's all a matter of familiarity and the general fear of change that blankets humanity.

Just because we're comfortable with how 3e or 3.5e worded things, described things, and layed it out for us, doesn't mean that 4e is busted automatically just because it's layed out differently, it just means changing and redefining things.

Keep an open mind, isn't that what the game is all about?

I'm glad players are concerned about 4e, but doesn't it make more sense to be able to actually playtest the final product(s) in a real game situation before praising or damning it?


That is all, Carry On.

Peace, Love and Bloodstains,
~ Me.


----------



## Wormwood

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.
> 
> Skill points are gone.
> Skills are truncated dramatically.
> Hit points are fixed.
> Sneak attack damage is now 'tiered'.
> There's no apparent default attribute for attacks -- different attacks use different attributes for 'to hit' and 'damage'.
> Etc, etc, etc.



Of the five points you mentioned, _three _are specific to 3e only (skills & sneak attacks). Altering those doesn't make 4e less "D&D" . . . just less "3e D&D". 

We've used fixed hit points since 2e, so I consider that part of the D&D experience.

Just because 4e Rogues appear to have Weapon Finesse hardwired into their powers doesn't break D&D for me either.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.



Alignment and the arcane/divine split.

4e doesn't just have the same broad concepts as 3e, it retains a lot of minutiae such as swift/immediate actions, five foot steps, attacks of opportunity, feats, three saving throws, touch armor class, unified stat bonuses, 3.5's lack of facing and monster dimensions, and sneak attack.

I'm happy with most, if not all, of these but it doesn't change the fact that this game is staying very similar to 3e. Oh well, at least it gives them something to change in 5th.


----------



## Lizard

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Of the five points you mentioned, _three _are specific to 3e only (skills & sneak attacks). Altering those doesn't make 4e less "D&D" . . . just less "3e D&D".
> 
> We've used fixed hit points since 2e, so I consider that part of the D&D experience.
> 
> Just because 4e Rogues appear to have Weapon Finesse hardwired into their powers doesn't break D&D for me either.




I'm still curious as to what '3e-isms' you see. That was my point -- most of what I mentioned are 3e-only, and they're gone. (Though sneak attack, in the form of backstab, has been around a while...since the Greyhawk supplement?)


----------



## Lizard

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 4e doesn't just have the same broad concepts as 3e, it retains a lot of minutiae such as swift/immediate actions, five foot steps, attacks of opportunity, feats, three saving throws, touch armor class, unified stat bonuses, 3.5's lack of facing and monster dimensions, and sneak attack.




Let me rephrase my question then -- which of these did you think would be gone, and why? Most of them were confirmed to still be in 4e, perhaps in mutated form, very early in the development release process. Others were obvious based on later 3e books and SWSE.

See, I'm happy because it looks like a lot of the worst possible changes WEREN'T made, and the game will still have real tactical depth. (Would have liked facing, but, hey, I didn't expect it...)


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizard said:
			
		

> Let me rephrase my question then -- which of these did you think would be gone, and why?



I had very few assumptions about 4e. The one thing I thought they might do - a HEROisation of the backend for gearheads while keeping a user friendly D&D-style class and level-based front end for casual players - they haven't, probably for sound financial reasons.

In order to improve something you *must* change it. 4e isn't a massive change so, logically, it can't be a massive improvement. It's just a small improvement. Which is all well and good but it could be even better.

I'm kind of disappointed when I see stuff like sneak attack still in, not because I have a specific idea for something better in my head, I don't - that's how game designers can make lots of money off me - but because every time I see something that's the same as 3e I know that's an area that hasn't been improved.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizard said:
			
		

> the game will still have real tactical depth.



Yeah, love that tactical depth. It's probably my favourite element of 3e.


----------



## helium3

epochrpg said:
			
		

> OMG.  I already found something totally broken!  Armor is now worthless if you are fighting a rogue.  At will they can AUTOMATICALLY bypass your armor!  AUTOMATICALLY.  Well I can guess people will be saying how totally screwed over Fighters are by the current edition... all over again!




So a rogue can basically make an attack as a touch attack now? Once per round? OMG, that's just like the 3E Warlock, and we all know how broken Eldritch Blast was.


----------



## heretic888

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> LOL I _do_ have some laundry to do, thanks for the reminder!
> 
> I figure we've only seen a portion of the class, as Crimson Edge is "Rogue Attack 9" which to me signifies the level of the ability. That leaves us with 21-levels-worth of abilities left, and I'm also inclined to believe some of the other low-level abilities were snipped. I too hope (and expect) that the rogue gets a bit more than just attacks, but since she's a "striker" I can understand.




Hi chaotix42,

Yep, exactly.

Riposte Strike (at-will), Sly Flourish (at-will), Easy Target (daily), and Trick Strike (daily) were all mentioned under the builds section. These are all seemingly 1st level Rogue powers that we have not seen yet.

Then, of course, there's stuff like Tornado Strike whose level we don't know yet.

Laterz.


----------



## ferratus

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.




Team based combat, fantastic creatures, magic... Hmm... I can't think of any other elements from the D&D boxed set till now which have remained unchanged. 

The classes, the way classes operated were different, races came and went, the means of resolving an attack changed, ability scores affected different things, unarmed combat was different, light and visibility, movement, specific spells like lightning bolt and fireball, equipment rules... all different.  

So when you bring up that the following is different...



> Skill points are gone.




You know another time skill points were gone?  2nd Edition.  There were no skills at all but Non-weapon proficiencies.  In 3e the problem with skill points is that if you didn't max out your skills you were usually useless at that skill, especially if the skill in question had an opposing skill check ie. hide vs. spot.   So 4e just assumes that you train in a skill or you are a gifted amateur.  This means that more people can participate in teamwork involving skills (which keeps people from wandering away to the fridge, talking to other people left out, or reading), and since you were maxing out your skills anyway just giving you proficiency in that skill is an easy shortcut.



> Skills are truncated dramatically.




You mean you didn't combine hide and move silently into "Stealth" and spot and listen into "Perception" 6 years ago?  I thought pretty much every D&D table had house ruled that.



> Hit points are fixed.




Again, you didn't houserule the "Living Greyhawk" half hit dice +1 rule into your game 6 years ago?  I saw some emotional attachment to the old style rolling, but most tables I gamed in had 3 hit points for wizards, 4 for rogues, 5 for clerics, 6 for fighters and 7 for barbarians.  This really is nothing new.



> Sneak attack damage is now 'tiered'.




It was tiered before too.  Every few levels you got an extra +1d6.  Like I said in another post, I'm pretty sure that you can add more to your sneak attack with powers and feats, though I have nothing to back that up. 




> There's no apparent default attribute for attacks -- different attacks use different attributes for 'to hit' and 'damage'.




Again, not really new since spells have been using all sorts of ways of attacking a character.  We had to have three seperate defenses in order to deal with different types of magical attacks, plus spells attacked AC as well.   The only thing that is different is that martial character classes through various means are attacking saving throws as well.  Precise strike is just a fancy way of "called shot to a gap in the armour" and thus uses reflex saves.   Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "blinding attack" using powder or sand that required a fortitude save, or if non-lethal damage required a will save to stay conscious.  Now these are just examples I'm making up, but certainly they aren't any more ludicrous than magical attacks against these defenses.

So really I don't get how it changes it from being "D&D" since all of your examples haven't been around in previous editions of D&D.  Also, a lot of changes have been optional rules for awhile, and those that weren't are just logical extensions of existing rules.


----------



## Lizard

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'm kind of disappointed when I see stuff like sneak attack still in, not because I have a specific idea for something better in my head, I don't - that's how game designers can make lots of money off me - but because every time I see something that's the same as 3e I know that's an area that hasn't been improved.




I disagree, because this implies all aspects of a thing are de facto broken, and thus, must be changed to be improved. (And SA was changed, just not *eliminated*)

For example, if the next version of Word lacked the capacity to use the letter 'e', would it be an *improvement* because it was a *change*? There's way too much for change for change's sake in 4e as it is; why wish for more?


----------



## Lizard

ferratus said:
			
		

> So really I don't get how it changes it from being "D&D" since all of your examples haven't been around in previous editions of D&D.  Also, a lot of changes have been optional rules for awhile, and those that weren't are just logical extensions of existing rules.




I really do wish people would read posts before replying to them.

I was noting specific 3e-isms gone in response to a post by someone who claimed the rogue still had too many 3e holdovers. I also noted that there's a point at which things change so much that one can't arguably claim it's the same game. Often, this point is time-dependant; if D&D 3e had appeared in 1978 after the 'brown box', it would be pretty easy to argue it was an entirely new game -- indeed, EGG argued that AD&D 1e was just that vs. D&D. But changing things over time leads to continuity. (Another thread) My point, to be extra-special-super-clear, was NOT that 4e had mutated to the extent it was a new game, but that those claiming that it still had too many 'holdovers' seemed to be hoping that it WOULD.

My point: Many, many,3e-isms are gone, and those that remain are either core to the D&D concept (race/class/level/hit points) or have shown themselves to be too successful/popular to merit extreme change. Which is, uhm, EXACTLY the propaganda line 4e apologists have been making right up until we actually started seeing the crunch, so why be upset that I'm agreeing with them? Isn't "Fix what's broken, preserve what works" the guiding design philosophy for ANY (good) upgrade?

So let me refocus yet again:
What about the rogue preview indicates a 3e holdover which cannot be justified on any basis but nostalgia or sacred-cow-ness? IOW, what's there which keeps 4e from being as much of an improvement over 3e as it theoretically could/should be?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizard said:
			
		

> I disagree, because this implies all aspects of a thing are de facto broken, and thus, must be changed to be improved. (And SA was changed, just not *eliminated*)
> 
> For example, if the next version of Word lacked the capacity to use the letter 'e', would it be an *improvement* because it was a *change*? There's way too much for change for change's sake in 4e as it is; why wish for more?



Change doesn't always lead to improvement. Often it doesn't. 

NOT (IF C THEN I)


But you can't have improvement without change. When I look at the rules and see no change, that means there has been no improvement.

IF I THEN C
NOT C

THEREFORE NOT I


I'll wager that's the most cast iron argument you've seen on the internet all day.


----------



## Vigilance

Lizard said:
			
		

> I disagree, because this implies all aspects of a thing are de facto broken, and thus, must be changed to be improved. (And SA was changed, just not *eliminated*)




I can guarantee you this, nothing will improve if nothing changes.

Sometimes you have to take a chance, change something because you think the alternative might be better, and see how it shakes out.

You're a designer.

You know this.


----------



## Lizard

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Change doesn't always lead to improvement. Often it doesn't. But you can't have improvement without change.
> 
> NOT (IF C THEN I)
> IF I THEN C




The assumptions you seem to be making are that:
a)There's always room for improvement
b)That change itself has no cost which can mitigate the effects of improvement, that is, that the cost of change can be higher than the benefit of improvement.

Completely removing Sneak Attack would have had several negative effects, such as steeper learning curve, the necessity of a wholly new mechanic to enable 'single target high damage, but not always', the loss of something which helped 'define' rogues since at least AD&D 1e, etc. The 4e devs might well have had a better mechanic early in playtest, but decided it wasn't better *enough* to justify the costs. Or it might be no one came up with a better way of having rogues do the 'striker' thing than good ol' sneak attack.

Sort of why we don't use laser pistols, even if they could in theory be built. A good ol' handgun kills people as dead as dead can get, and even if a laser is a bit better, the cost and fragility outweigh the damage gain. There's only so dead a person can be, and a CPR makes 'em just that dead.


----------



## Lizard

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I can guarantee you this, nothing will improve if nothing changes.
> 
> Sometimes you have to take a chance, change something because you think the alternative might be better, and see how it shakes out.
> 
> You're a designer.
> 
> You know this.




Yup. I ALSO know that changing things that work, in the name of change, rarely leads to improvement. I'm pretty sure the 4e devs looked at every subsystem in the game and said "Can we change this? Should we change this?"

If the answer to either question was "No", it wasn't changed. Only if BOTH questions were "Yes" was it changed. (Of course, the second question is pretty subjective, but that's what playtesting is for...)


----------



## nightspaladin

I'm sure someone else has mentioned this but since I went to bed last night there has been 6 more pages of posts to wade thru. I think rapier is included in the rogue's weapon list. Here is why:

Do you remember War Pick from the Critical Hit preview? It listed it's proficency as Pick group. I think the proficencies listed are what groups the rogue gets. So Rapier may simply be a type of short sword. Same goes with throwing knifes are probably in the shuriken group.


----------



## Wormwood

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> Do you remember War Pick from the Critical Hit preview? It listed it's proficency as Pick group. I think the proficencies listed are what groups the rogue gets. So Rapier may simply be a type of short sword. Same goes with throwing knifes are probably in the shuriken group.



Oooh....now _that's _interesting.


----------



## ltbaxter

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> I'm sure someone else has mentioned this but since I went to bed last night there has been 6 more pages of posts to wade thru. I think rapier is included in the rogue's weapon list. Here is why:
> 
> Do you remember War Pick from the Critical Hit preview? It listed it's proficency as Pick group. I think the proficencies listed are what groups the rogue gets. So Rapier may simply be a type of short sword. Same goes with throwing knifes are probably in the shuriken group.




Possible, but I *really* doubt that. 

- Light blades are described all over in the feats but not a listed proficiency. Almost surely that is a 'group'
- Hand crossbow is definitely the name of single weapon, not a group. Likewise in 3e short sword and sling are single weapon names.
- If you list several unique weapon names, it would be odd to list weapon groups in the same list, especially without calling one a group.
- Having 'shuriken' as a group would please some people, but adds a ton of complexity and similar options at a time when they seem to be streamlining and pairing down quite a bit.
- They're really stressing the "stick it between a rib" at ultra-close range thing, there's not a hint of "swashbuckling" in any of the fluff we're seeing in this article. While a rapier-based striker might be feasible and a lot of fun, it sure doesn't sound like the basic rogue describe here is any kind of fencing master.
- So... Rapier may be a light blade, or it may be useful non-proficiently, or may be a racial proficiency, but I doubt it's a short sword. 

Still - ya never know - and good of you to point out the distinction between pick as weapon and pick as group. At this point there's still a lot of speculating we're all doing


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Oooh....now _that's _interesting.




I pray that was sarcasm.... as if this train of thought hadn't been presented about 28 times already by people who weren't trained in "Gather Information" *cheap joke rim-shot*


----------



## ltbaxter

*Doesn't positioning strike seem odd?*

I really did enjoy the article 'Sneak Attack' but after reading through all these pages here, I'm wondering if I'm the only one perplexed by one of the skills mentioned...

The _only_ point in the article that left me thinking "What?!!?!?" is the synergy modification in the Positioning Strike. By itself the Strike is a very interesting and balanced tactic. A great way to slide an opponent one square using your mental cunning instead of a strength based bull-rush. But add in Artful Dodger and get: "Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Charisma modifier."

Eek!! Even a 1st level rogue who pushes charisma or is of a high-charisma race can push around a big brute an insane distance. 25' (5 squares) would not be out of the question at all. In fact, this seems like you could possibly push something like a Dwarf around a greater distance than his move rate just by being charismatic and artful??? And/yet it needs a light blade to work and is called a shove.

I hope they reconsider this! It's the only thing in there that screams "D&D Final Fantasy edition".  Or... am I in the minority thinking this is insane?  I like the idea of synergies in skills, just not the details of the one synergy I see mentioned so far.


----------



## WhatGravitas

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> - So... Rapier may be a light blade, or it may be useful non-proficiently, or may be a racial proficiency, but I doubt it's a short sword.



Thing about the Rapier could be that it's a light blade, but significantly better than other light blades, hence requiring the rogue to get a feat to use.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Wormwood

Archangel_Zer0 said:
			
		

> I pray that was sarcasm.... as if this train of thought hadn't been presented about 28 times already by people who weren't trained in "Gather Information" *cheap joke rim-shot*



No it wasn't sarcasm. I may have missed this the first 28 times. So what?


----------



## nightspaladin

I personally think we are going to end up seeing something like this

Each weapon will list a profiencies on the weapon chart(we already know that they do from critical hit preview)

So Rapier may simply say proficencies short sword on the the weapon table

This next part is complete conjecture but it is my guess based on the way they seem to like predictability in 4e design and the new weapon abilities

I think we will see all the weapons with one type of proficencies all do the same samage. For example, the gladiuss, short sword and rapier may all list short sword as the proficency. They will all do d6 damage. The difference between the three will lie in the weapon abilities. short sword may by "Versitile", rapier may be "High Crit" etc etc. We know these exist from the critical hit preview as well. So maybe your choice of weapon will not come down so much to damage, but what extra little trick to you want your weapon to do,


----------



## Lizard

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> Eek!! Even a 1st level rogue who pushes charisma or is of a high-charisma race can push around a big brute an insane distance. 25' (5 squares) would not be out of the question at all. In fact, this seems like you could possibly push something like a Dwarf around a greater distance than his move rate just by being charismatic and artful??? And/yet it needs a light blade to work and is called a shove.




Shades of the Samurai-cleave-teleport!

Can you use this on an ally?

Are there any terrain effect limits?

I going to guess 'squares' is also a unit of movement cost, so if terrain costs, say, 3 squares to move in, he will move only 1 (real) square for every 3 points of charisma bonus...

It's hard to imagine how a halfling can 'feint and shove' an ogre 20 feet, indeed.


----------



## Wolfspider

Lizard said:
			
		

> Shades of the Samurai-cleave-teleport!




The what?


----------



## Wolfspider

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> Eek!! Even a 1st level rogue who pushes charisma or is of a high-charisma race can push around a big brute an insane distance. 25' (5 squares) would not be out of the question at all. In fact, this seems like you could possibly push something like a Dwarf around a greater distance than his move rate just by being charismatic and artful???




Amusing image.


----------



## Remathilis

Having missed all the good discussion, I just want to say I'm happy with the rogue so far...

Ironically, my namesake PC was an elf rogue. I can make him in 4e now!


----------



## Lizard

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The what?




I cannot find the exact rule now, but there was some OA feat or ability that allowed a character to take a 5 foot step after each cleave, without any apparent limit, so the thought came that you could line a row of peasants up, have a samurai attack one, and move an almost unlimited distance in a single round as long as each peasant died on the first hit, not impossible given a high-level samurai.


----------



## Sir Brennen

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> The _only_ point in the article that left me thinking "What?!!?!?" is the synergy modification in the Positioning Strike. By itself the Strike is a very interesting and balanced tactic. A great way to slide an opponent one square using your mental cunning instead of a strength based bull-rush. But add in Artful Dodger and get: "Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Charisma modifier."
> 
> Eek!! Even a 1st level rogue who pushes charisma or is of a high-charisma race can push around a big brute an insane distance. 25' (5 squares) would not be out of the question at all. In fact, this seems like you could possibly push something like a Dwarf around a greater distance than his move rate just by being charismatic and artful??? And/yet it needs a light blade to work and is called a shove.



Well, you said yourself, it's not a strength based bull-rush. It's a feint, getting your opponent off balance enough that just a light poke will send him stumbling away from you. The Artful Dodger just really knows how to taunt an opponent into overextending themselves, or rush them, using the target's own momentum against them.

That said, I could see defenders and dwarves having abilities which help them resist/reduce sliding.  Size could also be a factor; every size category a target is above the attacker might reduce the maximum sliding distance by one square, for example.

Until we know how sliding works, it's a little to soon to say "OMG! This is broken!"



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> It's hard to imagine how a halfling can 'feint and shove' an ogre 20 feet, indeed.



Not at all. That ogre really has to lean over to smack that little halfing. Easy pickin's.


----------



## Henry

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The what?




If I'm recalling it correctly, the theory goes that a Samurai from the old 3e rules, with the Supreme Cleave class ability, could line up a bunch of mooks in a straight line, start killing one of them, step 5 feet, kill another, step 5 feet, kill another, etc. to well beyond his move. he could move an infinite number of mooks in distance, leading to measuring distances not in miles, but in "mooks." 

_"The town of Grossberg is pretty far from here -- at least 142,000 mooks away."_


----------



## Lizard

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Well, you said yourself, it's not a strength based bull-rush. It's a feint, getting your opponent off balance enough that just a light poke will send him stumbling away from you. The Artful Dodger just really knows how to taunt an opponent into overextending themselves, or rush them, using the target's own momentum against them.




This makes sense if it can only be used against a charging/moving opponent, and I can see a one-square slide due to stumbling and regaining balance, but it's really hard to visualize a fighter holding his ground being tossed back 10+ feet simply because a rogue did some fancy footwork or even tripped him, without ANY regard to size/weight differences.


----------



## ferratus

Lizard said:
			
		

> My point to be extra-special-super-clear, was NOT that 4e had mutated to the extent it was a new game, but that those claiming that it still had too many 'holdovers' seemed to be hoping that it WOULD.




So why all this hub-bub on multiple threads that D&D is changing too much, and the initial knee-jerk response that change is usually bad rather than good.  I'm sick of the current edition to the point where 3e is one of the last games I want to play because for about 3 years I've known most of of the problems with it.  3.5 fixed some problems (such as the Ranger class) but there are problems with the way the game is structured down to the root (such as multiclassing) that simply can't be fixed without a substantial overhaul.



> So let me refocus yet again:
> What about the rogue preview indicates a 3e holdover which cannot be justified on any basis but nostalgia or sacred-cow-ness? IOW, what's there which keeps 4e from being as much of an improvement over 3e as it theoretically could/should be?




Depends what you want.  I could see an argument for D&D still being D&D if you did remove character classes altogether.  A lot of people are complaining for example that the rogue 
has too few weapons, others are complaining that they have to take skills they don't want.  

I could therefore see the case being made therefore to remove the classes and simply have all the powers as a loose grab bag.  Want a gang leader?  Grab a few dirty fighting powers, grab a few leadership powers that the warlord has, and presto.   All the abilities with none of the of the stuff you don't want.   GURPS of course, is an example of an RPG that operates this way.

However, you would still have characters be fighting Dragons, inside Dungeons, with magic and weapons.  That's really all the brand name really requires.  Is continuity necessary over previous editions?  Maybe from a marketing standpoint... but I see no moral imperative nor do I assume that there is an ideal form of D&D rules.   I'm with Aristotle that forms are recognized by their function.  You know it is a chair if you sit on it, you know it is D&D if there are dungeons being crawled and dragons being killed.  

I myself am unsure what should have been scrapped or saved for the 4e rogue class.   I like D&D roles, am pleased that they are being designed to work together, and I hope they have equivalent combat power levels.  It will all come out of the wash when I find out the other 2/3 of what my rogue is supposed to be.  I do know that elves are the best archers among the rogues, and that it is a deliberate design decision.  I can only guess what the dwarves, halflings, humans etc. are going to do to customize the class by adding to the powers and weapon list.  I can only guess what the other powers will be, how easy it will be to add more, or how much of a role feats will play in customization.   

I will say that I would rather play a brawny rogue rather than a trickster rogue, because it is got a more exotic spice.  I could come up with a pretty good approximation of the trickster rogue with 3e rules, but I don't think I could match the unshaven brutality of the brawny rogue.   A fighter/thief might be the closest, but is there an ability to twist the knife in someone, and can a fighter/thief fight dirty when he isn't flanking?


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

*whoops*



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> No it wasn't sarcasm. I may have missed this the first 28 times. So what?




Oops... my mistake then... talk about a botched sense motive... *sigh* wow I am such a loser.... lawlz.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Lizard said:
			
		

> This makes sense if it can only be used against a charging/moving opponent, and I can see a one-square slide due to stumbling and regaining balance, but it's really hard to visualize a fighter holding his ground being tossed back 10+ feet simply because a rogue did some fancy footwork or even tripped him, without ANY regard to size/weight differences.



Because the charismatic rogue got him annoyed enough to *not* stand his ground? (It IS a attack vs. Will, after all.) There's also moving/rushing/leaping going on within the 5' square during battle, too. This ability simply takes advantage of that.

But again, I think the role of fighter as Defender will give him ways to deal with these sorts of attacks. Fighters might have "stances", which are actual class abilities/powers - a'la the Bo9S - one of which could make them immune to sliding. I think we're worrying too much about the "poor 4E fighter."

And we don't know how size differences affect the rules, yet. Like I said above, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that the size of a creature affects the number of squares it can be slid.


----------



## SSquirrel

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So why would you prefer if Dungeons & Dragons changed even more from what it has been in the past?
> 
> What do you want D&D to be?
> 
> If what you want D&D is so different from what it's been, then why are you playing D&D and not some other game?




B/c it still retains some of the (IMO) terrible aspects it has had since the early game.  I want D&D to be the best game it can be.  It may well be that they won't accomplish this with 4E, but many of the changes are along my viewpoint of what would produce a better edition.  They can always pull a Highlander 2 and then say "What 4th Ed, we never made 4E, we're still chugging w/3.5E"


----------



## mach1.9pants

Lizard said:
			
		

> This makes sense if it can only be used against a charging/moving opponent, and I can see a one-square slide due to stumbling and regaining balance, but it's really hard to visualize a fighter holding his ground being tossed back 10+ feet simply because a rogue did some fancy footwork or even tripped him, without ANY regard to size/weight differences.



So do I. But (we hope) that 4E is going to be balanced within the classes. The only(?) way to do this, and keep all the magic, is give all the classes magic. Even if they call it by a different name. 
I reckon that 9 months ago I would have been the biggest anti-4E simulationist out here. But since I have tried Bo9S and realised, 'sod it, it is a game. I want fun and options *for all PC classes* not a world sim' I am now looking forward to it, LOTS!
I reckon if you are going to get annoyed by 'unrealistic' powers 4E will be really stressful to read. They have gone for class balance and options rather than realism. And as long as they have the balance sweet, I am happy to have my uber-heroic PC actions


----------



## Lizard

ferratus said:
			
		

> So why all this hub-bub on multiple threads that D&D is changing too much, and the initial knee-jerk response by you and Wolfspider on this thread that change is usually bad rather than good.




Actually, I said "Change is not always good", not "Change is usually bad". There's a difference. 

And the original conversation was about the complaint that SA is still in (though changed) implying the game wasn't as good as it could be, because not EVERYTHING had changed. This is what led to my comments that the idea that a lack of change==a lack of improvment, IN A SINGLE SPECIFIC AREA, is an invalid concept.

Obviously, if 4e was 3e with a different cover, it would not have changed. But it has changed -- in many, many, areas, and those who claim it hasn't changed *enough* need to explain how it should have changed, instead of just deciding any resemblance to 3e is too much.




> However, you would still have characters be fighting Dragons, inside Dungeons, with magic and weapons.  That's really all the brand name really requires.




I can do this in a dozen different games. A hundred. If you took Palladium Fantasy and rebranded it "Dungeons&Dragons", would it BE Dungeons&Dragons? What's in a name?



> You know it is a chair if you sit on it, you know it is D&D if there are dungeons being crawled and dragons being killed.




Aristotle needed to count women's teeth. And by this logic, I played D&D when I played Fantasy Hero, RIFTS, FUDGE, or GURPS.


----------



## Lizard

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Because the charismatic rogue got him annoyed enough to *not* stand his ground? (It IS a attack vs. Will, after all.) There's also moving/rushing/leaping going on within the 5' square during battle, too. This ability simply takes advantage of that.




So the rogue says "Catch me if you can, dumbass!" and runs off, leading the fighter on a merry chase? OK, I can see that...but, uhm, wouldn't that mean the rogue moves, too? This doesn't seem to be implied.



> And we don't know how size differences affect the rules, yet. Like I said above, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that the size of a creature affects the number of squares it can be slid.




Fair enough...


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> B/c it still retains some of the (IMO) terrible aspects it has had since the early game.  I want D&D to be the best game it can be.  It may well be that they won't accomplish this with 4E, but many of the changes are along my viewpoint of what would produce a better edition.  They can always pull a Highlander 2 and then say "What 4th Ed, we never made 4E, we're still chugging w/3.5E"




You must keep in mind though, your version of what "the best" is and the developers version via marketing research and playtesting, could be very different.  My version of best is certainly different than both of those.... but the question remains that you need to pose yourself, "What exactly do I want Dungeons and Dragons to be?" and the logical follow up "What could I fix about this system that I don't like, and what worked well?"  And once you have that - why not work on a system of your own?  That's what my DM did, while he still houserules a good bit, we still play D&D, but in his off time, he works on his own system, which works quite from what I've seen.

You never know, publishers may be interested in your system, and you could gain a hefty indie following,  nothing ventured, nothing gained I suppose.

Either way, this is just a bunch of pointless rambling on my part, sprinkled with bits of actual intelligence, run with it as you will.



Peace, Love, and Bloodstains,
~ Me.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Is this whole "It's still too 3E" conversation a good example of when to fork a thread?


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

*[Witty Title Here]*



			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Is this whole "It's still too 3E" conversation a good example of when to fork a thread?




duely noted... so... what were we talking about again?


----------



## Lizard

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I reckon that 9 months ago I would have been the biggest anti-4E simulationist out here. But since I have tried Bo9S and realised, 'sod it, it is a game. I want fun and options *for all PC classes* not a world sim' I am now looking forward to it, LOTS!
> I reckon if you are going to get annoyed by 'unrealistic' powers 4E will be really stressful to read. They have gone for class balance and options rather than realism. And as long as they have the balance sweet, I am happy to have my uber-heroic PC actions




The problem is, when the game begins to strain creduility, even in fantasy, people stop having fun, because they're reminded how artificial the game is. It's like the "Steal his pants" scene in "The Gamers". 

If characters constantly do things which are nonsensical even in the context of the game world, it's a powerful immersion breaker. That almost anything can be justified by sufficient imagination doesn't mean that it's not a problem to have to constantly 'reimagine' the action because what's described by the mechanics doesn't make sense.

No matter what example I provide, you will find some "reasonable" explanation, but do you want to have to do that every time the power is used, and for every other "non simulationist' power? Can I imagine how a halfling gets a standing ogre to charge 20 feet away from the halfling by being tricky? Yes. Do I want to keep coming up with explanations every time he does this, over and over and over, because no one bothered to add "for creatures of your size or smaller" into the power description? No. Do I hope that we're missing key pieces of the puzzle and this isn't how it's going to really work? Yes.


----------



## SSquirrel

Lizard said:
			
		

> I disagree, because this implies all aspects of a thing are de facto broken, and thus, must be changed to be improved. (And SA was changed, just not *eliminated*)
> 
> For example, if the next version of Word lacked the capacity to use the letter 'e', would it be an *improvement* because it was a *change*? There's way too much for change for change's sake in 4e as it is; why wish for more?




Sneak Attack now works on a LOT more monsters than it used to.  That change alone makes it far better and worth keeping around.

I'm curious what the "change for change sake" items are in your view.  Every edition of the game has included different races and classes in the mix as well as drastically different art styles.  When I think of "change for change sake" I think of the White Wolf revamp of the WoD to the NWoD.  Using the same names for alot of things that were completely different from their old meaning, making up new names for things that already existed.  The system wasn't really streamlined much, they just spelled out more of the +/- factors involved.  The magic sysetm for Mage used to be highly freeform w/very few rotes.  Now everything is pretty much rotes and the section on spells rivals the PHB in size. 

Those were just a couple of the changes in the Mage setting that I felt were poorly handled. Let's not even start on the awful "Hai guyz! Atlantis!" and something about ladders background story.

I have yet to see anything in 4E that made me want to throw up so it's well ahead of the NWoD.  I will say tho that the Changeling book has been the best revision of their old settings.  Drastic re-imagining but it actually puts a focus to a game that was previously (inaccurately) viewed as a more kiddie setting somehow as well as just leaving a lot of people scratching their heads.

PS I'm sorry if people involved w/the NWoD stuff read this and get offended, it's all just IMO and I wish it wasn't, but it has saved me lots of money.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Lizard said:
			
		

> So the rogue says "Catch me if you can, dumbass!" and runs off, leading the fighter on a merry chase? OK, I can see that...but, uhm, wouldn't that mean the rogue moves, too? This doesn't seem to be implied.



Taunt, get the guy to rush you, maybe even *look* like you're going to run, then Artfully Dodge at the last moment and slap 'em with your sword as they pass by.

We're probably getting into YMMV territory, and maybe some of the specifics of the powers are a little gamist. But I think they open up enough tactics and options which didn't exist in combat before, that part of the fun will be in describing in game the effects of these mechanics in cinematic terms. 

I think the new edition is going away from trying to think "How is that even possible?" to "Yah! I saw that in a movie once!" I mean, we pretty much already do this with magic; now it's just being extended to the other classes.
*
Edit:* I see you've already stated your counter to this two posts above. (It's like magic!) All I can say is, because it is a game, there will always be mechanics which strain credibility on how they depict "the real world" for someone. Trying to avoid that will either lead to either an extremely complex or boring game, or both.


----------



## ltbaxter

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> I personally think we are going to end up seeing something like this
> 
> Each weapon will list a profiencies on the weapon chart(we already know that they do from critical hit preview)
> 
> So Rapier may simply say proficencies short sword on the the weapon table
> 
> This next part is complete conjecture but it is my guess based on the way they seem to like predictability in 4e design and the new weapon abilities
> 
> I think we will see all the weapons with one type of proficencies all do the same samage. For example, the gladiuss, short sword and rapier may all list short sword as the proficency. They will all do d6 damage. The difference between the three will lie in the weapon abilities. short sword may by "Versitile", rapier may be "High Crit" etc etc. We know these exist from the critical hit preview as well. So maybe your choice of weapon will not come down so much to damage, but what extra little trick to you want your weapon to do,




Now that's very interesting, nightspaladin!  That would work very well, would avoid the problem of having to rewrite the rules for all classes/talents when anyone created a new weapon (ie the ice cleaver blade - uses short sword proficiency). What makes this plausible is that they seem to also have shifted from 'light' armor proficiency to 'leather' (and some would suggest, chain and plate instead of medium and heavy).

Doing so, assigning a proficiency that applies to a whole class, would allow a character to use a specific weapon based on cost, style, type of crit, rather than one stated type. Then again, the specific use of the word "dagger" in some of the other talents would be going in the opposite direction, pinning down characters to very specific weapon types. I hope it's the former...


----------



## Tusz

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> Possible, but I *really* doubt that.
> 
> - Light blades are described all over in the feats but not a listed proficiency. Almost surely that is a 'group'




I took it to mean that "Light Blade" can refer to either a dagger [dagger, katar] or Short Sword [short sword, gladius, rapier].



			
				ltbaxter said:
			
		

> - Hand crossbow is definitely the name of single weapon, not a group. Likewise in 3e short sword and sling are single weapon names.
> - If you list several unique weapon names, it would be odd to list weapon groups in the same list, especially without calling one a group.




I don't think they're "groups" so much as weapons with other weapons that are used in a similar way.



			
				ltbaxter said:
			
		

> - Having 'shuriken' as a group would please some people, but adds a ton of complexity and similar options at a time when they seem to be streamlining and pairing down quite a bit.




Again, I think they're just using "shuriken" as a sample light, thrown weapon. And I think the options within that subset (shuriken, throwing daggers, possibly throwing axes) will all have different advantages that will make them not quite so similar. Shuriken might be exceptionally fast to use and allow you to throw an extra one, whereas throwing axes might be "high crit."



			
				ltbaxter said:
			
		

> - They're really stressing the "stick it between a rib" at ultra-close range thing, there's not a hint of "swashbuckling" in any of the fluff we're seeing in this article. While a rapier-based striker might be feasible and a lot of fun, it sure doesn't sound like the basic rogue describe here is any kind of fencing master.




It was mentioned by a dev a while ago that you can play a sneaky rib-shanker or a more swashbuckling type rogue. They might both be the "brawny" style, but with a different selection of powers (since we haven't seen all of them).


----------



## mach1.9pants

Lizard said:
			
		

> The problem is, when the game begins to strain creduility, even in fantasy, people stop having fun, because they're reminded how artificial the game is.



But the point that this happens is going to differ from gamer to gamer and group to group. My level this happens is maybe a lot higher than yours. More than powers breaking my immersion (cos you can think of a reason, if you try hard enough- I don't bother) it is art which has ridiculous weps and armour. They stick in my head more, but that is just me!



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> No matter what example I provide, you will find some "reasonable" explanation, but do you want to have to do that every time the power is used, and for every other "non simulationist' power?



I *could* but I won't bother. It just _does_ what it says...



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Can I imagine how a halfling gets a standing ogre to charge 20 feet away from the halfling by being tricky? Yes. Do I want to keep coming up with explanations every time he does this, over and over and over, because no one bothered to add "for creatures of your size or smaller" into the power description? No. Do I hope that we're missing key pieces of the puzzle and this isn't how it's going to really work? Yes.



I see where you are coming from -entirely- but IMO this is 4E and how it will be. I do hope for simulationists (or whatever) house ruling will be easy


----------



## JosephK

Man, I really *really* like this stuff.. Looks like 4e is going to be awesome!


Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either. 

Sure he can multi-class as warrior, but that that doesnt help him with regard to using the rogue powers, they'll still be unavailable with his greatsword. He cant sneak attack, no extra + to hit or anything. From the looks of it, the classes are somewhat (in certain aspects anyway) more limited to traditional "roles".

Also in the same vein, what's up with no + to hps, from CON? If con is only added to hp once, it will have a fairly insignificant impact on them, at level 10-30. I always thought it was kinda cool to have players do different things with the stats.. Such as the dwarven wizard, who placed his best stat in con and who used all his ability increases on con instead of intelligence and ended up being one of the stoutest characters in our group at the higher levels (or the extremely skillful, but frail and dexterous fighter, etc). 

Seems to me that some forms of variety and differentiation have been removed, in favor of more fixed archetypes. Of course, without having seen all of the rules, it's impossible to tell, whether these types of things are possible, and if new options for playing quirky (mechanically speaking) characters have been added.


----------



## mach1.9pants

JosephK said:
			
		

> Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.



How long before a feat allows you to use another weapon for these powers? If you want to be non-standard (and doing more damage than the standard) your going to have to pay a feat for it, IMO.


----------



## SSquirrel

Archangel_Zer0 said:
			
		

> You must keep in mind though, your version of what "the best" is and the developers version via marketing research and playtesting, could be very different.  My version of best is certainly different than both of those.... but the question remains that you need to pose yourself, "What exactly do I want Dungeons and Dragons to be?" and the logical follow up "What could I fix about this system that I don't like, and what worked well?"  And once you have that - why not work on a system of your own?  That's what my DM did, while he still houserules a good bit, we still play D&D, but in his off time, he works on his own system, which works quite from what I've seen.
> 
> You never know, publishers may be interested in your system, and you could gain a hefty indie following,  nothing ventured, nothing gained I suppose.




No real interest in designing my own system.  Plus w/our 2nd daughter almost here and the busy time of year at work, I'm lucky to have time to play WoW, let alone much of anything else.  I've helped friends who were designing their own several times and I always just sat there saying "you know this is all just really close to X" or "This is X plus bits of Y here, why not just houserule syetem X?"

I don't need to do all that work b/c they're already doing a lot of the things I wanted to see gone.  Not all of course, but I'm not a designer of the team so I'm not surprised more of my input isn't involved   Some other systems like Arcana Evolved attack my dislikes in different ways and also ditch alignment and the arcane/divine split, while giving me new races and classes to change the usual archetypes around.

But sometimes I just wanna play D&D, so hopefully the version of D&D we're playing is one that makes me excited and want to play.  So far 4E sounds more enticing than 3.5, which i never bothered buying.  3E PHB and a list of the bigger changes worked fine.


----------



## SSquirrel

Lizard said:
			
		

> If characters constantly do things which are nonsensical even in the context of the game world, it's a powerful immersion breaker. That almost anything can be justified by sufficient imagination doesn't mean that it's not a problem to have to constantly 'reimagine' the action because what's described by the mechanics doesn't make sense.




The key phrase here is "in the context of the game world".  While the halfling chasing an ogre back 20' would be odd, I seriously doubt we saw all the text involving this situation.  A lot of people are pointing at pretty much anything they can tho as saying they will break verisimilitude, when they are internally consistent w/the game world, just not OUR world.  Internal consistency is more important than matching up w/the real world.  Cuz we lack elves and magic and dragons in the real world and we all know those are more fun in D&D


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

*Diggin it like I dig graves*



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> No real interest in designing my own system.  Plus w/our 2nd daughter almost here and the busy time of year at work, I'm lucky to have time to play WoW, let alone much of anything else.  I've helped friends who were designing their own several times and I always just sat there saying "you know this is all just really close to X" or "This is X plus bits of Y here, why not just houserule syetem X?"
> 
> I don't need to do all that work b/c they're already doing a lot of the things I wanted to see gone.  Not all of course, but I'm not a designer of the team so I'm not surprised more of my input isn't involved   Some other systems like Arcana Evolved attack my dislikes in different ways and also ditch alignment and the arcane/divine split, while giving me new races and classes to change the usual archetypes around.
> 
> But sometimes I just wanna play D&D, so hopefully the version of D&D we're playing is one that makes me excited and want to play.  So far 4E sounds more enticing than 3.5, which i never bothered buying.  3E PHB and a list of the bigger changes worked fine.




Aaawwwwww a family man!  Congrats on the baby!  Very cool stuff (definitely not my style, but still cool).  Well, I definitely understand where you're coming from on that, so with that in mind, houserules and homebrew are looking like your best bet - at least until the final product comes out and we can all make a definitive judgement on it.


----------



## ferratus

Lizard said:
			
		

> Obviously, if 4e was 3e with a different cover, it would not have changed. But it has changed -- in many, many, areas, and those who claim it hasn't changed *enough* need to explain how it should have changed, instead of just deciding any resemblance to 3e is too much.




Like I said, it depends what you want.  If you don't want classes or class roles at all, I could see an argument could be made that this is a sacred cow that should have been cut.  If you didn't like that there was any class focusing on thievery for moral reasons because it isn't heroic you could argue that 




> I can do this in a dozen different games. A hundred. If you took Palladium Fantasy and rebranded it "Dungeons&Dragons", would it BE Dungeons&Dragons? What's in a name?




I could easily see an alternate history in which design decisions were made that made D&D into a GURPS clone.  With 4e, the powers that be at WotC might have decided that specific races and classes were a relic that limited player choice and the kinds of stories that the DM can tell.  They would have, of course, been right.   Other people have argued that leveling up disrupts the narrative flow of a story and forces too much attention on combat.  They are also right.   Now all of these features have positive aspects as well, but one could imagine the decision being made that the cons outweighed the pros.  So if 4e had made the changes to remove specific races, classes, and leveling up from the game would it still be D&D?  Of course it would, because it would still fill the function of killing dragons in dungeons with weapons and magic.   

I could also imagine a less likely alternate history where Palladium Fantasy was so successful that TSR was bought out Palladium Books instead of Wizards of the Coast.  A subsequent product could have used the "Dungeons & Dragons" name and probably would have resembled Palladium Fantasy more than a little, but it still would have been an edition of "Dungeons and Dragons".  I make no promises as to how successful it would have been.



> Aristotle needed to count women's teeth.




Ah, a few mistakes or disagreements make the whole body of work worthless?   That seems oddly familiar to some criticisms of 4e.     I think somebody can acknowledge Aristotle's shortcomings without saying he should have never bothered or that he had nothing positive to contribute.  I also think he should be acknowledged where he (or his tradition of thought) is superior to other philosophers.  So too with 4e should it be acknowledged where things are being fixed without the instant backlash that fixing those problems is making D&D not D&D anymore.


----------



## SSquirrel

Oh I'm being very careful to withhold final judgment till I buy the core books.  I have all the setting core books for NWoD stuff too, largely so I could verify what I had been hearing from friends regarding their disappointment heh.  Whether I buy more 4E books after the core release will become the question, but I'm a lot more on the 4E side than the 3.5 side and so far 4E looks like my cup of tea.  Hopefully it stays so.

I just wanna game w/my friends, I don't care what system really...mostly


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

ferratus said:
			
		

> Oh, as a final note on the avoid armour class by targeting a defender's reflex save... yeah I can see that being annoying to a defender.   But I also fully expect that defenders are the guys rogues want to annoy with stabbing the least.  That's probably why Mouseferatu doesn't use it very often.



Remember, defenders are "sticky."  Perhaps it's often not worth trying to go toe to toe with them because you might not be able to get away again.


----------



## helium3

JosephK said:
			
		

> Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.




Well, obviously, your way of playing things is WRONG. 

That being said, once you get some 4E under your belt you'll probably have a good idea of whether or not using a Greatsword in conjunction with Sneak Attack is all that broken and various house rules will pop to mind.


----------



## Sir Brennen

JosephK said:
			
		

> Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.



There's a fantasy archtype that sneak attacks with a greatsword? Seriously?

In melee, if you do not use a light blade, you can't sneak attack. Makes perfect sense to me.

The class already caters to the "Brawny Rogue" you describe, which is a step up from 3E.  But bring in that greatsword, and I'm thinking it's more like a fighter who's dipped into rogue, not vice-versa. You're not trying to slip a thin dagger in between the enemy's armor gaps, you're trying to cleave them in half. 

There have been hints that you can "semi-class" with feats, picking up just a little of another class's abilities without taking a full level (so you wouldn't lose sneak attack because you don't actually get it in the first place.) Also, there might be a fighter power which is a clear substitute for sneak attack, would work better with the greatsword, and could be simply swapped out even if you're playing a full rogue. Mike Mearls has indicated that class abilities and powers have been designed that a smorgsboard approach is viable. There are also probably plenty of rogue powers which aren't reliant on the weapon wielded; we're only seeing a small sample.


----------



## Ulthwithian

First post, here.  Hello everyone. 

The Rogue looks quite intriguing.  I agree with most people that the weapon listing seems quite small, to the point that I think WotC is doing 'grouping' of sorts.

Fixed HP progression is good to me because most people already do it in one form or another, but also because it allows for better tuning of encounters (or, put another way, playtest feedback is more valuable as there are fewer variables to consider).

The powers looked quite interesting, though SA was disappointing.  I'm hoping that there are powers for the class that add SA damage to the power's damage.  That would be a nice inherent scaling of damage with level in a very controlled fashion.

Finally, I see many concerns about the swashbuckling version of the Rogue and its seeming lack in the entry.  I think this is mainly due to the fact that most of the powers shown were from the 'Brute-influenced list'.  IIRC, most of the suggested powers for the 'glib Rogue' build weren't given to us, and thus the picture we have of the Rogue is lopsided.

Time will tell!

Ulthwithian
4E Fanboy


----------



## JosephK

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> There's a fantasy archtype that sneak attacks with a greatsword? Seriously?
> 
> In melee, if you do not use a light blade, you can't sneak attack. Makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> The class already caters to the "Brawny Rogue" you describe, which is a step up from 3E.  But bring in that greatsword, and I'm thinking it's more like a fighter who's dipped into rogue, not vice-versa. You're not trying to slip a thin dagger in between the enemy's armor gaps, you're trying to cleave them in half.
> 
> There have been hints that you can "semi-class" with feats, picking up just a little of another class's abilities without taking a full level (so you wouldn't lose sneak attack because you don't actually get it in the first place.) Also, there might be a fighter power which is a clear substitute for sneak attack, would work better with the greatsword, and could be simply swapped out even if you're playing a full rogue. Mike Mearls has indicated that class abilities and powers have been designed that a smorgsboard approach is viable. There are also probably plenty of rogue powers which aren't reliant on the weapon wielded; we're only seeing a small sample.





Well, there's Fafhrd for one.. Others too imo, but really... It's not about the greatsword, it's about the (seemingly) very specific role (well, two I guess) offered as playable with the mechanics of the class. It could be a spear wielding guy, how about someone with a mace or club? I guess if you interpret 'sneak attack' as the precise stab with a thin blade to a vital area, it makes sense only to allow it with 'light blades'. But that in itself limits it imo. 

What about the blow to the back of the head (or the the arm joints or something) with a club? Or similar? A well aimed spear thrust from the shadows? Or yes, even a sneaky dexterous brute swinging a greatsword from an advantageous position (flanked) in combat. My main point is not about whether a greatsword or a halberd though theoretically be used to "sneak attack" with (that would depend on how you define a sneak attack, obviously the text just says 'combat advantage'), it's about locking the class with a restricted set of options, as far as untradional weapon choices go. That's just this example, could be other stuff.. Like why only +1 with daggers and die-increase on shuriken? Rapier wielding swashbucklers not allowed? Or just mechanically inferior to a dagger wielding (and thusly the most 'iconic' version of the rogue). 

Dont get me wrong, as I wrote in my first post, I really like this article and I'm really looking forward to switching to the 4e, it looks awesome.. I just dont understand why they put in these arbitrary restrictions on stuff, that (as far as I can tell from what little we know so far) fixes the classes into the very traditional and (imo) somewhat boring archetypes (mechanic and fluff-wise).


----------



## Spatula

So why can't rogues wield even a simple club?  Or sneak attack with a thrown weapon (shuriken or otherwise) or a bow?  The class preview is interesting, but the restrictions are surprisingly heavy-handed.  Color me disappointed.


----------



## outsider

I find this thread funny, because it has Wormwood complaining about 4e and Lizard arguing against his complaints.     Nothing like a good show of crunch to shake up people's expectations!

The rogue looks great.  Finally some good attack options other than Flank->Sneak Attack.  The rogue has ability to attack any of the 4 defences, which should be nice.  Would be better if they had at wills that attack each of the 4 defences, but who knows, maybe there'll be other powers to cover that.  It would give them alot of offensive flexibility if they could simply attack whichever defence appears to be weakest on their foe at will.

I'm not really a big fan of Wizards putting suggested builds into the books.  But, I know that ultimately I'll find far better builds than what they suggest anyways, so it's not a big deal.  Might help less mechanically minded players build a decent character, so I can see why they did it.


----------



## Stogoe

A shuriken is a light blade, guys.  That's pretty obvious.


----------



## Belphanior

JosephK said:
			
		

> Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.




*Feat Name:* Weapon Finesse
*Prerequisite:* Rogue, proficiency with the selected weapon.
*Benefit:* Pick a single one-handed melee weapon or a ranged weapon. You may treat this weapon as a light blade for the purposes of making sneak attacks or using rogue powers.
*Special:* If you are a Brawny Rogue, your weapon choice may also be a two-handed melee weapon.


I'd be seriously surprised if this or something similar wouldn't be in the PHB or the martial supplement that comes out later this year. Really.

I mean... I just don't get it. All this complaining about how the rogue doesn't fulfill the swashbuckler archetype or the greatsword-sneaker archetype or whatever other archetype. Maybe the vanilla rogue just needs some feats to break into that terrain. In fact, that's what I expect and sort of require from the new rogue. You got your basic class (in two different flavors). Add in race, skills, feats, powers, paragon paths, and talent selection and you'll end up with a more nuanced character that only uses his class as a foundation instead of a tight definition. And _of course_ we can't see the full extent of that yet because it would mean publishing all the damn feats in the book as a bare minimum.


----------



## Wormwood

outsider said:
			
		

> Nothing like a good show of crunch to shake up people's expectations!



It's hard to stay in character sometimes. 

Working on it


----------



## Mad Mac

> So why can't rogues wield even a simple club? Or sneak attack with a thrown weapon (shuriken or otherwise) or a bow? The class preview is interesting, but the restrictions are surprisingly heavy-handed. Color me disappointed.




  Honestly? I think they're trying to discourage everyone just using the weapons that do the most damage. They want different classes to feel different in their weapon and armor choices, and powers that compliment that equipment. 

 Dagger weilding rogues are iconic, but there wasn't a really good reason to be a dagger using rogue in 3rd edition. You pretty much used a Rapier if going the finesse route, or a greatsword or other big weapon if you were a multi-classed Fighter/Rogue type. And everyone who dual-weilded used two shortswords because that was the optimal choice for most characters. 

  With lower sneak attack damage, it's a more fair trade-off anyways, especially with so many powers that multiply base weapon damage. You can use a dagger at the heroic tier for the +1 attack and possible  1d4 +2d6 sneak attack damage, or you can use a greataxe for, we'll just say, 1d12+ St on every attack. That's not a bad deal, especially with powers that do double weapon dice damage, or critical hits. 

  I'm also one of the people that are pretty sure that shurkein fall into the "light blade" catagory, as it would be a puzzling ommision otherwise. 

  That said, I could see expanding the weapon list a little. But we don't really know how multiclassing and weapon proff's even work at this point, so it's mostly speculation.


----------



## JosephK

Belphanior said:
			
		

> *Feat Name:* Weapon Finesse
> *Prerequisite:* Rogue, proficiency with the selected weapon.
> *Benefit:* Pick a single one-handed melee weapon or a ranged weapon. You may treat this weapon as a light blade for the purposes of making sneak attacks or using rogue powers.
> *Special:* If you are a Brawny Rogue, your weapon choice may also be a two-handed melee weapon.
> 
> 
> I'd be seriously surprised if this or something similar wouldn't be in the PHB or the martial supplement that comes out later this year. Really.
> 
> I mean... I just don't get it. All this complaining about how the rogue doesn't fulfill the swashbuckler archetype or the greatsword-sneaker archetype or whatever other archetype. Maybe the vanilla rogue just needs some feats to break into that terrain. In fact, that's what I expect and sort of require from the new rogue. You got your basic class (in two different flavors). Add in race, skills, feats, powers, paragon paths, and talent selection and you'll end up with a more nuanced character that only uses his class as a foundation instead of a tight definition. And _of course_ we can't see the full extent of that yet because it would mean publishing all the damn feats in the book as a bare minimum.





Meh.. Blowing a feat (whether or not they're actually as precious in 4e as they are in 3e) on changing something as minor as the weapon used just seems silly to me (while further making the non-tradional archetype even more mechanically inferior). The main point I'm trying to make, is that to me it just seems as a very arbitrary restriction.. Something I was hoping we'd see less of, not more. There is no (sensible) reason for not including a club for sneak attacking.. Or a rapier for the "rogue weapon talent" ability.. Not that I can see anyway.

Re-iterating.. It's not that I'm complaining over how horrible 4e class mechanics are, it's just that I'm commenting on a minor thing I dislike at first glance.


----------



## Doug McCrae

It does look like classes will be more limited than they were in 3e. I think that's probably a good thing, given that overwhelming choices were a major criticism. It will also help players return to the game more quickly when their PC dies, which is a huge consideration for me.

However we haven't yet seen several areas that will increase options: multiclassing, training in another class (mentioned in a playtest report), feats, the full suite of rogue powers or the ranger, which will give more options for a lightly armoured combatant perhaps including stealthy-guy-with-a-greatsword.

The ideal solution is upfront simplicity for the casual player with a somewhat concealed plethora of options for the gearhead. Maybe we'll see something like that in 4e after all. Casual players take a single class with a recommended list of feats. Gearheads mess about with multiclassing, training and feats.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Stogoe said:
			
		

> A shuriken is a light blade, guys.  That's pretty obvious.



Is it? How? Light blade says to me short swords, rapiers, daggers, etc, etc. Not a thrown shrapnel of weapon, the previous picture not withstanding.


----------



## Wolfspider

ferratus said:
			
		

> So why all this hub-bub on multiple threads that D&D is changing too much, and the initial knee-jerk response by you and Wolfspider on this thread that change is usually bad rather than good.




Excuse me?


----------



## Incenjucar

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Is it? How? Light blade says to me short swords, rapiers, daggers, etc, etc. Not a thrown shrapnel of weapon, the previous picture not withstanding.




Shuriken are actually often used as fist/punching weapons, much like how one of the better ways to use the dagger or knife is in a punch/slash rather than a stab.

But it remains to be seen whether this is how the rules work.

I do hope knives and stilettos are included in "dagger."


----------



## Fallen Seraph

*Looks at how many more pages have been made since last night* *cries*

Anyone willing to give me a overview of any big points people have come up with so far?


----------



## The Little Raven

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's hard to imagine how a halfling can 'feint and shove' an ogre 20 feet, indeed.




It's hard to imagine how a halfling can even survive an encounter with an ogre, since realistically the ogre would crush the halfling before the halfling could do much of anything, but that's why we don't judge fantasy encounters with realistic standards. We looked the other way when a person the size of a 2-year-old was able to wreak havoc on a dragon well over 50x his size with a small blade (3e halfling rogue versus dragon), so I don't see why it's so difficult to imagine him manipulating an ogre using his sharp blade and sharp tongue.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Shuriken are actually often used as fist/punching weapons, much like how one of the better ways to use the dagger or knife is in a punch/slash rather than a stab.



OK, that tells me! I didn't realise that at all; I always picture a star shaped throwing thing or a minor variation on that. Wouldn't want to punch someone with one of them in my hand!

EDIT: from Wikipedia:
"Shuriken (手裏剣; lit: "hand released blade") is a traditional Japanese concealed weapon that was generally used for throwing, and sometimes stabbing or slashing an opponent's arteries."

hand released blade, ta daa. Light bulb in my head


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I imagine a agile halfling rogue jumping about, nicking the ogre here and there, and always moving keeping the ogre off balance till it stumbles back.

Or as Batshido put on the official forum:

"I just got the mental image of a Fighter and an ogre battling furiously at cliff's edge, then a small, halfling shaped blur comes out of nowhere.

"YeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrraawwwarrrrBONK"

Flying headbutt, falling ogre, heroic pose, fade to black."


----------



## TwinBahamut

Err... whether or not a shuriken is a Light Blade or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a Rogue can throw a knife in order to Sneak Attack.

Historically in D&D, you can throw daggers. Being able to throw a dagger is practically its main advantage over just using a short sword. A dagger is _almost certainly_ a Light Blade, and there is no exception preventing a rogue from Sneak Attacking with a Light Blade as thrown weapon.

Just because shuriken can obviously be used as ranged weapons doesn't exclude daggers from also being ranged weapons. Of course, whether or not thrown weapons count as a ranged weapons or melee weapons for the purposes of Powers, and whether or not daggers and shuriken may or may not have any special weapon qualities that affect that distinction (such as "throwable: this weapon can be used to make ranged attacks with a melee Power") are also unknown factors.

Anyways, I hope there are not any sub-categories _below_ daggers, such as knives or stilettos. At that point, there would be too many overly similar weapons. I imagine that "Light Blade" can probably encompass everything from shuriken to rapiers, with no sub-categorization needed below that. The real question is if it is just "Light Blade" and "Heavy Blade", or if there is a middle ground of "Just Blade".


----------



## mach1.9pants

I think (points in forums always get lost) the point was that the Rogues proficiencies are "Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword" and he can only use "light blade, a crossbow, or a sling" for sneak attack. 
If shuriken and dagger are both light blades (along with short swords) then a Rogue can use all his standard weapons to sneak attack.


----------



## Tusz

Here are a couple other observations I've made. I tried my best to not repeat anyone else in the thread; my apologies if any of this has already been mentioned.

-Shuriken naming: I think there's a good reason they're calling this group shuriken. They're avoiding calling it "throwing dagger" so that people won't get annoyed that their character doesn't get that for free when they get "dagger" proficiency. They're avoiding calling it "throwing weapons" so that it doesn't seem to include javelins and cabers and other large throwing objects.

-Weapon Damage: Despite what other people have said, I'm thinking this still includes strength bonus, just like in earlier editions. Why? Because of this quote: "Strength should be a close second—it increases your damage directly, and it can determine other effects of your attacks." That indicates to me that strength adds to all your damage, in addition to giving a bonus to your special abilities.

-Crimson Edge: Holy Crap. I'm hoping that all Dailies are like this, giving you a seriously powerful ability to pull out when everything's going against you. I love the idea that the tide of a losing battle can take a sudden, pronounced shift when all the PCs decide to go all-out and unleash their most powerful abilities. And if you give "boss" monsters devastating, single-use powers, it works the other way too.

-Tumble: I like that they've pretty much stopped with the pretense of rolling and wrapped it in with the shift (nee 5' step). Another realization is that they seem to have wrapped it in with Spring Attack: provided that a shift is still a free/swift/minor/whatever action, a Rogue with Tumble will be able to go in (move action), deal some damage (standard action), and get away clean (shift). Makes sense to me, considering this is exactly the description we've been given for what Rogues do.


----------



## Wolfspider

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I think (points in forums always get lost) the point was that the Rogues proficiencies are "Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword" and he can only use "light blade, a crossbow, or a sling" for sneak attack.
> If shuriken and dagger are both light blades (along with short swords) then a Rogue can use all his standard weapons to sneak attack.




Makes sense to me.


----------



## Kurotowa

Regarding the complains some people have that Stealth and Thievery are fixed skills, I think that goes to the stated design philosophy of all characters being good at their basic role as a fixed starting point.  If you're playing a Rogue, no matter what else you do, you're at least good at being sneaky and light-fingered tricks.  As they've said, it's so there's less of a system mastery requirement to not-suck by missing out on an essential class skill or ability.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Also in the previous game, we had fixed class skills as well anyways. Atleast now we get to pick some of them.


----------



## SSquirrel

JosephK said:
			
		

> What about the blow to the back of the head (or the the arm joints or something) with a club? Or similar? A well aimed spear thrust from the shadows? Or yes, even a sneaky dexterous brute swinging a greatsword from an advantageous position (flanked) in combat. My main point is not about whether a greatsword or a halberd though theoretically be used to "sneak attack" with (that would depend on how you define a sneak attack, obviously the text just says 'combat advantage')*SNIP*




There IS a certain amount of surprise factor in someone w/a giant 2H weapon sneak attacking you.  You didn't realize that your spleen could appear from your stomach


----------



## tomtill

*is this a thread or a tome?*

Having just read through the thread, a few thoughts...

1. couldn't some of the weapons represent classes of weapons. The war pick preview listed it as a pick. If pick was in the weapon list, I would assume it includes the war pick. So a shuriken, short sword, etc may represent multiple specific weapons.

2. the Rogue is a striker, one of the defined roles. A martial striker without Thievery is a Ranger, isn't it? I would guess Stealth is also a class skill of the Ranger, which would also include a class skill/power allowing urban/wilderness tracking. I guess people are having trouble designing a swashbuckler type with current 4e info, without any thieving or tracking or stealth skills. 

It's a pretty popular type. I'm confident WotC will provide a reasonable class/build that will embrace it.

3. about the whole halfling vs. ogre thing. Remember that halflings and humans and ogres are all different species. Apples and oranges. A 3-4 ft tall chimpanzee is much much much stronger than a human of any size. If believability is the problem, please put your mind at ease.


4. Love it, love it, love it.


----------



## Just Another User

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> That is a part of a real big question- how will 4E deal with subdual?




Simple, in 4E characters important to the plot never die in combat. just hit him with a fireball and check on him, unless he had nothing important to tell you he will be still alive.


----------



## fnwc

3d6 said:
			
		

> Did anyone else get the impression that Strength is no longer automatically added to melee damage rolls? As I was reading through the descriptions of Brawny Rogue and Trickster Rogue build suggestions, it seemed like the writer felt the only use for Strength for a Trickster Rogue was to use "powers intended for the other rogue build", instead of as a general boost to damage.



Your strength modifier is still probably added to the damage of a standard attack action (if it still exists). However there will be little reason to use a non-power standard attack if you have a superior 'at will' martial power. 


			
				3d6 said:
			
		

> I wonder if the powers just deal the listed damage with no other additions? For example, If I use _deft strike_, do I just deal my weapon damage + my Dexterity modifier?



You should only read the power as explicitly stated. In this case, Def Strike does _1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage_ on a Hit.


----------



## Spatula

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> The class already caters to the "Brawny Rogue" you describe, which is a step up from 3E.



In what way can you not make a "brutal thug" rogue in 3e?



			
				JosephK said:
			
		

> I guess if you interpret 'sneak attack' as the precise stab with a thin blade to a vital area, it makes sense only to allow it with 'light blades'. But that in itself limits it imo.



That's not even WOTC's interpretation of sneak attacks, given that you can do it with a sling (but not a club!).  Or a crossbow bolt, but not an arrow...



			
				Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Honestly? I think they're trying to discourage everyone just using the weapons that do the most damage. They want different classes to feel different in their weapon and armor choices, and powers that compliment that equipment.
> 
> Dagger weilding rogues are iconic, but there wasn't a really good reason to be a dagger using rogue in 3rd edition. You pretty much used a Rapier if going the finesse route, or a greatsword or other big weapon if you were a multi-classed Fighter/Rogue type. And everyone who dual-weilded used two shortswords because that was the optimal choice for most characters.



I don't see any actual change here, as far as your argument goes.  Rogues already "felt different" in weapon selection in that they used rapiers (used by no other core martial class) or paired short swords (ditto - since we're optimizing for damage, 2WF rangers would use d8/d6 combos).  Now they'll be using daggers (+1 to hit) or short swords (+1 to dmg, assuming daggers are still d4 and short swords are still d6).  So we just swapped the rapier for the dagger, basically.  Which is fine, but it doesn't make the rogue feel any more different in relation to others classes than it already did. (edit: in terms of weapon selection; the rogue 'powers' obviously give the class a different feel in play)


----------



## M.L. Martin

Spatula said:
			
		

> So why can't rogues wield even a simple club?




  We don't know that they can't. It may be that clubs are something that _everyone_ is proficient with.


----------



## Spatula

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> We don't know that they can't. It may be that clubs are something that _everyone_ is proficient with.



Well, that's a good point, if it turns out to be true.  The limitations on sneak attack weaponry remain nonsensical.


----------



## am181d

Spatula said:
			
		

> Well, that's a good point, if it turns out to be true.  The limitations on sneak attack weaponry remain nonsensical.




A club is not a precision weapon. A sling is, and iconically so.

(That said, I'm puzzled by some other omissions. Most notably, short bow and rapier. I guess ranger is going to cover precision archer abilities, and -- just a hunch -- I expect rapier will come into the system as a "souped-up short sword" that rogues can upgrade to. It's the only reason I can think of to exclude what's become the main default weapon for most rogues.)


----------



## Wolfspider

am181d said:
			
		

> A club is not a precision weapon.




Why not?


----------



## Mad Mac

> I expect rapier will come into the system as a "souped-up short sword" that rogues can upgrade to. It's the only reason I can think of to exclude what's become the main default weapon for most rogues.)




  I think you're right. I'm just glad to see the dagger (And throwing dagger/shurkien) getting a little love. We already know that "Leather Armor" comes in a variety of materials, including Eladrin Leaf Armor, so I don't see why they can't do something similar with weapon groups.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Biggie Smalls, the halfling rogue from WotC_Huscarl's reports on Gleemax uses a hand axe and short sword combo, or a sling. But no hand axe is listed among the rogue's proficiences. And it's unlikely to be a halfling specific weapon. Curious.


----------



## Campbell

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Biggie Smalls, the halfling rogue from WotC_Huscarl's reports on Gleemax uses a hand axe and short sword combo, or a sling. But no hand axe is listed among the rogue's proficiences. And it's unlikely to be a halfling specific weapon. Curious.




Biggie is a ranger.


----------



## helium3

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Biggie Smalls, the halfling rogue from WotC_Huscarl's reports on Gleemax uses a hand axe and short sword combo, or a sling. But no hand axe is listed among the rogue's proficiences. And it's unlikely to be a halfling specific weapon. Curious.




Maybe he only uses the short sword for his thiefy powers and the hand-axe for . . . anything else.


----------



## mach1.9pants

I suppose that rapier has become the iconic DnD Rogue weapon only because it was the best standard option for most Rogues in 3E. Up until then it was a 'Sir Not Appearing in the Edition...'
Is Biggie-small a Rogue, man I thought he was a ranger throughout.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Campbell said:
			
		

> Biggie is a ranger.



Less curious.


----------



## jasin

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> In melee, if you do not use a light blade, you can't sneak attack. Makes perfect sense to me.



No katanae-wielding ninjae? No hammer-wielding dwarf rogues? No rapier-wielding duelists?

Although I suppose there might be mechanics along the lines of "... treated as a light blade for the purposes of...".


----------



## Campbell

jasin said:
			
		

> No katanae-wielding ninjae? No hammer-wielding dwarf rogues? No rapier-wielding duelists?
> 
> Although I suppose there might be mechanics along the lines of "... treated as a light blade for the purposes of...".




Katanae are light blades. Have you not watched any anime?


----------



## Spatula

am181d said:
			
		

> A club is not a precision weapon. A sling is, and iconically so.



And a bow is not?

But I'm not sure where precision comes into it.  "Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage."  Now, some of the rogue abilities, like Piercing Strike, are different.  But sneak attack merely requires that the rogue has a "combat advantage" over the target.


----------



## The Little Raven

Spatula said:
			
		

> And a bow is not?




The more ranged weapons and abilities you give the rogue, the less unique the ranger gets. If you want to be a ranged striker, ranger is where it's at.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

In R&C it says:



			
				R&C said:
			
		

> A rogue with a high Intelligence score gains a flat bonus to all trained skill checks.




That seems to be gone. I can see why: it would have pushed the "clever rogue" archetype, but would have added quite a bit of MAD.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well not necessarily that would be something that would happen with all characters not just rogues, so why would it be in the rogue section of the PHB?

The article doesn't talk much about skills, so that wouldn't have come up.

It actually fits in with something I put down a little while ago in the other forum about skills:

"Ability Modifier + Class Level + Skill Points + Intelligence Modifier.

This could go with the idea that with more intelligence you more easily learn how to do something, but you would still require the basic ability to perform it well. So like the ability is how you use it the intelligence is how you refine and perfect it.

So as such Intelligence isn't used to gain extra skill points when you divide out your skill points each level, instead it is a stock number you gain from your Intelligence modifier for all skills, or perhaps could be intelligence score if skill points are much higher this time around."


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well not necessarily that would be something that would happen with all characters not just rogues, so why would it be in the rogue section of the PHB?.




Because it's in the "What's New with the Rogue" article by Mike Mearls, in the "Rogue" section of R&C, and it says "*Rogues* get a flat bonus..."


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Because it's in the "What's New with the Rogue" article by Mike Mearls, in the "Rogue" section of R&C, and it says "*Rogues* get a flat bonus..."




Well it could be that since Rogues have always been viewed as being intelligent, and are skill-monkeys that they would mention such a thing in the rogues section, but that doesn't mean it is limited to the rogue.

That is like saying when a "fighter swings his sword he has to hit higher then the AC" does that automatically mean all other classes work differently.


----------



## Intrope

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Biggie Smalls, the halfling rogue from WotC_Huscarl's reports on Gleemax uses a hand axe and short sword combo, or a sling. But no hand axe is listed among the rogue's proficiences. And it's unlikely to be a halfling specific weapon. Curious.



 Biggie's a Ranger, not a Rogue.


----------



## The Little Raven

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Because it's in the "What's New with the Rogue" article by Mike Mearls, in the "Rogue" section of R&C, and it says "*Rogues* get a flat bonus..."




"Bear in mind that as I write this, 4th Edition is still a work in progress. We're still hip-deep in playtesting and fine tuning, and many specifics are still in flux. *So, take this book as what it is - a snapshot of the 4th Edition design and development process at this point in time (August 2007).* We still have months of work before we send the core rules to the printers, and things will change between now and then." - Bill Slavicsek, Races & Classes, page 6


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Mourn said:
			
		

> "Bear in mind that as I write this, 4th Edition is still a work in progress. We're still hip-deep in playtesting and fine tuning, and many specifics are still in flux. *So, take this book as what it is - a snapshot of the 4th Edition design and development process at this point in time (August 2007).* We still have months of work before we send the core rules to the printers, and things will change between now and then." - Bill Slavicsek, Races & Classes, page 6




Yeah, I know. I have the book as well. That's how I'm quoting from it. I was pointing out one of the things that appeared to have changed.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

Starting hit points and hits points per level gained are all set? Wow, didn't realize they were going to use set hit points for all classes. I don't like that much at all. I also don't like the limited rogue weapons. Not looking like I'm going to be upgrading.


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale

I had previously made a suggestion on the role of each of the rogue weapons earlier in the thread.



			
				Kirnon_Bhale said:
			
		

> Rogue gets Five weapons - (My guesstimate)
> 
> *Ranged*
> Long Range - Sling
> Short Range - Hand Crossbow
> 
> *Melee* (all light blades)
> Best Damage - Short Sword
> Best Attack - Dagger
> Best Reach - Shuriken




Shuriken I feel fall into lightblades and I also conjectured that thrown weapons would be a viable option for "ranged melee" (how's that for a juxtaposition of words) or for want of a better description "reach".


----------



## Primal

Lizard said:
			
		

> And here, it's the first thing that's really gotten me excited. I love RPing and storytelling and plot, but plot is about conflict, and if conflict resolution is too simple/boring, then, the game as awhole fails for me. I like crunch. Lots and lots of crunch. If there's a simple underlying system, bot lots of options which really matter, without a single obvious 'best choice' round after round...sign me up. The sign a game is boring is when combat consists of a lot of 'I do what I did last round'.




You were excited but I wasn't. I don't think it's really valid to say that RPGs are just about conflicts happening within plots. Some people might say that it's about beer and pretzels, or socializing with friends while gaming. I tend to think it's about interesting characters and good stories and having fun (and sometimes, not so much fun, which makes the fun all that sweeter). So, it's "fluff" over "crunch" for me and my group.

I don't know if you meant "conflict resolution" in the same sense I do, but D&D does not use not any conflict resolution system -- it's a gamist system which uses task-based resolution to resolve the outcome of individual actions, not the whole conflict. 

And no, I don't think D&D should be just about combat or moving miniatures on a board. If you think a "simple underlying system with lots and lots of options" would be ideal for you, I might have an idea how to make 4E even better: a single "combat resolution" roll per encounter, modified by one of the 2000 possible combat maneuvers. And there you go -- simple and yet you get to apply the modifiers from a big list of things to do in melee.


----------



## Primal

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is this different from 3e where bad guy HP's are stated in the Monster Manual?
> 
> Or, could this possibly be another example where monster design and PC design might be different?




Which bad guy? You mean the monster HPs which are listed in parentheses? You probably know that those numbers are the *average* HPs for each monster, and you could also roll them just as well. This method adds a lot of randomness and variance to HPs. If you referred to the Hit Dice -- I doubt that a player (who has never DMed) would remember all of them by heart (including the Con modifier).   

Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the 'NPC - Elf - Mastermind - Wizard'-entry in MM... sorry about that! How silly of me to think that NPCs -- even BBEGs -- would use PC creation rules.  

I may be the only one on this forum, but I see static HPs being rather boring... no variance (except between the number added by your Con score, which would amount to 5-10 HPs in most cases anyway) in HPs between PCs or monsters of equal level and class/role.


----------



## Jim DelRosso

Lizard said:
			
		

> I know you two are being sarcastic, but I have to wonder how many of the 4e fanboys (esp. on RPG.net) will be disappointed to find 4e may have DIFFERENT crunch from 3e, but it will have just as much...




Not me. I love me my crunch, and I was thrilled to get such a crunchy preview for the weekend.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Primal said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the 'NPC - Elf - Mastermind - Wizard'-entry in MM... sorry about that! How silly of me to think that NPCs -- even BBEGs -- would use PC creation rules.



The sample NPCs in the DMG have fixed hit point values, just like monsters in the MM.

In my group it's common practice to use those average values rather than roll. It saves time and the last thing you want to do with 3e fights is make them more random. They're crazy random as it is.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Primal said:
			
		

> I may be the only one on this forum, but I see static HPs being rather boring... no variance (except between the number added by your Con score, which would amount to 5-10 HPs in most cases anyway) in HPs between PCs or monsters of equal level and class/role.



True, but it provides more predictability which makes for a better experience.  It may be fun to roll max hitpoints and be "that fighter who has 30 more hitpoints than the other fighter in the group", but it isn't nearly as much fun for the OTHER fighter who nearly dies every session because he doesn't have enough hitpoints to survive the damage being put out by the more powerful creatures the DM is using since lowered power ones posed no threat at all to the fighter with max hitpoints.

The difference at 30th level between a creature with 50 hitdice and 20 con rolling average(475) and one rolling 80% of max(570) to a group that does 50 damage average per round is another 2 rounds worth of combat against the creature.  With a couple of save or dies or enough damage output that can make the difference between no one dying at all and a TPK(or at least a death or two).

I want the ability to predict with fairly high accuracy if a creature will be appropriate for a party or not.  If the players roll for hitpoints or the monsters roll for hit points any estimate of difficulty can go out the window.


----------



## Spatula

Mourn said:
			
		

> The more ranged weapons and abilities you give the rogue, the less unique the ranger gets. If you want to be a ranged striker, ranger is where it's at.



I don't want a ranged striker, I'm asking how it makes any kind of sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow but not a bow - assuming that there is some way for a rogue to learn how to use a bow.  Furthermore, "sneak attack with bow" isn't a power, "sneak attack (w/ ranged weapon)" is, and the rogue can already do that, unless crossbows and slings are now melee weapons.


----------



## Primal

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> True, but it provides more predictability which makes for a better experience.  It may be fun to roll max hitpoints and be "that fighter who has 30 more hitpoints than the other fighter in the group", but it isn't nearly as much fun for the OTHER fighter who nearly dies every session because he doesn't have enough hitpoints to survive the damage being put out by the more powerful creatures the DM is using since lowered power ones posed no threat at all to the fighter with max hitpoints.
> 
> The difference at 30th level between a creature with 50 hitdice and 20 con rolling average(475) and one rolling 80% of max(570) to a group that does 50 damage average per round is another 2 rounds worth of combat against the creature.  With a couple of save or dies or enough damage output that can make the difference between no one dying at all and a TPK(or at least a death or two).
> 
> I want the ability to predict with fairly high accuracy if a creature will be appropriate for a party or not.  If the players roll for hitpoints or the monsters roll for hit points any estimate of difficulty can go out the window.




Yet I think that a certain amount of randomness is what makes most games fun and exciting to play, because if I didn't want any unpredictability at all, I'd just play Chess, Go or Amber. 

Why not just give all PCs, as the "protagonists" of the "story", +100 HP at 1st level? Would it make the game more fun? Or would you think that it'd better if attacks and damage were static, too? Or, even better, what if all PCs (as the protagonists) would get a +20 modifier to their static attacks and monsters/NPCs just +10? Again, would it make the game more fun from a player's perspective? If not for anything else, these suggestions *would* remove most of the randomness in combat, and more or less ensure that the PCs always win. 

Death is part of the game, in my opinion. Even TPKs. If it's all about fun and tactics and eliminating randomness and "unfair" elements, I fear we may see things I suggested above in 5E. Would do you think -- would it be a step forward or backward in game design?


----------



## Spatula

Primal said:
			
		

> I may be the only one on this forum, but I see static HPs being rather boring... no variance (except between the number added by your Con score, which would amount to 5-10 HPs in most cases anyway) in HPs between PCs or monsters of equal level and class/role.



Static HP (and point-buy ability generation) _are_ boring and cookie-cutter... but they're also easy to balance.  Random generation is fun, keeps things interesting, and so on, except not so much if you're the one stuck with the bad rolls, playing next to someone with all the good rolls.  It works for one-off games, or those where you are otherwise not very attached to your character.  It's not so great for long term games, unless the DM protects the players from their own luck (for example, letting them roll ability scores / HP until they get decent results).  And if that's the case, you might as well give the players what you want them to have anyway.


----------



## The Little Raven

Spatula said:
			
		

> I don't want a ranged striker, I'm asking how it makes any kind of sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow but not a bow - assuming that there is some way for a rogue to learn how to use a bow.  Furthermore, "sneak attack with bow" isn't a power, "sneak attack (w/ ranged weapon)" is, and the rogue can already do that, unless crossbows and slings are now melee weapons.




If you don't want a ranged striker, then why does the rogue need a bow?


----------



## The Little Raven

Spatula said:
			
		

> Random generation is fun...




....for you. You are not everyone. Randomly generating a substandard character is not fun for me or anyone else I know.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Mourn said:
			
		

> ....for you. You are not everyone. Randomly generating a substandard character is not fun for me or anyone else I know.



Random generation gives you a good bit of suspense when you roll. But when your fighter rolls (at level 1) 3 HP then 1+1+1 at subsequent levels, it really does suck IMO. 
Yes I have done that and had it enforced in my first long term BECMI DnD game.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well it will probably be a pretty easy thing to houserule if you really want it.

6 HP per level = roll d6 per level

8 HP per level = roll d8 per level


----------



## shilsen

Primal said:
			
		

> Yet I think that a certain amount of randomness is what makes most games fun and exciting to play, because if I didn't want any unpredictability at all, I'd just play Chess, Go or Amber.




Just as a certain amount of randomness contributes to fun, a certain amount of non-randomness also contributes to the fun. After all, I presume in your campaigns the PCs start the same session at the same level. Having each player roll 1d20 to decide his PC's starting level would definitely add to the randomness, but do you think that would improve the game? I presume not. Every player and DM has a different amount of randomness which helps the game for them and going beyond which would hurt the game. And that also varies from point to point in the game, so whereas someone might be happy with a lot of randomness in combat, they might not want much randomness in character creation. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?


----------



## Gimby

Primal said:
			
		

> I may be the only one on this forum, but I see static HPs being rather boring... no variance (except between the number added by your Con score, which would amount to 5-10 HPs in most cases anyway) in HPs between PCs or monsters of equal level and class/role.




One other factor in more predictable hitpoints is that it also ensures that you can ensure you actually get to play the character you want to. 

For example, what if you and another player wanted to play a pair of brothers who were fighters - one wanted to be the tough, physical one while the other wanted to play the skinny one, focused on protecting his own fragile hide.

Tough Guy 
STR 16
DEX 12
CON 16
INT 8
WIS 8
CHA 8

Taking Power Attack and similar feats

Skinny guy
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 10
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 12

Taking the Expertise chain.

What if Skinny Guy gets 10s on his hit dice and Tough Guy gets 1s?

By level 5 Tough guy only has 29hp while Skinny Guy has 60.  

Extreme case, but now neither of them are getting to play their desired characters.  You could say that this is interesting character development and they should roleplay appropriately but it does mean that they have to dump their concepts.  In many ways, getting your character concept killed is worse than getting the actual character killed.

Getting your character concept killed by errors that character made in play? Fine.  Paladins have been falling since forever because of this.  Get your character concept killed by a roll that is meant to improve your character? That there is no way to avoid? Rubbish.


----------



## Mistwell

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well it will probably be a pretty easy thing to houserule if you really want it.
> 
> 6 HP per level = roll d6 per level
> 
> 8 HP per level = roll d8 per level





6 HP / level = 2d6-1
8 HP / level = 2d8-1

Your method would just drastically reduce the number of HP per level, which would mess with encounter balance in a pretty serious way unless as DM you want to go through the unnecessary hassle of reworking HP on every creature.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Primal said:
			
		

> Yet I think that a certain amount of randomness is what makes most games fun and exciting to play, because if I didn't want any unpredictability at all, I'd just play Chess, Go or Amber.



Of course there needs to be SOME randomness to add tension to the game.  D&D is all about the moments like "Will this attack hit?" and "Can I do enough damage this round to kill the monster?"

However, randomness in rolls that are rolled once and then have a long term effect on a character is not a good idea because it extends the result of a good or bad roll over a long period of time.

For instance, if you roll really well for hitpoints or stats it makes the rolls the enemy makes against you less dramatic and have less tension.  It doesn't matter if the enemy hits this round since you know that you have a couple more rounds to survive than the monster can possible beat you in.  It negates the randomness of some rolls due to randomness of others.

If you fail a save or die roll it creates long term consequences.  Failing a save or take -2 to hit for 3 rounds creates short term consequences and adds to the tension.


			
				Primal said:
			
		

> Why not just give all PCs, as the "protagonists" of the "story", +100 HP at 1st level? Would it make the game more fun? Or would you think that it'd better if attacks and damage were static, too? Or, even better, what if all PCs (as the protagonists) would get a +20 modifier to their static attacks and monsters/NPCs just +10? Again, would it make the game more fun from a player's perspective? If not for anything else, these suggestions *would* remove most of the randomness in combat, and more or less ensure that the PCs always win.



Some of those suggestions might be good depending on the rest of the math in the game as a whole.  The idea is to create tension and uncertainty in each round of combat rather than randomness.  You want controlled randomness so that the players feel they have a chance of losing but also have a greater chance to win based on their decisions.

Stacking the odds so far in the PCs favor that they never lose at all removes the tension, which is bad.  Making the game so random that the PCs know their decisions don't matter, that the roll of the dice is the only thing that is important ALSO removes tension.  You need to find a balance between the two.

I've seen characters get so powerful in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition that it removed all tension from the game.  Mostly this involved getting too many pluses to hit and damage, too many hitpoints or ac, or too high stats(which normally caused one of the other two problems).  Anything that slanted odds in their favor too much pretty much removed the randomness from 90% of die rolls.


			
				Primal said:
			
		

> Death is part of the game, in my opinion. Even TPKs. If it's all about fun and tactics and eliminating randomness and "unfair" elements, I fear we may see things I suggested above in 5E. Would do you think -- would it be a step forward or backward in game design?



Death is part of the game.  However, I don't think a random TPK is much fun for almost anyone.  At least no one I've met.  I haven't encountered a situation where people were jumping for joy because they all get to roll up new characters, the DM has to come up with a story solution to why a whole new group of people are finishing the adventure started by the first one or start an entirely new campaign.

The death of one player when it happens on a rare basis can be fun(since it adds to the tension to know that death IS a possibility), the death of an entire group rarely is fun.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, if God kills a kitten every time someone says "The DM can fix it!", what does He do when someone says "That's not a bug! That's a FEATURE!"
> 
> Just to clarify, I wasn't interested in re-opening old debates, just in pointing out that 4e's defenders have killed as many kittens as 3e's defenders...



The difference between "even though it's broken, the DM can fix it," and "it's better that way," is that the former is the Oberoni fallacy and the latter is not.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's a valid answer to the extreme subjectivism of many of the 4e hatorz. They seem to be saying, "This isn't what I want in a game, therefore it shouldn't be in D&D."
> 
> Which is ridiculous. What's in D&D should be based on market research. It should be the tyranny of the majority. House ruling is the best solution for the individual here.
> 
> But if a complaint about a rule is that it doesn't work for anyone, or for the majority, then house ruling isn't a valid solution.



Exactly.  If the rule doesn't suit your style, but functions for those who like it, house rule it.  If the rule breaks the game, so that nobody likes it, it's a problem with the game.


----------



## Professor Phobos

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Exactly.  If the rule doesn't suit your style, but functions for those who like it, house rule it.  If the rule breaks the game, so that nobody likes it, it's a problem with the game.




Yes. There is a fundamental difference between house ruling to customize a game to particular tastes and house ruling to fix an inability of the game to achieve its default gameplay goals.

It's kind of like the difference between taking your dog to the vet because the dog is sick, and taking your dog to the genetic engineer to give it a poison-tipped scorpion tail.


----------



## Lizard

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The difference between "even though it's broken, the DM can fix it," and "it's better that way," is that the former is the Oberoni fallacy and the latter is not.




Ah. I see.

All complaints about 3e are valid.
All complaints about 4e are invalid.

That DOES make the arguing much simpler! Thank you, Dr. Awkward!


----------



## Lizard

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Yes. There is a fundamental difference between house ruling to customize a game to particular tastes and house ruling to fix an inability of the game to achieve its default gameplay goals.
> 
> It's kind of like the difference between taking your dog to the vet because the dog is sick, and taking your dog to the genetic engineer to give it a poison-tipped scorpion tail.




Uh...the latter is way, way, way, cooler?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

With the way my dog wags his tail I would be sending him to the vet for being sick because he stung himself with his scorpion tail.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Lizard said:
			
		

> I find this less aesthetically acceptable, simply because I can more easily "believe" in magic items than in natural uber-competence.



I, on the other hand, am a fan of Doc Savage.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> Ah. I see.
> 
> All complaints about 3e are valid.
> All complaints about 4e are invalid.




All complaints regarding 4E screwing with s*mul*tionists' heads are indeed invalid, yes.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I, on the other hand, am a fan of Doc Savage.



aaahhh, classic: *Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze*
'He's my hero' and hand to my heart...We watched the movie while hungover on Sunday during training at BRNC Dartmouth and my class was hooked. Every time some one mentioned his name we had to stand to attention, hold a clenched fist over our hearts and chant' Doc Savage, he's my hero"
More cheese than the moon- awesome program
Sorry back to the topic....


----------



## ShinRyuuBR

Spatula said:
			
		

> I don't want a ranged striker, I'm asking how it makes any kind of sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow but not a bow - assuming that there is some way for a rogue to learn how to use a bow.  Furthermore, "sneak attack with bow" isn't a power, "sneak attack (w/ ranged weapon)" is, and the rogue can already do that, unless crossbows and slings are now melee weapons.




I'm guessing the hand crossbow has a very short range and instead of saying you can only sneak attack up to a limited range, you can only sneak attack up to the already limited ranges of the weapon options. Furthermore, crossbows have been treated as more accurate weapons since 3e, as inferred by their greater threat range. We all know sneak attack requires great precision.

What I don't understand is why a sling is valid while a shuriken is not.

Note that if the rapier happens to be listed as a light blade and a rogue buys proficiency with it through a feat, he will be able to sneak attack with it as well.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Lizard said:
			
		

> Can I imagine how a halfling gets a standing ogre to charge 20 feet away from the halfling by being tricky? Yes. Do I want to keep coming up with explanations every time he does this, over and over and over, because no one bothered to add "for creatures of your size or smaller" into the power description? No. Do I hope that we're missing key pieces of the puzzle and this isn't how it's going to really work? Yes.



You know, I find it much more believable for the halfling to move an ogre 20 feet than to move a human 20 feet.  20 feet for a human is halfway into the next room.  20 feet for an ogre is a brisk jump to the side.  As far as scale is concerned, larger creatures move farther when they take a single step.


----------



## Storm Raven

am181d said:
			
		

> A club is not a precision weapon.




Go to the Phillippines and tell the escrima practitioners that.


----------



## Campbell

hong said:
			
		

> All complaints regarding 4E screwing with s*mul*tionists' heads are indeed invalid, yes.




That would be disappointing.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Taunt, get the guy to rush you, maybe even *look* like you're going to run, then Artfully Dodge at the last moment and slap 'em with your sword as they pass by.




Right.  It's like when Wile E. Coyote and the roadrunner both peel out, making clouds of dust.  When the dust settles, the roadrunner's still standing there, but the coyote's running in midair off the edge of a cliff.  It's totally got a cinematic precedent.



...what?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> But the point that this happens is going to differ from gamer to gamer and group to group. My level this happens is maybe a lot higher than yours. More than powers breaking my immersion (cos you can think of a reason, if you try hard enough- I don't bother) it is art which has ridiculous weps and armour. They stick in my head more, but that is just me!



I'm going to have to spend the whole next edition trying not to think about how amazingly breakable those tiefling weapons look.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Tusz said:
			
		

> Here are a couple other observations I've made. I tried my best to not repeat anyone else in the thread; my apologies if any of this has already been mentioned.
> 
> -Shuriken naming: I think there's a good reason they're calling this group shuriken. They're avoiding calling it "throwing dagger" so that people won't get annoyed that their character doesn't get that for free when they get "dagger" proficiency. They're avoiding calling it "throwing weapons" so that it doesn't seem to include javelins and cabers and other large throwing objects.



If I can't sneak attack with a thrown caber, D&D is dead to me!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

jasin said:
			
		

> No katanae-wielding ninjae? No hammer-wielding dwarf rogues? No rapier-wielding duelists?
> 
> Although I suppose there might be mechanics along the lines of "... treated as a light blade for the purposes of...".



[off-topic]
What the heck is with all this "katanae" and "ninjae" business?  Did I miss the internet memo in which we were all instructed to append bogus latin pluralizations to Japanese nouns?

The English plural of katana is katanas.  The Japanese plural of _katana_ is _katana_.


----------



## Campbell

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> [off-topic]
> What the heck is with all this "katanae" and "ninjae" business?  Did I miss the internet memo in which we were all instructed to append bogus latin pluralizations to Japanese nouns?
> 
> The English plural of katana is katanas.  The Japanese plural of _katana_ is _katana_.




I see that you have not yet learned the secrets of Real Ultimate Power student.


----------



## The Little Raven

If the "everyone is proficient with simple weapons" thought is true, then clubs and saps would probably be under simple weapons (a sap is pretty damned simple to use). As for why they wouldn't be usable for a sneak attack, beats me... I personally think SA should be limited to any one-handed or light weapon with which you are proficient.


----------



## hong

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> [off-topic]
> What the heck is with all this "katanae" and "ninjae" business?  Did I miss the internet memo in which we were all instructed to append bogus latin pluralizations to Japanese nouns?
> 
> The English plural of katana is katanas.  The Japanese plural of _katana_ is _katana_.




It's very simple. Just as the plural of bacteria is bacteriae, the plural of ninja is ninjae. And the plural of katana is katanae.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Yes. There is a fundamental difference between house ruling to customize a game to particular tastes and house ruling to fix an inability of the game to achieve its default gameplay goals.
> 
> It's kind of like the difference between taking your dog to the vet because the dog is sick, and taking your dog to the genetic engineer to give it a poison-tipped scorpion tail.



Except that wouldn't be a problem, but would in fact be awesome.  Awesome verging on METAL.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

hong said:
			
		

> It's very simple. Just as the plural of bacteria is bacteriae, the plural of ninja is ninjae. And the plural of katana is katanae.



I see what you did there.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Lizard said:
			
		

> Ah. I see.
> 
> All complaints about 3e are valid.
> All complaints about 4e are invalid.
> 
> That DOES make the arguing much simpler! Thank you, Dr. Awkward!



All complaints about either edition that demonstrate that there are actual problems with the rules that are unintentional and detract from the game due to error on the part of the game designers are valid.  See 3.0 Haste.  

Corollary: since we don't have the 4E rules, all complaints of this sort regarding 4E are speculation, and are therefore ungrounded.  For any such complaint, the proper answer is, "don't you think they'd have thought of that, if you came up with it yourself after 30 seconds of reflection?"

All complaints about how you happen to dislike a particular feature of either edition of the game, accompanied by the declaration that house-ruling that feature is not good enough, and followed by the conclusion that the game is therefore broken, are invalid.

But if you stick to your formulation, I'm sure things will work out for you.


----------



## hong

Campbell said:
			
		

> That would be disappointing.



 Actually, I suspect that some kind of 4E worldbuilding splat can't be far down the line. It's an obvious weakness of the new design philosophy, and even if it wasn't so at the start, the wailing and gnashing of teeth would have made it very clear.


----------



## Incenjucar

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Except that wouldn't be a problem, but would in fact be awesome.  Awesome verging on METAL.




This is where displacer beasts came from.

Also to beat up the kid who came up with owlbears.


----------



## Spatula

Mourn said:
			
		

> ....for you. You are not everyone. Randomly generating a substandard character is not fun for me or anyone else I know.



...and gee, I said just that in the bit of my post that you failed to quote and apparently failed to read.


----------



## Spatula

Mourn said:
			
		

> If you don't want a ranged striker, then why does the rogue need a bow?



If you don't want a ranged striker, then why does the rogue need a crossbow or sling or shuriken?  I haven't once said anything about range strikers, I'm asking how it makes sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow (any crossbow) but not a bow.


----------



## Baduin

Try crawling with a bow. Crossbow is really good for shooting from ambush, since you can use it prone, and can load and draw it earlier and wait for a long time before shooting. 

To shoot a bow you have to stand up straight, draw it and let loose. Not much chance for any surprise attacks.


----------



## Just Another User

I just want to say this, it is a very interesting preview and it improved my opinion of 4e considerably, Damage seems to be way reduced, and healing surge (that IMHO indicate the number of hps you recovere with a second wind) sound reasonable, but I still can't put my head around the per encounter/per day powers. I don't see why torturous strike is a per encounter power, How the enemies seeing me doing it stop me from "twist the blade in the wound" a second time? or the first time they didn't know I wanted to hurt them?. I don't understand the rationale that make Crimson edge a per day encounter, it doesn't look something incredibly tiring or that need some kind of supernatural concentration like stunning fist. That you need to do it to balance them it is clear, but it is just not justification enough for me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I don't see why torturous strike is a per encounter power, How the enemies seeing me doing it stop me from "twist the blade in the wound" a second time? or the first time they didn't know I wanted to hurt them?. I don't understand the rationale that make Crimson edge a per day encounter, it doesn't look something incredibly tiring or that need some kind of supernatural concentration like stunning fist. That you need to do it to balance them it is clear, but it is just not justification enough for me.



The problem is that I certainly can't think of any REALLY good reason why any martial character would have abilities that are per encounter or per day.

Sure, you can explain caster types having per encounter abilities and per day abilities simply by saying "It's magic and that's the way it works."  Which is enough to convince 95% of people.  Whereas if you say, "They are martial powers, that's the way they work" likely won't convince nearly as many people.  This is because people KNOW how non-magical people work but magic doesn't exist in real life so ANY excuse sounds plausible.

So, really you have one of two choices: Bow to the "realistic" or "logical" way of doing things and don't give fighters, rogues and similar characters any per encounter or per day abilities OR give them the abilities and not care that the justification is just as thin as the one for caster types.

If the second choice makes the game more fun the play then I say choose that one and gloss over the reasons.


----------



## MaelStorm

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I just want to say this, it is a very interesting preview and it improved my opinion of 4e considerably, Damage seems to be way reduced, and healing surge (that IMHO indicate the number of hps you recovere with a second wind) sound reasonable, but I still can't put my head around the per encounter/per day powers. I don't see why torturous strike is a per encounter power, How the enemies seeing me doing it stop me from "twist the blade in the wound" a second time? or the first time they didn't know I wanted to hurt them?. I don't understand the rationale that make Crimson edge a per day encounter, it doesn't look something incredibly tiring or that need some kind of supernatural concentration like stunning fist. That you need to do it to balance them it is clear, but it is just not justification enough for me.




The weird logic in this concept is that the foes would be surprised once with your trick but would somehow be immune to a second attempt.


----------



## azarias

"I'm asking how it makes sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow (any crossbow) but not a bow"

Not that RL should be the end-all yardstick, but I'm pretty sure than, in RL, a crossbow is a more accurate weapon than a bow. The tests I recall show bows having greater range and power, but less accuracy. I think it boils down to aiming a crossbow like a gun, while the line from bow to target isn't straight. Not that I'm making any claim to expertise here.

Still, if you're prepared to accept that difference as a yardstick, it makes good sense for crossbows to be sneakable and bows not.


----------



## Cam Banks

hong said:
			
		

> It's very simple. Just as the plural of bacteria is bacteriae, the plural of ninja is ninjae. And the plural of katana is katanae.




Don't forget the plural of bonus is boni, and if you don't agree, your a looser. Rouge's with, for all intensive purposes, low stat's, are not loosers, per say.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Lizard

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I, on the other hand, am a fan of Doc Savage.




And I find the 4e system very acceptable for a modern-era action game. So maybe it's just a matter of letting the idea "settle".


----------



## Henry

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> The weird logic in this concept is that the foes would be surprised once with your trick but would somehow be immune to a second attempt.




More than that -- in Book of Nine Swords, they explain it that when you use a maneuver, you wind up slightly out of position to try it again, or you've had to concentrate and focus your energies in doing it, and it takes a short while to get your focus back, to move back into position, or to get back in a position where it will work again. Add that to the "enemies saw you do it" maneuver, and it offers enough explanations why it won't work. After all, if you kidney punch someone in a fight, they likely won't be in position to just stand there and let you keep doing it over and over in the same place -- they're moving, ducking, weaving, etc. and that "blade twist" you just happened to be in the right place for at that time. Maybe the opportunity will come up again in a minute, but not right now.

Ultimately, ALL game mechanics have to be taken on "suspension of disbelief", just like most all movies or other entertainments. Why can't you hire a lawyer in monopoly to fight your arrest and going to jail? Why does rolling dice three times automatically spring you whether you succeed or not? Why couldn't Gandalf just call some of his eagle buddies and have Frodo drop the ring into Mount doom that same afternoon? Same idea -- you have to build justifications for why the "fun" route needs to be taken.


----------



## Lizard

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Don't forget the plural of bonus is boni, and if you don't agree, your a looser. Rouge's with, for all intensive purposes, low stat's, are not loosers, per say.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Now, now. We should all stay calm, cool, and collective about this, while we discuss the rouges marital maneuver's.


----------



## Jack99

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Don't forget the plural of bonus is boni, and if you don't agree, your a looser. Rouge's with, for all intensive purposes, low stat's, are not loosers, per say.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




LOL

For a sec, you had me going and I was just about to post and poke a little fun at you... nice


----------



## MaelStorm

Henry said:
			
		

> ALL game mechanics have to be taken on "suspension of disbelief", just like most all movies or other entertainments. Why can't you hire a lawyer in monopoly to fight your arrest and going to jail? Why does rolling dice three times automatically spring you whether you succeed or not? Why couldn't Gandalf just call some of his eagle buddies and have Frodo drop the ring into Mount doom that same afternoon? Same idea -- you have to build justifications for why the "fun" route needs to be taken.




I totally agree with you. Particularly with the "suspension of disbelief".

I'm not unhappy with this. It's more fun to have tricks that you can bring out of the pocket in an encounter but only once in a while. Strategic options is always a big plus.


----------



## Dalvyn

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I still can't put my head around the per encounter/per day powers. I don't see why torturous strike is a per encounter power, How the enemies seeing me doing it stop me from "twist the blade in the wound" a second time? or the first time they didn't know I wanted to hurt them?. I don't understand the rationale that make Crimson edge a per day encounter, it doesn't look something incredibly tiring or that need some kind of supernatural concentration like stunning fist. That you need to do it to balance them it is clear, but it is just not justification enough for me.




I agree that there is a problem there ... actually, I see 2 problems.

The first problem is whether or not it "makes sense" to have a once-per-encounter or once-per-day restriction on those powers. I, for one, do not like having such a restriction in the rule when the restriction does not exist in my "imaginary world". Others do not mind (as pointed out by Henry above), so I guess that part is subjective.

The second problem I see with setting rule restrictions that are not based on the "physics" of the imaginary world is that it forces players and DMs to memorize those unnatural restrictions. In this particular case, players and DMs will have to memorize that Crimson Edge is usable once per day, and that Torturous Strike is usable once per encounter. Those restrictions do not follow from what those powers are, and thus need to be memorized on their own.

Compare it with, for example, the restriction in 3.5 that you have to move at least 10 feet when you charge. That kind of restriction "makes sense": if you do not move, you just can't charge. Note that I'm not saying that 3.5 had no restrictions that needed to be memorized; I'm only pointing out that, based on that thief preview, there will be more memorizing to do in 4E. Either more memorizing (which is bad), or more looking in the book during the game (which is equally bad).


----------



## Caliber

I think a pretty good analogue here is the 3.5 Monk and his Stunning Fist ability. Its a completely non-magical ability (works in anti-magic fields!) but he only can do it X/day. If you can accept that, whats the problem with Rogues and their per-encounter/per-day abilities?


----------



## Ahglock

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> .
> 
> So, really you have one of two choices: Bow to the "realistic" or "logical" way of doing things and don't give fighters, rogues and similar characters any per encounter or per day abilities OR give them the abilities and not care that the justification is just as thin as the one for caster types.
> 
> If the second choice makes the game more fun the play then I say choose that one and gloss over the reasons.




There are more choices than that.

A 3rd choice would be to have martial powers be described in some way that the restrictions does make a degree of sense in the context of a fantasy world.  Don't make a knife twist move a per encounter ability, make abilities that seem like they would take something out of you to perform per encounter abilities, and make the per day abilities be abilites that clearly push you beyond human limits so performing would normally be either impossible or down right damaging to yourself.  

Knife twist at will.
adrenaline strike per encounter
Shadow Step, where you move so fast you can move anywhere within 6 squares as a free action per day.


----------



## Ulthwithian

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> [off-topic]
> What the heck is with all this "katanae" and "ninjae" business?  Did I miss the internet memo in which we were all instructed to append bogus latin pluralizations to Japanese nouns?
> 
> The English plural of katana is katanas.  The Japanese plural of _katana_ is _katana_.




If my Japanese knowledge doesn't fall me, the way to pluralize something (that, granted, is used very seldomly) is to append _tachi_ (sometimes changing the the 't' to a voiced 'd') to the word in question.  Thus, _katanatachi_.  However, Japanese very rarely employs the plural where English does.  'Where are all the katanas?' probably would not use the plural in Japanese.

Anyway.  Re: the sneak attack with various weapons issue, it's possible that there's a question of concealability as well as accuracy.  I do think the argument that the added versatility of a crossbow as opposed to a bow has some merit, as well.


----------



## Ahglock

Caliber said:
			
		

> I think a pretty good analogue here is the 3.5 Monk and his Stunning Fist ability. Its a completely non-magical ability (works in anti-magic fields!) but he only can do it X/day. If you can accept that, whats the problem with Rogues and their per-encounter/per-day abilities?




Because the monk is just a martial artist he is a quasi-mystic unarmed combatant.  He is using his chi, or chakra or whatever to preform certain moves, and they are described as such.  You could probably have a move that has the same game mechanics of twist the blade in the game but call it pain strike and describe it as focusing negative chi so it flows through your blade and into the target and it works fine as a per encounter ability.  

Basically they are professional writers they should spend the time to make the flavor text of an ability fit its at will, per encounter, or per day usage.

edit to catch the poor grammar I can catch.


----------



## Just Another User

Caliber said:
			
		

> I think a pretty good analogue here is the 3.5 Monk and his Stunning Fist ability. Its a completely non-magical ability (works in anti-magic fields!) but he only can do it X/day. If you can accept that, whats the problem with Rogues and their per-encounter/per-day abilities?




No, I had problem with that, too. Generally speaking I was never a fan of arbitrary (i.e. non explicitelly magical) per day abilities, they just make my Sospension of Disbelief  itch like crazy, but  a) I never cared for monks too much and b) while not magical it can be explained with some reference to Ki, or focus, or some other kind of mystic technobabble (just because it works in a antimagic field it doesn't mean it is not "magical", so I just ignored it but in 4E these things are everywhere one can't just ignore them.


----------



## AllisterH

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Because the monk is just a martial artist he is a quasi-mystic unarmed combatant.  He is using his chi, or chakra or whatever to preform certain moves, and they are described as such.  You could probably have a move that has the same game mechanics of twist the blade in the game but call it pain strike and describe it as focusing negative chi so it flows through your blade and into the target and it works fine as a per encounter ability.
> 
> Basically they are professional writers they should spend the time to make the flavor text of an ability fit its at will, per encounter, or per day usage.
> 
> edit to catch the poor grammar I can catch.




Er, but as many people mention, they HATE the ki/anime/shonen/wuxia feel of the monk and even though I personally will describe it like that, I don't think WOTC should though.


----------



## Just Another User

Ahglock said:
			
		

> There are more choices than that.
> 
> A 3rd choice would be to have martial powers be described in some way that the restrictions does make a degree of sense in the context of a fantasy world.  Don't make a knife twist move a per encounter ability, make abilities that seem like they would take something out of you to perform per encounter abilities, and make the per day abilities be abilites that clearly push you beyond human limits so performing would normally be either impossible or down right damaging to yourself.
> 
> Knife twist at will.
> adrenaline strike per encounter
> Shadow Step, where you move so fast you can move anywhere within 6 squares as a free action per day.




Well, it could work, except when you are too tired to do a shadow step, but not too tired to do <insert name of another, equally exausting per day power>   
I'm considering the idea to do something like, you can attempt to use the same encounter/day power twice (or more), but every time you try you add a cumulative malus to the check, of course I had to see the rules as a whole to see if it is viable.

so positioning strike first time dex vs will
second (dex -X) vs will
third (dex - 2X) vs will
etc
so you can attempt it more than once but it get harder and harder.
(Maybe add some details like X could be greater for higher level powers.)
I would have less problems with this approach.


----------



## AllisterH

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Well, it could work, except when you are too tired to do a shadow step, but not too tired to do <insert name of another, equally exausting per day power>
> I'm considering the idea to do something like, you can attempt to use the same encounter/day power twice (or more), but every time you try you add a cumulative malus to the check, of course I had to see the rules as a whole to see if it is viable.
> 
> so positioning strike first time dex vs will
> second dex -X vs will
> third dex - 2X vs will
> etc
> so you can attempt it more than once but it get harder and harder.
> (Maybe add some details like X could be greater for higher level powers.)
> I would have less problems with this approach.




Of course, we should keep in mind, we are only looking at a section of the class. Especially if Bo9S was any indication, there probably is either 

a)feat that allows one to reuse an encounter power
b) simple rules in the encounter power section that says, "if you use no powers in a round, you "refresh" your encounter powers. 
c) similar rules that allow one to use a daily power more than once.


----------



## Dalvyn

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Basically they are professional writers they should spend the time to make the flavor text of an ability fit its at will, per encounter, or per day usage.




That would be my favourite solution too. Describe the power in such a way that the rule restrictions are obvious/feel natural/do not need to be memorized. And, if you cannot do it, then change the rule.

That's actually another version of the rule/fluff problem: which one should come first and then be translated into the other? In previous editions, my gut feeling is that they wrote rules to formalize the fluff. One of the stated changes in 4E design was that it now went both ways: some nice rules were translated into fluff, and vice-versa. If the fluff is interesting but does not yield an interesting rule, the fluff is modified (this can be applied to several changes introduced in 4E I think). Similarly, if a rule is good/interesting but can't be translated into satisfying fluff, it should be reworked/removed in my opinion.

A monk using some mystical power called "chi" which is available in limited amount is good enough for me to accept the stunning blow power/integrate it in my "imaginary world".



> so I just ignored it but in 4E these things are everywhere one can't just ignore them.




That is, actually, my worst fear about 4th edition: that the 4E system is so pervaded with rule elements that do not translate easily into my "imaginary world" that it becomes impossible to just house-rule them all. The previews make me think it might be the case ... but I guess I'll only know for sure in June though.


----------



## Betote

Having seen the rogue write-up, I can say I'm not a fan of w/e/d abilities. I know the gamist logic behind it, as it avoids players using the same optimal ability once and again, but I can't agree with the solution they came up with. I'd preferred if they'd resolved this just making the different abilities useful in different combat situations, so the tactic decision would be "What is the best move I can take now?", not "What is the best move I have still available?".

This, and the take on skills (I love the granularity of 3.X's skill system, and that was the main reason for me to not switch to True20) are my main argues against 4E as for now. My other grips (as the squared fireballs or the magic item limitations) are so easily houseruled they shouldn't become a real issue unless I find as many of them as to make me remember an awful lot of house rules, but the w/e/d abilities and the oversimplified skill system seem too much tightly tied to the rules to be houseruled away.

OTOH, I love the simplified maths. They make so easier to create NPCs on the fly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Caliber said:
			
		

> I think a pretty good analogue here is the 3.5 Monk and his Stunning Fist ability. Its a completely non-magical ability (works in anti-magic fields!) but he only can do it X/day. If you can accept that, whats the problem with Rogues and their per-encounter/per-day abilities?



Well, who says he did really accept that?  (And then there is the fact Fighters who by chance pr bad luck happen to take the feat get only one use per 4 levels...)

If you want to find a in-gameworld logic for these powers, here's my take:
At Will/Per Encounter/Per Day is a shorthand description for the likelihood of a certain situation coming up and an appropriate maneuver working. An At Will power is something easily done as long as the base conditions are met. Once you learned the technique, you can repeat it often.
Per Encounter powers are a little more difficult. It's not just knowledge, it's good timing and some luck. Per Day is fiendishly difficult. Even if you trained a lot in it, you still need a lot of luck. It's really hard to get the coordination right, and find the right situation to use it.

The remaining thing to explain is why a character can have the "luck" required to use a per encounter or per day exactly when he wants to. In this case, we need to distinguish player and character. The character is just doing the best he can do. But the player has some control about his in-game luck in regards to the power. It's the player who decides to give his character the luck he needs. 
This explanation does not yet rely on other in-game metaphysics besides luck. For arcane or divine spellcasting, it's probably less luck and more "achieving the right state of mind". This might also be the case for martial maneuvers. 
(Remember: There is no "magic power source". Martial can also be "magic", it's just magic different from fireballs and prayers... A 5'8 tall human winning a fight against a 20' dragon or 12 Goblin warriors is anything but mundane...)


----------



## AllisterH

Why not simply use the explanation that Bo9S uses which Henry mentioned for Encounter powers?

Only thing left to explain then would be Daily Powers.


----------



## Ahglock

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Well, it could work, except when you are too tired to do a shadow step, but not too tired to do <insert name of another, equally exausting per day power>
> I'm considering the idea to do something like, you can attempt to use the same encounter/day power twice (or more), but every time you try you add a cumulative malus to the check, of course I had to see the rules as a whole to see if it is viable.
> 
> so positioning strike first time dex vs will
> second (dex -X) vs will
> third (dex - 2X) vs will
> etc
> so you can attempt it more than once but it get harder and harder.
> (Maybe add some details like X could be greater for higher level powers.)
> I would have less problems with this approach.




Well my personal preference for most martial characters would be for them to have X # of per day uses which they can pull from the entire per day list.  Not I can perform one shadow step and one 1000 cuts of death.


----------



## Ahglock

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, but as many people mention, they HATE the ki/anime/shonen/wuxia feel of the monk and even though I personally will describe it like that, I don't think WOTC should though.




I don't care if its Ki.  Describe it as muscle strain in the PH2, just describe it in a way that I can but its a per encounter ability.  Though I think if they had 2 unarmed combatant classes a mystic or monk, and a martial artist or pugilist they could describe one as Ki and one as muscle strain and there would be little complaint except form all the its too anime people.  But since I'd like to run a Naruto campaign they can stuff it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Well my personal preference for most martial characters would be for them to have X # of per day uses which they can pull from the entire per day list.  Not I can perform one shadow step and one 1000 cuts of death.



I wonder if this might not actually be something they will do? 

I mean, look at the Paladin Smites in a previous article. 3 Smites where described, but it actually implies they get more. If all Smites are per encounter power, and a 15th level Paladin knows, say, 5 Smites, this would mean he could his smites the whole combat (at least a combat that is probably a little short for 4E - 5 rounds long), never resorting to an at-will or "mundane" attack. 

There must be something in there we haven't really seen yet. Or it really works this way, and then I wonder how that can be the intention and if it really works.


----------



## Lizard

While I agree with the problem of per encounter/per day powers needing some believable fluff text to justify them, I do not think the AW/PE/PD is especially confusing if you're already used to D&D levels of complexity. (I consider D&D mid-crunch; GURPS and HERO are high crunch, Amber is low crunch. WOD is about on par w/D&D, maybe a bit lower-crunch. Just so you know my definitions.)

3x has a lot of different times for abilities: spell slots, spell points, X per day, etc. Barbarian rage is per day, but lasts for X rounds, and then you're fatigued "for the current encounter". Some powers last for one attack; others for all the attacks you make in a round. I'll put my 3e grognard ranking against anyone, but there is a confusing mess of rules on a power-by-power basis, and while I do not think AW/PE/PD is the best solution, using one consistent set of rules for all powers is a good idea. (Kind of like how there are set ranges for spells in 3e -- touch,short, medium, long, as opposed to each spell having its own unique range to be learned, as in 1/2e.)

On your character sheet, you will write:At Will Powers, PE Powers, PD Powers. Check off the latter two as you use them. Really, no different than keeping track of which spells you cast. A Barbarian/Sorcerer (I played one) keeps track of spell slots and rages, for example, and it's not especially confusing.


----------



## Lizard

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I mean, look at the Paladin Smites in a previous article. 3 Smites where described, but it actually implies they get more. If all Smites are per encounter power, and a 15th level Paladin knows, say, 5 Smites, this would mean he could his smites the whole combat (at least a combat that is probably a little short for 4E - 5 rounds long), never resorting to an at-will or "mundane" attack.




This assumes all his smites are useful.  Also, I think that 'normal attack' *is* an at-will power; it's just one everyone gets. It keeps things consistent. There might well be 'universal' AW/PE/PD powers (like healing surges), and "Just whack the orc with my sword" is an "at will" power: (Attack vs AC, [W]+Str).


----------



## Ahglock

Henry said:
			
		

> More than that -- in Book of Nine Swords, they explain it that when you use a maneuver, you wind up slightly out of position to try it again, or you've had to concentrate and focus your energies in doing it, and it takes a short while to get your focus back, to move back into position, or to get back in a position where it will work again. Add that to the "enemies saw you do it" maneuver, and it offers enough explanations why it won't work. After all, if you kidney punch someone in a fight, they likely won't be in position to just stand there and let you keep doing it over and over in the same place -- they're moving, ducking, weaving, etc. and that "blade twist" you just happened to be in the right place for at that time. Maybe the opportunity will come up again in a minute, but not right now.
> 
> Ultimately, ALL game mechanics have to be taken on "suspension of disbelief", just like most all movies or other entertainments. Why can't you hire a lawyer in monopoly to fight your arrest and going to jail? Why does rolling dice three times automatically spring you whether you succeed or not? Why couldn't Gandalf just call some of his eagle buddies and have Frodo drop the ring into Mount doom that same afternoon? Same idea -- you have to build justifications for why the "fun" route needs to be taken.




Sure, but the more bridges i have to build so the party doesn't take a detour into lame town the harder it is to DM a fun game and the worse the game is for me.  I have no idea yet, how many bridges I will have to build in 4e.

And just as a note the Bo9S explanation wouldn't fly for anyone in my games.  What I am off balance for the rest of the fight so I can't perform a blade twist, but I can perform a double back flip surprise?


----------



## Mad Mac

I think coming up with one set explanation for why all martial powers are limited isn't going to work well. There's always going to be a few powers that defy any mold you create. And developer time can probably be better spent than coming up a detailed explanation of the natural limits of every martial power they create. 

  Personally, I tend to explain stuff like this on a case by case basis. It might be that no-one ever falls for Explosive Badger Trouser Suprise more than once per fight, while Super Hippo Slam is just too exhausting to use more than once without taking a breather first, and Crimson Edge requires incredibly precise timing and luck for even the most skilled fighter.


----------



## AllisterH

Ahglock said:
			
		

> And just as a note the Bo9S explanation wouldn't fly for anyone in my games.  What I am off balance for the rest of the fight so I can't perform a blade twist, but I can perform a double back flip surprise?




If its an encounter power that you've used already? Of course.

Using the Bo9S, you've used ki to strengthen your arms to perform a blade twist and the muscles of said arm can't perform that manoeuver again without resetting your ki while the manoeuver to do a double back flip surprise  uses different muscles and they haven't experienced a ki surge this encounter as yet.

The thing about Bo9S is that it doesn't say "You're off-balanced". It says you're off-balanced/distracted/ki-drained/need to refocus (pick one).

Anyway, I don't think the actual powers will have this explanation anyway since like B09S, the obvious place to put it is at the head of the "Encounter-powers" section.


----------



## Campbell

I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats. 

In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.


----------



## M.L. Martin

Campbell said:
			
		

> I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats.
> 
> In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.




  Please get out of my head.


----------



## Hjorimir

I find it funny that there are players who would balk at the "realism" of AW/PE/PD abilities in 4e while at the same time accepting Hit Points, Armor Class, and Falling Damage as presented in 3e.


----------



## Lizard

Campbell said:
			
		

> In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.




This is a pretty good explanation.  And the opportunities for per-day powers just happen a lot less often...


----------



## shilsen

Campbell said:
			
		

> I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats.
> 
> In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.



 Beautiful 



			
				Hjorimir said:
			
		

> I find it funny that there are players who would balk at the "realism" of AW/PE/PD abilities in 4e while at the same time accepting Hit Points, Armor Class, and Falling Damage as presented in 3e.




I've always found this very amusing. One of the things ENWorld has shown me is that different people have completely different things which affect their sense of "realism", and that if you look hard enough, essentially all of them have completely unrealistic things which fail to bother them while some do.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Yep, I think Campbell's and Mustrum_Ridcully's takes are the best way to look at limited use powers. Thanks guys.


----------



## Professor Phobos

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Except that wouldn't be a problem, but would in fact be awesome.  Awesome verging on METAL.




I'm not saying it is a problem!

I am saying no one should complain their dog cannot shoot laser beams from its eyes, because that is not part of the "dog package", it wasn't what Canines of the Coast intended from their "dog" model.

I am saying that whenever one these previews shows up, people say "Ugh! That is so broken! I want the game to do X!" and then someone says "Well just make this change and it does X" and then someone says "Why should I fix this broken game! HATE! HATE! HATE!"

I am saying that there is a difference between:

1. It does not perform its intended function.
2. It does not perform the function I desire.

A game system is broken when the rules don't even produce the result the game designers wanted out of the rules, or there are glaring omissions, etc. 

A game system that has to be house-ruled to _fit the particular tastes of a specific individual or group_ is not broken. You are not "fixing" the game with this sort of house rule. You are _customizing_ it. 

A better counter-argument is the level of customization becomes so great as to make it not worth your time. That's fine. But people keep complaining that their dog can't breathe fire and it is making me crazy.

I just wish the naysayers didn't get so damn hostile over customization suggestions.


----------



## HP Dreadnought

Just an observation. . .

Looks like the 1st level hit points are 2 1/2x the per level hit points.  

So if we say a fighter gets between 8 and 10 hit points per level, they will have between 20 and 25 HP plus Con score at 1st level.  That's a lot of HPs for a 1st level character. . . as promised.


A couple other things. . . 

The smaller proficiency list implies to me that the weapons list as a whole has been slimmed down.  Good thing IMO.  I don't know that we REALLY needed two different sets of stats for a one-handed mace for example.

It also presents the possibility that one of the advantages of being a fighter is a much broader weapon proficiency list than you get with other classes. . . that could include significantly more proficiences than Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians.  

Anything that helps out the fighters is a good thing IMO if we are to avoid the pitfalls of the fighter class in 3.x and previous editions.

Damage definitely has been reined in.  The 350HP on the pit fiend looks like a LOT more now. . . plus its melee damage and 15 auto damage/round isn't looking too shabby.


----------



## Lizard

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> I find it funny that there are players who would balk at the "realism" of AW/PE/PD abilities in 4e while at the same time accepting Hit Points, Armor Class, and Falling Damage as presented in 3e.




Those are explicitly abstract. They give only final numbers; they don't describe actions. An "attack" in most versions of D&D is not explicitly described; it's a mix of feints, parries, twists, and so on. You roll the dice, look at the numbers, and reverse-engineer to describe the action.

Other things are more 'real'. A bow attack, for example, uses one arrow per roll -- it cannot be described as an abstraction showing multiple attacks. If you grapple someone, you have him held. You have your arms (or whatever) around him. The move to grapple might be abstracted, but the final result is not -- he's either grrappled, or he isn't. A bull rush, or the rogue maneuver descrived earlier, is 'real', in that someone is really moved X squares..he's not subject to an abstract, unmapped 'positional defect'[1]. 

So while it's easy to imagine a three foot halfling managing to slice open a dragon's throat when the dragon leans down to snap at him (because there are no explicit rules for hit location, and size differences are calculated in armor class and damage), it's much harder to imagine that same halfling bull-rushing the dragon off a cliff without the use of 'magic' or special training'. (Working in size and strength modifiers to the check, I'm not sure even a 20th level fighter could do it to a CR 20 dragon, but I'm not sure...) The dragon 'really moves' -- he's now X squares away from where he was.

The manuevers in 4e are described in fairly explicit fashion, and their effects often involve moving or shifting targets. The strain of coming up with 'believable' (not necessarily 'realistic') descriptions for these manuevers might prove taxing for many groups, when you have to do it over and over and over, and not get repetitive or boring. ("So, the dragon tried to bite me and misjudged and tumbled tail-over-head 5 squares...again?")

We'll see. The problem is, D&D combat is very much NOT 'shift your brain in neutral'. It's detailed, complex, and tactical. It's a wonderful system. 4e looks to be every bit as crunchy. This means that you're constantly shifting between detailed resolution and abstract description, and the more barriers there are to making that shift, the less fun combat becomes.


----------



## outsider

Campbell said:
			
		

> In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often.




For a good real life example of this sort of thing, consider the Gogoplata choke.  There's probably hundreds of Jujitsu artists that know how to do this manuever.  They could, in theory, try to do it as often as they wanted to per day.  However, as far as I know, only four mixed martial arts fights have ever been ended by the move.


----------



## Wulfram

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> I find it funny that there are players who would balk at the "realism" of AW/PE/PD abilities in 4e while at the same time accepting Hit Points, Armor Class, and Falling Damage as presented in 3e.




Just because you have some, necessary, abstraction, doesn't mean that realism or verisimilitude should be just chucked out as worthless.  This is the sort of argument that makes the slippery slope argument not a fallacy.

Anyway, HP and AC are established parts of DnD, and no longer worth complaining about - though I certainly wouldn't have objected if they'd something different for Armour in 4e. 3e Falling damage rules are poor, and I think generally accepted as such.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Ulthwithian said:
			
		

> If my Japanese knowledge doesn't fall me, the way to pluralize something (that, granted, is used very seldomly) is to append _tachi_ (sometimes changing the the 't' to a voiced 'd') to the word in question.  Thus, _katanatachi_.  However, Japanese very rarely employs the plural where English does.  'Where are all the katanas?' probably would not use the plural in Japanese.
> 
> Anyway.  Re: the sneak attack with various weapons issue, it's possible that there's a question of concealability as well as accuracy.  I do think the argument that the added versatility of a crossbow as opposed to a bow has some merit, as well.



I think "noun-tachi" more correctly translates to "some nouns" rather than a simple plural. There aren't really plural nouns in Japanese.


----------



## shilsen

Wulfram said:
			
		

> Just because you have some, necessary, abstraction, doesn't mean that realism or verisimilitude should be just chucked out as worthless.  This is the sort of argument that makes the slippery slope argument not a fallacy.




Personally, I think realism absolutely should be chucked out as worthless. Whereas I think verisimilitude is useful. Since this is a semantic point, I'm defining realism here as "fidelity to real life" and verisimilitude as "having internal consistency". The D&D world is so basically separated from our world that I think a search for realism in some areas is meaningless. In a world where cats can kill commoners, ravens fly at a quarter the speed of ravens in our world, and gravity doesn't work the same way, trying to get realistic doesn't make sense to me. But internal consistency is something I like. When you're reading _Beowulf_ and he can hold his breath underwater for hours and swim in full plate, that's utterly unrealistic, but it does seem internally consistent for the world Beowulf lives in.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Betote said:
			
		

> Having seen the rogue write-up, I can say I'm not a fan of w/e/d abilities. I know the gamist logic behind it, as it avoids players using the same optimal ability once and again, but I can't agree with the solution they came up with. I'd preferred if they'd resolved this just making the different abilities useful in different combat situations, so the tactic decision would be "What is the best move I can take now?", not "What is the best move I have still available?".
> 
> This, and the take on skills (I love the granularity of 3.X's skill system, and that was the main reason for me to not switch to True20) are my main argues against 4E as for now. My other grips (as the squared fireballs or the magic item limitations) are so easily houseruled they shouldn't become a real issue unless I find as many of them as to make me remember an awful lot of house rules, but the w/e/d abilities and the oversimplified skill system seem too much tightly tied to the rules to be houseruled away.
> 
> OTOH, I love the simplified maths. They make so easier to create NPCs on the fly.




per encounter abilities are those which need the enemy to be unaware... so the fluff seems ok. the problem is: what if you want to use that power against an enemy who didn´t notice you doing this trick against his friend before. Soer enemy would maybe be better than per encounter...


----------



## ajanders

I second Shil's post, and not just because he controls the gninjae.

Let's consider, please, a Dromite character.

That's a _telepathic ant_ who *shoots fire out of her brain*.
With that as a starting point, saying she can only use Laser-Guided Dagger of Death Attack once a day is unrealistic seems pettish.

My concern with "per encounter" abilities is mostly due to WOTC's vagueness about how long an encounter should be.
That makes how long an ability takes to recharge and how long it lasts variable, which is hard on my versimilitude.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ajanders said:
			
		

> I second Shil's post, and not just because he controls the gninjae.
> 
> Let's consider, please, a Dromite character.
> 
> That's a _telepathic ant_ who *shoots fire out of her brain*.
> With that as a starting point, saying she can only use Laser-Guided Dagger of Death Attack once a day is unrealistic seems pettish.
> 
> My concern with "per encounter" abilities is mostly due to WOTC's vagueness about how long an encounter should be.
> That makes how long an ability takes to recharge and how long it lasts variable, which is hard on my versimilitude.



They haven't yet bothered to put the precise definition in any of their previews, but from the Book of Nine Swords, it seems as if they are willing to make a relatively "fixed" definition. They might not say "a encounter is a 120 seconds time span", but they will probably define something like "after 1 to 5 minutes of rest (or at least non-fighting), you can recover your per encounter powers. Which also means that you can still play a "war of attrition" with per encounter powers by sending waves of enemies in short order. Obviously, this should be used with care. 
The nice thing is that even if you go for an attrition fight, their can be three out-comes for the PCs: (1) failure, (2) survival (most daily resources had to be expended, the group will probably want to rest), (3) victory (daily resources were barely touched, the group can go on.). But even (2) allows the group to continue - it's just a lot riskier - but it's not suicide. If the next encounters aren't as tough as the last one, your per encounter powers are still there - you still have some resources. 
3.x didn't allow a big difference between (2) and (3). If you came out of fight that didn't cost you any daily resources, this meant it was an easy fight. (And for the spellcasters, probably a little bit boring, too.)


----------



## tomBitonti

Lizard said:
			
		

> Those are explicitly abstract. They give only final numbers; they don't describe actions. An "attack" in most versions of D&D is not explicitly described; it's a mix of feints, parries, twists, and so on. You roll the dice, look at the numbers, and reverse-engineer to describe the action.
> ...
> We'll see. The problem is, D&D combat is very much NOT 'shift your brain in neutral'. It's detailed, complex, and tactical. It's a wonderful system. 4e looks to be every bit as crunchy. This means that you're constantly shifting between detailed resolution and abstract description, and the more barriers there are to making that shift, the less fun combat becomes.




Nicely written; thx!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Campbell said:
			
		

> I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats.
> 
> In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.



I agree completely.  It's an elegant solution.  Why does the rogue use his Spinning Death Blade in round 3?  Because that's when the opponent opened himself up in the particular way that's required for that sort of attack.  The player decides to use the power in round 3, but the narrative indicates that the reason why the character uses it is because opportunity knocked.  It solves the "rationale" problem quite well that way.  This is how many people narrate their games anyway.


----------



## ajanders

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> They haven't yet bothered to put the precise definition in any of their previews, but from the Book of Nine Swords, it seems as if they are willing to make a relatively "fixed" definition. They might not say "a encounter is a 120 seconds time span", but they will probably define something like "after 1 to 5 minutes of rest (or at least non-fighting), you can recover your per encounter powers. Which also means that you can still play a "war of attrition" with per encounter powers by sending waves of enemies in short order. Obviously, this should be used with care.
> [deletia]




In terms of the versimilitude, I understand the concept of, for example, invoking a magical power that lasts "only a few minutes" -- one two minute encounter, for example.
It's when the power lasted two minutes this morning, five minutes this afternoon, and pooped out after thirty seconds yesterday that my disbelief senses start tingling.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

ajanders said:
			
		

> In terms of the versimilitude, I understand the concept of, for example, invoking a magical power that lasts "only a few minutes" -- one two minute encounter, for example.
> It's when the power lasted two minutes this morning, five minutes this afternoon, and pooped out after thirty seconds yesterday that my disbelief senses start tingling.



Or it always lasts approximately (though probably not exactly) the same, unspecified time, and you were only fighting for two minutes, five minutes, or thirty seconds...after which the duration of the power becomes unimportant because it certainly didn't last long enough to make it to the next event at which it would be useful.

Also, I think that it would be more accurate to say it lasted 12 seconds, 36 seconds, or 6 seconds, since if it's a per-encounter power those are more likely durations than 5 minutes.  That's 50 rounds.  Assume that the power lasts about 3 minutes (give or take) and you're covered.


----------



## Incenjucar

ajanders said:
			
		

> In terms of the versimilitude, I understand the concept of, for example, invoking a magical power that lasts "only a few minutes" -- one two minute encounter, for example.
> It's when the power lasted two minutes this morning, five minutes this afternoon, and pooped out after thirty seconds yesterday that my disbelief senses start tingling.




Consider it from the angle of adrenaline.  Once the combat is over, it crashes, regardless of how long the combat is.  Magic has no reason to NOT function in a similar way.


----------



## Tusz

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Consider it from the angle of adrenaline.  Once the combat is over, it crashes, regardless of how long the combat is.  Magic has no reason to NOT function in a similar way.



That's what I'm thinking. The effect lasts as long as the caster remains focused on the effect, but this is mentally taxing and can't be maintained for more than a couple minutes before the energies start to pan-fry the mage's brain.


----------



## Hjorimir

Lizard said:
			
		

> Those are explicitly abstract. They give only final numbers; they don't describe actions. An "attack" in most versions of D&D is not explicitly described; it's a mix of feints, parries, twists, and so on. You roll the dice, look at the numbers, and reverse-engineer to describe the action.
> 
> Other things are more 'real'. A bow attack, for example, uses one arrow per roll -- it cannot be described as an abstraction showing multiple attacks. If you grapple someone, you have him held. You have your arms (or whatever) around him. The move to grapple might be abstracted, but the final result is not -- he's either grrappled, or he isn't. A bull rush, or the rogue maneuver descrived earlier, is 'real', in that someone is really moved X squares..he's not subject to an abstract, unmapped 'positional defect'[1].
> 
> So while it's easy to imagine a three foot halfling managing to slice open a dragon's throat when the dragon leans down to snap at him (because there are no explicit rules for hit location, and size differences are calculated in armor class and damage), it's much harder to imagine that same halfling bull-rushing the dragon off a cliff without the use of 'magic' or special training'. (Working in size and strength modifiers to the check, I'm not sure even a 20th level fighter could do it to a CR 20 dragon, but I'm not sure...) The dragon 'really moves' -- he's now X squares away from where he was.
> 
> The manuevers in 4e are described in fairly explicit fashion, and their effects often involve moving or shifting targets. The strain of coming up with 'believable' (not necessarily 'realistic') descriptions for these manuevers might prove taxing for many groups, when you have to do it over and over and over, and not get repetitive or boring. ("So, the dragon tried to bite me and misjudged and tumbled tail-over-head 5 squares...again?")
> 
> We'll see. The problem is, D&D combat is very much NOT 'shift your brain in neutral'. It's detailed, complex, and tactical. It's a wonderful system. 4e looks to be every bit as crunchy. This means that you're constantly shifting between detailed resolution and abstract description, and the more barriers there are to making that shift, the less fun combat becomes.



You lost me as soon as you suggested that your character's bow attack is more 'real' than gravity.


----------



## Hjorimir

shilsen said:
			
		

> Personally, I think realism absolutely should be chucked out as worthless. Whereas I think verisimilitude is useful. Since this is a semantic point, I'm defining realism here as "fidelity to real life" and verisimilitude as "having internal consistency". The D&D world is so basically separated from our world that I think a search for realism in some areas is meaningless. In a world where cats can kill commoners, ravens fly at a quarter the speed of ravens in our world, and gravity doesn't work the same way, trying to get realistic doesn't make sense to me. But internal consistency is something I like. When you're reading _Beowulf_ and he can hold his breath underwater for hours and swim in full plate, that's utterly unrealistic, but it does seem internally consistent for the world Beowulf lives in.



What he said...


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Regarding the complains some people have that Stealth and Thievery are fixed skills, I think that goes to the stated design philosophy of all characters being good at their basic role as a fixed starting point.  If you're playing a Rogue, no matter what else you do, you're at least good at being sneaky and light-fingered tricks.  As they've said, it's so there's less of a system mastery requirement to not-suck by missing out on an essential class skill or ability.




I'm thinking that this is a way to flesh out some less "skilled" classes as well.

For example, I'm betting fighters get Intimidate as a standard trained skill (along with Athletics). In 3e plenty of fighters wouldn't bother spending precious skill points on social stuff, but by making it a "freebie" (or mandatory, depending on your outlook), fighters get an automatic niche in social encounters. (Likewise with paladins getting Diplomacy, clerics getting Religion, warlords getting History, etc.)

Conversely, by focusing the rogue's skills on thievery and stealth to some degree, the class becomes less of an abstract "skill monkey." You should be picking a rogue because you want to act roguish, not because you want 8+Int skills for your noble diplomat (goes the 4e logic).


----------



## ajanders

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Consider it from the angle of adrenaline.  Once the combat is over, it crashes, regardless of how long the combat is.  Magic has no reason to NOT function in a similar way.




Adrenalin - or endurance, or strength, or whatever - does wear off in the middle of combats.
That's actually a perfectly valid tactic for winning fights: put up a full defense until your opponent gets tired, then hit them.
It's called the "Homer Simpson."
How do you outlast a power that lasts "as long as the fight does"?


----------



## SSquirrel

Dalvyn said:
			
		

> That would be my favourite solution too. Describe the power in such a way that the rule restrictions are obvious/feel natural/do not need to be memorized. And, if you cannot do it, then change the rule.




Or gee, have At Will, Per Encounter and Per Day sections of your character sheet with the abilities listed under each.  Problem memorizing solved.


----------



## Belphanior

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Or gee, have At Will, Per Encounter and Per Day sections of your character sheet with the abilities listed under each.  Problem memorizing solved.




Using the character sheet to effectively manage your PC? Insidious!


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja

Also, in regard to the weapon limitations, I wouldn't be surprised to see a general feat like this:

Weapon Mastery (General)
Choose one weapon with which you are proficient. You may now use that weapon in conjunction with any power and/or class ability, so long as the weapon's base damage and range do not exceed the base damage and range of one of the weapons allowed by those powers and/or abilities.

So this way, you could take Weapon Mastery: Club to be able to sneak attack and use rogue powers with your club, but you couldn't just take Weapon Mastery: Greatsword and start sneak attacking with a 2d6-base weapon. (If you could, it would pretty quickly become standard to see rogues toting huge two-handers for the extra damage.) And you couldn't take Weapon Mastery: Crossbow to slide people around from range with Positioning Strike.


----------



## shilsen

ajanders said:
			
		

> I second Shil's post, and not just because he controls the gninjae.








> Let's consider, please, a Dromite character.
> 
> That's a _telepathic ant_ who *shoots fire out of her brain*.




You just made me laugh out loud! I've never looked at the dromites before, but now I want to.



> With that as a starting point, saying she can only use Laser-Guided Dagger of Death Attack once a day is unrealistic seems pettish.
> 
> My concern with "per encounter" abilities is mostly due to WOTC's vagueness about how long an encounter should be.
> That makes how long an ability takes to recharge and how long it lasts variable, which is hard on my versimilitude.




I'm guessing that this is another of those things which can sound like an issue on paper, but rarely comes up in play. Considering how small the distinction in length is between most encounters, and how busy a good encounter keeps the PCs, I don't think that'll be an issue when at the table. One interesting thing I didn't know, since I've played very few systems besides D&D, that I recently saw someone mention on another thread was that WoD (I think) has been using per-encounter powers for a long time and nobody ever seems to have problems with them in play.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Yup WoD does though instead of per-encounter they use "per-scene"

In their two definitions (the first is from the lexicon):

"*Scene:* A division of time based on drama, such as the end of one plot point and the beginning of another. Whenever a character leaves a location where a dramatic event has occurred, or when a combat has ended, the current scene usually ends and the next one begins."

"*Scene:* A scene in a roleplaying game resembles a scene in a theatrical play. Your Storyteller sets the stage, and the players take their roles. The scene evolves in one location and usually encompasses a single, specific event. The flow of time within a scene may vary greatly. It may be played out in turns, it may run parallel to real time, or your Storyteller and fellow players may choose to fast-forward through parts of it, so long as the location and general events do not change. 

For example, a scene may begin with combat, which is measured in turns. It may then slip back into real time as your characters discuss what to do with the corpses they've created. After a fast-forward through loading the bodies onto a truck, the scene may return to real time as your characters argue over who will drive. All events occur in the same scene, at the same location, but time warps throughout to focus on the fun and important parts. Your Storyteller determines when one scene ends and when another begins."

The use of a scene is brought up throughout the rules book, so it goes beyond just powers and is used for a variety of effects both in ways that affect the characters as well as the pace of the game itself.


----------



## hong

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Personally, I tend to explain stuff like this on a case by case basis. It might be that no-one ever falls for Explosive Badger Trouser Suprise more than once per fight, while Super Hippo Slam is just too exhausting to use more than once without taking a breather first, and Crimson Edge requires incredibly precise timing and luck for even the most skilled fighter.




"You are using Explosive Badger Trouser Surprise against me, ah?"

"I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain."

"Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Super Hippo Slam?" 

"Naturally...but I find that Crimson Edge cancels out Super Hippo Slam. Don't you?"


----------



## UngeheuerLich

hong said:
			
		

> "You are using Explosive Badger Trouser Surprise against me, ah?"
> 
> "I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain."
> 
> "Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Super Hippo Slam?"
> 
> "Naturally...but I find that Crimson Edge cancels out Super Hippo Slam. Don't you?"




actually crimson edge is a quite good power name... actually most power names in the rogue article are quite good... what would you prefer? afflicting a bleeding wound? arterial strike?
red blade?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> It might be that no-one ever falls for Explosive Badger Trouser Suprise more than once per fight




You realize, now, that my life will not be complete until I not only write, but convince WotC to publish, a power called "Explosive Badger Trouser Surprise," right? You've ruined my entire future.


----------



## Incenjucar

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You realize, now, that my life will not be complete until I not only write, but convince WotC to publish, a power called "Explosive Badger Trouser Surprise," right? You've ruined my entire future.




Writing the Complete Guide to Gnomes, are we?


----------



## coyote6

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You realize, now, that my life will not be complete until I not only write, but convince WotC to publish, a power called "Explosive Badger Trouser Surprise," right? You've ruined my entire future.




April 2009 -- that's your date of publication. Dragon's going to need new material every month, right?


----------



## mach1.9pants

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If you want to find a in-gameworld logic for these powers, here's my take:
> At Will/Per Encounter/Per Day is a shorthand description for the likelihood of a certain situation coming up and an appropriate maneuver working. An At Will power is something easily done as long as the base conditions are met. Once you learned the technique, you can repeat it often.
> Per Encounter powers are a little more difficult. It's not just knowledge, it's good timing and some luck. Per Day is fiendishly difficult. Even if you trained a lot in it, you still need a lot of luck. It's really hard to get the coordination right, and find the right situation to use it.



This I *really* like. That covers all 'simulationist' and 'suspension of disbelief' twinges I have about these powers. If the RAW doesn't explain it as eloquently and realistically as this, I will be using it in my 4E.
Thanks Mustrum


----------



## Just Another User

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Why not simply use the explanation that Bo9S uses which Henry mentioned for Encounter powers?
> 
> Only thing left to explain then would be Daily Powers.




Because it don't really works and it let a lot of holes open

What if I'm invisible when I use my per encounter power? can I use it again?

What if I'm fighting mindless creatures, like ozees or golems, or giant slugs? it is really important that they see me pull a positioning strike once (i'd be really curious to see how (and why) the artful dodger variant works on a ozee, BTW)

What if one of the enemies got Blinded/Confused or similiarly hindered in some other way?
Can I use one of my per encouter powers on him a second time?
etc, etc, etc

There are a lot on inconsistencies with per encouter powers, the only way to solve them is to go back to pre 3e D&D way, when therer is a dubious situation the master make things up on the fly and decide what to do, but this would create other kind of problems.


----------



## mach1.9pants

hong said:
			
		

> "You are using Explosive Badger Trouser Surprise against me, ah?"
> 
> "I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain."
> 
> "Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Super Hippo Slam?"
> 
> "Naturally...but I find that Crimson Edge cancels out Super Hippo Slam. Don't you?"



Classic movie 


			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Personally, I think realism absolutely should be chucked out as worthless. Whereas I think verisimilitude is useful.



Well said, this covers my position as well. However I think my level of verisimilitude required is getting less as I get older. A blanket 'this makes enough sense' definition is good enough for me. Mustrum (quoted above) covers powers enough for me. Yes I could get my knickers in a twist about variables that happen and could challenge my broad overall assumption.
But, now-a-days, I just don't _bother_.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Yeah my view is, if it makes the game fun, why bother delving too deep into it. Its like when watching a fun action movie you don't delve into the physics of it you just go along for the ride and that is D&D (in my opinion) a vehicle to allow us to have a fun and enjoyable experience.


----------



## shilsen

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You realize, now, that my life will not be complete until I not only write, but convince WotC to publish, a power called "Explosive Badger Trouser Surprise," right? You've ruined my entire future.



 You realize that I'm now going to have to haunt ENWorld and follow your posts until you announce which book the power's coming out in, so that I can buy it forthwith, don't you? Damn you to heck!



			
				mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Well said, this covers my position as well. However I think my level of verisimilitude required is getting less as I get older. A blanket 'this makes enough sense' definition is good enough for me. Mustrum (quoted above) covers powers enough for me. Yes I could get my knickers in a twist about variables that happen and could challenge my broad overall assumption.
> But, now-a-days, I just don't bother.






			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Yeah my view is, if it makes the game fun, why bother delving too deep into it. Its like when watching a fun action movie you don't delve into the psychics of it you just go along for the ride and that is D&D (in my opinion) a vehicle to allow us to have a fun and enjoyable experience.




That's essentially my position too.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Oh say Shilsen I hope you noticed my post on WoD it should answer your question on how the Scene-idea in WoD works.

I just realized I put psychics instead of physics ><


----------



## SSquirrel

Just Another User said:
			
		

> What if one of the enemies got Blinded/Confused or similiarly hindered in some other way?
> Can I use one of my per encouter powers on him a second time?
> etc, etc, etc
> 
> There are a lot on inconsistencies with per encouter powers, the only way to solve them is to go back to pre 3e D&D way, when therer is a dubious situation the master make things up on the fly and decide what to do, but this would create other kind of problems.





Or, God forbid I know, wait ad see the actual rules for per-encounter powers instead of making up exactly how they work?  I'm all for speculation, but all this "OMG one incomplete example, I'll never play this crap!" on ENWorld is insane.  Others have also pointed out that there are quite possibly feats allowing extra uses of the powers as Bo9S has something similar


And yes, Seraph gives an excellent summary of per scene from the WoD games.  I've been playing those since Vampire first came out and have yet to see any complaints about power lengths.  If your ability is combat based and the combat ends, what does it matter if it is still running?  If your DM immediately jumped you all again before anyone had rested, I would say the encounter was still going on.  Unless we had all used our per encounter powers, then i would firmly state that the old combat was over it was time for a new one.  Never had a whole lot of overlapping combats in our WoD games tho, so YMMV


----------



## shilsen

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Oh say Shilsen I hope you noticed my post on WoD it should answer your question on how the Scene-idea in WoD works.




Yes, I did. Thanks. 



> I just realized I put psychics instead of physics ><




Seems an appropriate non-Freudian slip here


----------



## Kzach

The Shadow said:
			
		

> * I was expecting Bluff and Intimidate to be folded together;  guess not.  I'm also surprised that "Insight" (Sense Motive?) isn't part of Perception.



This really bugged me. It's an incredibly obvious combination and yet it was left uncombined. This is the kind of thing that makes me worry that they overlooked some things and that the end result will be a clunky set of rules that don't follow basic premises set forth by other changes.

4.5 ed anyone?


----------



## Henry

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Or, God forbid I know, wait ad see the actual rules for per-encounter powers instead of making up exactly how they work?  I'm all for speculation, but all this "OMG one incomplete example, I'll never play this crap!" on ENWorld is insane.




Ladies and Gents, let's not go this route, please. J.A.U. didn't get hysterical or insulting, he just had a point to make.


Actually, the fluff explanations for those questions work the exact same way; just because they're blind, stunned, whatever, doesn't mean they give the same openings. Maybe they are, but you're not the right distance away, or they have a nearby ally that spoils your whole angle, or your character has a better opportunity to use another ability. And again, I point to the fact that boxers don't use the exact same maneuvers unless they have their opponent on the ropes (in other words, helpless) - and this would be more like a coup de grace than some fancy maneuver.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I can't really see Bluff and Intimidate as one, they are two wildly different techniques.

Bluff is to mislead someone.

Intimidate is to get your way through cowing someone.

Also Perception would be things dealing with sight, hearing, taste, smell.

While Insight is more social based and such, so; body language, tone of voice, etc.


----------



## Lizard

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Yeah my view is, if it makes the game fun, why bother delving too deep into it. Its like when watching a fun action movie you don't delve into the physics of it you just go along for the ride and that is D&D (in my opinion) a vehicle to allow us to have a fun and enjoyable experience.




Some of us have trouble enjoying a movie when our sense of reality gets TOO fried. There's only so much turning off my brain can do before it gets angry and demands to wake up. (Like trying to figure out how hitting 'delete' is supposed to run an anti-virus scan, and how it's possible to hook up C4 to go off when someone does, and why not just shoot the guy since there's a sniper watching anyway...)


----------



## mach1.9pants

Yep, a lot of your joy of 4E will come down to your RLV (Required Level of Verisimilitude). The higher your RLV the more annoying 4E will be, IMO


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja

Kzach said:
			
		

> This really bugged me. It's an incredibly obvious combination and yet it was left uncombined. This is the kind of thing that makes me worry that they overlooked some things and that the end result will be a clunky set of rules that don't follow basic premises set forth by other changes.
> 
> 4.5 ed anyone?




My guess: Intimidate is an automatic skill for fighters (like Stealth and Thievery for rogues), so that fighters now have a niche in social encounters. It wouldn't really make sense to have fighters automatically know how to bluff as well, so they kept the two skills separate. (Also, they probably don't want the social skills combined TOO much... having one "Convince People To Do What You Want" skill for social encounters would be like having a "Make Enemies Be Dead" skill for combat encounters!)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Of course, we should keep in mind, we are only looking at a section of the class. Especially if Bo9S was any indication, there probably is either
> 
> a)feat that allows one to reuse an encounter power
> b) simple rules in the encounter power section that says, "if you use no powers in a round, you "refresh" your encounter powers.
> c) similar rules that allow one to use a daily power more than once.



Nope, it says in Races and Classes that they didn't like recharge mechanics so they ditched them all and there is no way of recovering per encounter powers now.

The rationale was that it was too complicated to play a sub-game at the same time as the real game which was essentially a "card game".  One where you had to manage what powers you had in your "hand" and when you could "draw" new ones.  They found that players were concentrating too much on the sub-game and that it often played out as:

1) Use my "best" power
2) Recharge to get the power back
3) Use my "best" power again

They wanted players to concentrate on the actual game at hand: How many hitpoints the enemies have left, what tactical decisions to make, how to survive and win given the options you had left.


----------



## Campbell

I think it's a little too premature to judge if Insight should be combined with Perception since we don't have any clear indication of what the skill actually does. I actually hope the next preview covers skills.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I really don't think Perception and Insight should be combined since they seem to deal with different things.

Since Perception would be things dealing with sight, hearing, taste, smell.

While Insight is more social based and such, so; body language, tone of voice, etc.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Campbell said:
			
		

> I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats.



Yes, I believe you've summed up the 4th Edition philosophy exactly from everything I've read.  Keep in mind the comment about "The rules are not the physics of the game world".  It isn't that characters are incapable of performing a maneuver more than once, it's just that they don't do it.  It makes the game more fun if people don't, so the game doesn't allow them to.  However, from the CHARACTER'S point of view all he did was react with the appropriate technique given the time he had and the openings the enemy gave him.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The problem is that I certainly can't think of any REALLY good reason why any martial character would have abilities that are per encounter or per day.
> 
> Sure, you can explain caster types having per encounter abilities and per day abilities simply by saying "It's magic and that's the way it works."  Which is enough to convince 95% of people.  Whereas if you say, "They are martial powers, that's the way they work" likely won't convince nearly as many people.  This is because people KNOW how non-magical people work but magic doesn't exist in real life so ANY excuse sounds plausible.
> 
> So, really you have one of two choices: Bow to the "realistic" or "logical" way of doing things and don't give fighters, rogues and similar characters any per encounter or per day abilities OR give them the abilities and not care that the justification is just as thin as the one for caster types.
> 
> If the second choice makes the game more fun the play then I say choose that one and gloss over the reasons.




I agree. You can understand abilities like rage or defensive stance being per encounter because of the amount of mental focus they take, but not something like an attack or skill-based martial power that is learned. 

4th edition has some fun stuff I may co-opt like healing surges, but overall it looks like a watered down edition of DnD made for the masses aiming for a LCD level of intelligence. I'm not liking more than I'm disliking. I don't see myself upgrading. I've been playing twenty plus years and I finally found an edition of DnD that I just don't like enough to change.

The removal of death effects, the dumbing down of casters, the removal of the randomness of the game replacing it with point buy, removing half-orcs because their background implies a vile act, and many, many changes that I do not like.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

shilsen said:
			
		

> That's essentially my position too.



Yeah, we old-timers are too tired and senile to get up in arms about trivial stuff anymore. Maybe when I was 20, I'd be able to work up the energy to care, but now I'd rather just overlook it and get on with having fun.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Yep, a lot of your joy of 4E will come down to your RLV (Required Level of Verisimilitude). The higher your RLV the more annoying 4E will be, IMO




Meh, I'm thinking a lot of our problems come from old habit and that infamous wariness of anything new.

Vancian magic is an incredibly silly system, as many have pointed out. But over 20+ years, we've all gotten used to it and even refined the definition in extremely convoluted ways to pacify the "simulationists." (How do 3.5e wizard spells work, again? The wizard _knows_ the spells he's learned, except he needs his book to prepare them, and once he casts them he doesn't actually forget them, but still doesn't know how to cast them again...)

If we have to justify per-encounter powers but no longer have to justify Vancian spell memorization, I'll consider it a more than even trade in terms of "verisimilitude." 

That being said:



> If you want to find a in-gameworld logic for these powers, here's my take:
> At Will/Per Encounter/Per Day is a shorthand description for the likelihood of a certain situation coming up and an appropriate maneuver working. An At Will power is something easily done as long as the base conditions are met. Once you learned the technique, you can repeat it often.
> Per Encounter powers are a little more difficult. It's not just knowledge, it's good timing and some luck. Per Day is fiendishly difficult. Even if you trained a lot in it, you still need a lot of luck. It's really hard to get the coordination right, and find the right situation to use it.




I don't think this works, because it opens up a gap between player knowledge and character knowledge of the characters' readiness. For example, let's say the party is fully healed but has blown all its daily powers, and is considering whether to press on to the BBEG (whose camp is only another mile or so away) or to sleep first. The best tactical choice is to rest and restore their dailies, of course. But if we're using Mustrum's in-game justification that I quoted, the characters have no way of KNOWING that they won't "get lucky enough" to use their daily powers again (although of course the players do). What's the rogue gonna say - "Hey guys, I think we should stop for the night, I've used up my allotment of luck for the day"?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Yep, a lot of your joy of 4E will come down to your RLV (Required Level of Verisimilitude). The higher your RLV the more annoying 4E will be, IMO



But it's not even verisimilitude.  Verisimilitude just requires that what happens is believable.  It's certainly fairly easy to believe a rogue stabs an enemy with a dagger right in the weak point of its armor or that a cleric heals someone with his magic.  Then on the following round the rogue tumbles behind the enemy for a flank and sticks his blade in his back and twists it.

It's when you delve too deep into the reasons WHY the rules work the way they do that the problems start to come out.  I mean WHY did the rogue not stick his blade in a weak point in the armor again this round.  If someone is wearing a lot of armor, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to do that every chance he got?  The player of the rogue would have LOVED to do that, but the rules prevented it.

And that's where the problem comes in.  The first example isn't verisimilitude breaking when viewed in character.  However the rules behind the action aren't actually rules that the characters themselves have to follow, they are rules the players need to follow.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Nope, it says in Races and Classes that they didn't like recharge mechanics so they ditched them all and there is no way of recovering per encounter powers now.
> 
> The rationale was that it was too complicated to play a sub-game at the same time as the real game which was essentially a "card game".  One where you had to manage what powers you had in your "hand" and when you could "draw" new ones.  They found that players were concentrating too much on the sub-game and that it often played out as:
> 
> 1) Use my "best" power
> 2) Recharge to get the power back
> 3) Use my "best" power again
> 
> They wanted players to concentrate on the actual game at hand: How many hitpoints the enemies have left, what tactical decisions to make, how to survive and win given the options you had left.



None of that precludes the idea that you might get access to your powers more often through feats.  If a feat gives you one extra per-encounter or per-day use of a power, you just write a little "2x" beside it, and that's all the "gaming" of the game you have to do.  I can see how recharge could turn into a weirdo bookkeeping min-max fest, but just slapping an extra use on something seems perfectly at home in the system they seem to be trying to make.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> What's the rogue gonna say - "Hey guys, I think we should stop for the night, I've used up my allotment of luck for the day"?



"Hey guys, I think we should stop for the night.  I'm winded, I've still got some quills jammed in my arm, my sword hand is starting to cramp, and I think that last fight opened up that tusk-wound I took last week.  Do you think we could call it quits?"

The simple fix for the gap between player and character knowledge is to render the narrative in a way that makes sense for the character.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

outsider said:
			
		

> For a good real life example of this sort of thing, consider the Gogoplata choke.  There's probably hundreds of Jujitsu artists that know how to do this manuever.  They could, in theory, try to do it as often as they wanted to per day.  However, as far as I know, only four mixed martial arts fights have ever been ended by the move.




That's an awesome example, thanks.


----------



## shilsen

Lizard said:
			
		

> Some of us have trouble enjoying a movie when our sense of reality gets TOO fried. There's only so much turning off my brain can do before it gets angry and demands to wake up. (Like trying to figure out how hitting 'delete' is supposed to run an anti-virus scan, and how it's possible to hook up C4 to go off when someone does, and why not just shoot the guy since there's a sniper watching anyway...)




The problem, of course, is that the "sense of reality" differs from person to person and is also heavily mediated by the conventions of the particular form of entertainment (especially the conventions that particular individual is used to). It's not that you are turning off your brain and the implication that anyone whose suspension of disbelief is different from you is turning theirs off is a little presumptuous. Rather, you're simply giving more emphasis to certain sections and areas than others.

After all, when you're watching a movie, you're choosing to not have your sense of reality affected by the fact that the characters are actually not real but are being played by actors, or by the fact that you constantly watch it on a screen, or that there's clearly a camera in the same spot as these people but they pretend it's not there. And the fact that you're used to those conventions is a big part of it. When you play D&D, your sense of reality is presumably not affected by the fact that the halfling rogue is being played by your friend Bob, or that it's a world where giant lizards can fly without magic, or where human beings commonly can pull off things nobody in our world can. 

None of the above is inherently more appropriate for a suspension of disbelief than anything else. It's all about habit and choice. 



			
				mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Yep, a lot of your joy of 4E will come down to your RLV (Required Level of Verisimilitude). The higher your RLV the more annoying 4E will be, IMO




I'd modify that to make it RTV or Required Type of Verisimilitude. It's not that the type of approach Lizard or any others are preferring has any more verisimilitude than mine or that of the posters taking the approach I am. Every individual playing D&D has their own list of inconsistencies, arbitrariness and unreality that they're willing to accept and another list that they are not. The volume may be slightly larger or smaller in one person's case, but that is all.


----------



## Incenjucar

Man, going over those powers point by point... interesting patterns.

At Will Attack powers doing 2[W] at level 21... Encounter Powers being extra special for one of the tactic choices... the non-linear way that Sneak Attack damage increases...

UGH I want to see the whole thing so I can start homebrewing and playing with the math.


----------



## heretic888

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The simple fix for the gap between player and character knowledge is to render the narrative in a way that makes sense for the character.




QFT

Seriously, guys, back when the maneuver system of _Tome of Battle_ came out, I could think of at least a half dozen narrative rationalizations for those particular encounter powers (and even the "recharge" mechanic supporting them). 

I channel my ki or animus. I release a momentary burst of adrenaline. I expend some of innate reserves. I have a fleeting moment of perfect concentration. I momentarily adopt a specific physical and mental posture to perform. I position myself in just the right place at just the right time at just the right distance.

That's just stuff I came up with in the last 90 seconds. Seriously. Its not that hard.

I personally hope WotC doesn't provide their favored narrative explanation of the encounter and daily powers. Leave that to the players. Just leave us the juicy crunch to play with and we can write the narrative as we see fit.

Laterz.


----------



## hong

shilsen said:
			
		

> The problem, of course, is that the "sense of reality" differs from person to person and is also heavily mediated by the conventions of the particular form of entertainment (especially the conventions that particular individual is used to). It's not that you are turning off your brain and the implication that anyone whose suspension of disbelief is different from you is turning theirs off is a little presumptuous. Rather, you're simply giving more emphasis to certain sections and areas than others.




I've found that the INSTANT I say "a huge sweatdrop appears next to your head as people react to what you said", people no longer worry so much about verimis vemsiril verismi believability.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> "Hey guys, I think we should stop for the night.  I'm winded, I've still got some quills jammed in my arm, my sword hand is starting to cramp, and I think that last fight opened up that tusk-wound I took last week.  Do you think we could call it quits?"




I'm just thinking of the actual discussion around the table here. Most groups I've played do pretty much all conversation in-character, so this might be a bit awkward. Especially if the other characters want to tell my rogue to stop whining about his dailies and get going. It's a tactical conversation that the characters can't have (because they don't know, under this justification, that they've "used up" their daily powers) but will probably come up fairly frequently for players. (Shelly already mentioned it on one of her articles, in fact.) 

So you're forced to either stop roleplaying and hash it out out-of-character (which is also problematic because players might have different tactical priorities from their characters), or else have an entire conversation in weird in-character innuendo.


----------



## Incenjucar

hong said:
			
		

> I've found that the INSTANT I say "a huge sweatdrop appears next to your head as people react to what you said", people no longer worry so much about verimis vemsiril verismi believability.




I'm hoping that displaying my horribly bad Amerimanga-inspired fantasy art when showing monsters and such will have a similar effect on my players.


----------



## mach1.9pants

hong said:
			
		

> I've found that the INSTANT I say "a huge sweatdrop appears next to your head as people react to what you said", people no longer worry so much about verimis vemsiril verismi believability.



?????????


----------



## Campbell

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But it's not even verisimilitude.  Verisimilitude just requires that what happens is believable.  It's certainly fairly easy to believe a rogue stabs an enemy with a dagger right in the weak point of its armor or that a cleric heals someone with his magic.  Then on the following round the rogue tumbles behind the enemy for a flank and sticks his blade in his back and twists it.
> 
> It's when you delve too deep into the reasons WHY the rules work the way they do that the problems start to come out.  I mean WHY did the rogue not stick his blade in a weak point in the armor again this round.  If someone is wearing a lot of armor, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to do that every chance he got?  The player of the rogue would have LOVED to do that, but the rules prevented it.
> 
> And that's where the problem comes in.  The first example isn't verisimilitude breaking when viewed in character.  However the rules behind the action aren't actually rules that the characters themselves have to follow, they are rules the players need to follow.




Agreed. I don't think objections to Daily and Encounter Powers are about believability at all. I think this issue comes down to the degree of immersion players expect. Daily and Encounter Powers for martial types are a slap in the face for players that wish to limit the degree of separation between player and character decisions because they break the fourth wall by allowing the player a limited amount of narrative control (which forces the player to step outside of a character's head). Action points are another common mechanic that has this effect on immersion-oriented players.

The language used in most of the objections is pretty telling. Most posters that object to Daily and Encounter Powers speak in the first person when describing character actions and they tend to emphasize the use of a given power as a character decision instead of a player decision.


----------



## Incenjucar

Well, to appease that particular fan base...

One could always create a random roll that determined whether or not you could activate a limited-use power.

So, like, "Roll 1d20 to see if there's an opening for Power X.  If 20, then yes."

Per-Encounter could be on a more forgiving range.


----------



## mach1.9pants

That is fair enough, I don't object so I am just guessing. My point was that every body enjoys a different level of 'gamism'. I reckon that those who don't like much gamism will find many things annoying about 4E. 
I should have maybe used DLG (Desired Level of Gamism). Having grown up with Vancian magic I don't find these restrictions a bother...
However our group only does talking in character less than half the time, so we are unlikely to find such gamist/meta-game restrictions a real problem. Mustrum's eloquent reasoning is goode enough for our group.
I also think powers give the players a good amount of narrative control, IMC they will be able to describe the characters actions any way they want that makes sense and has the same game result. Much better than, 'I swing my sword at him, and again, and again, and again...' with stupidly low chances of hitting after the first or second swing.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I'm just thinking of the actual discussion around the table here. Most groups I've played do pretty much all conversation in-character, so this might be a bit awkward. Especially if the other characters want to tell my rogue to stop whining about his dailies and get going. It's a tactical conversation that the characters can't have (because they don't know, under this justification, that they've "used up" their daily powers) but will probably come up fairly frequently for players. (Shelly already mentioned it on one of her articles, in fact.)
> 
> So you're forced to either stop roleplaying and hash it out out-of-character (which is also problematic because players might have different tactical priorities from their characters), or else have an entire conversation in weird in-character innuendo.



I just don't see this as something likely to come up.  If you think your character would want to stick it out despite being out of dailies, just don't have him speak up about how rotten he feels after the last fight.  I also don't see anything wrong with mixing up metagame talk with in-character stuff where necessary, and I don't think that it needs to break the fourth wall to do so.  It's as easy as switching between metagame talk, first-person, and third-person.

Player 1: "Well, that was my last daily, and also my last healing surge.  Lidda says that she's feeling pretty beat up and nauseous after that last fight and thinks that it might be a good time to retreat back to somewhere we can rest."
Player 2: "Aww, suck it up.  We still need to find the staff of might before we can get out of this hellhole."
Player 1: "Fine, but don't blame me if we all die gruesome deaths because I'm too weak to save your butt.  Now move over and let me check that hallway for traps."

I think that this might be one of those things that looks like it might cause a problem under certain types of circumstances, during certain phases of the moon, but when you actually start gaming with it, it won't.

Also, if you and your character are having a disagreement over tactics, perhaps you should take a break from gaming before someone decides to medicate you.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But it's not even verisimilitude.  Verisimilitude just requires that what happens is believable.  It's certainly fairly easy to believe a rogue stabs an enemy with a dagger right in the weak point of its armor or that a cleric heals someone with his magic.  Then on the following round the rogue tumbles behind the enemy for a flank and sticks his blade in his back and twists it.
> 
> It's when you delve too deep into the reasons WHY the rules work the way they do that the problems start to come out.  I mean WHY did the rogue not stick his blade in a weak point in the armor again this round.



Because this round, the guy in the armour didn't raise his arm in such a way as to expose the weak point, or else the rogue wasn't standing in the right spot to take advantage, or the rogue was dodging a blow and couldn't get his dagger up in time to make the attack, etc.

You get to do it once a combat, or less.  The in-game reason why is divorced from the out-of-game reason, freeing you to define the in-game reason in whatever manner you like.

edit: I also think that this will almost never come up in most people's games.  It will only be an issue at a table that enjoys describing in precise detail exactly what happened when someone rolled a d20.  Most of the time all that's required for people to ignore the in-game/out-of-game disconnect is that it is _possible_ for an in-game explanation to make sense.  Barring wacky corner cases, it is always possible to explain why you can't do another Crimson Blade.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Campbell said:
			
		

> Agreed. I don't think objections to Daily and Encounter Powers are about believability at all. I think this issue comes down to the degree of immersion players expect. Daily and Encounter Powers for martial types are a slap in the face for players that wish to limit the degree of separation between player and character decisions because they break the fourth wall by allowing the player a limited amount of narrative control (which forces the player to step outside of a character's head). Action points are another common mechanic that has this effect on immersion-oriented players.



Funny, I'm of the opinion that narrative control has a positive effect on my immersion roleplaying.  It allows me to control not only my characters arms, legs, and vocal cords, but also a whole constellation of traits like luck, deftness, and flair that tend to fall out of the bottom of games that attempt to simulate a physics rather than a narrative or style of play.

Being able to blow all my action points and dailies on "My name is Inigo Montoya..." makes it much easier for me to play a character who might do something unexpected from time.


----------



## dm4hire

As a DM I'd allow the burning of an action point to reuse a once per day ability.  There may actually be rules in the new book to allow for that.  We don't know yet.


----------



## hong

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> ?????????



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_drop

Never say I don't do anything for you!


----------



## Ahglock

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Yeah my view is, if it makes the game fun, why bother delving too deep into it. Its like when watching a fun action movie you don't delve into the physics of it you just go along for the ride and that is D&D (in my opinion) a vehicle to allow us to have a fun and enjoyable experience.




Not only do people have a different point at which they step back and can't enjoy an action movie because it breaks there level of suspension of disbelief, but my players aren't watching a movie.  They are actively participating so its a bit harder to just sit back and enjoy the show, they are the show, there the ones creating it just as much as I am.  When you are an observer it is easier to just sit back and enjoy, when you participate you will ask more questions.  And i hope 4e provides enough answers to make the game enjoyable.


----------



## mach1.9pants

hong said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_drop
> 
> Never say I don't do anything for you!



You are a great guy! Despite what the others say.....and being an Ocker


----------



## Steely Dan

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> So, shifting is a five-foot step, except when it isn't?




I apologize if someone has already said this, but the Shift is exactly like the 5 ft. step, except it costs a Move action.

And you can make as many Shifts as you have Move actions.


----------



## Spatula

Baduin said:
			
		

> Try crawling with a bow. Crossbow is really good for shooting from ambush, since you can use it prone, and can load and draw it earlier and wait for a long time before shooting.
> 
> To shoot a bow you have to stand up straight, draw it and let loose. Not much chance for any surprise attacks.



Correct, you cannot shoot a bow while prone.  Not only does this having nothing to do with sneak attacks (which requires "combat advantage," not laying on the ground), you can't properly use a sling when flat on your stomach, either.


----------



## Ahglock

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> I apologize if someone had already said this, but the Shift is exactly like the 5 ft. step, except it costs a Move action




well without full attack being in the game a move action has about the same relevance as a 5' step.  There are some corner cases where the overall effect would be different but usually I don't think there will be one.


----------



## TwinBahamut

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I'm just thinking of the actual discussion around the table here. Most groups I've played do pretty much all conversation in-character, so this might be a bit awkward. Especially if the other characters want to tell my rogue to stop whining about his dailies and get going. It's a tactical conversation that the characters can't have (because they don't know, under this justification, that they've "used up" their daily powers) but will probably come up fairly frequently for players. (Shelly already mentioned it on one of her articles, in fact.)
> 
> So you're forced to either stop roleplaying and hash it out out-of-character (which is also problematic because players might have different tactical priorities from their characters), or else have an entire conversation in weird in-character innuendo.



I don't know, this seems easy enough for me... Namely, it makes sense if you think that a character whose resources are depleted feels tired.

A character who has used up per-encounter powers feels winded. The character can keep fighting, but they would prefer to take a moment's rest in order to catch their breath.

A character who has used up per-day powers feels tired. The character can tough it out and keep going without trouble, but they are still not at their best and would prefer to rest. Stuff liking complaining about sore muscles and desiring strong coffee fit into this area, things that will not affect your overall performance too much, but show that you just are not at 100% anymore and need some real rest.


----------



## hong

Ahglock said:
			
		

> well without full attack being in the game a move action has about the same relevance as a 5' step.  There are some corner cases where the overall effect would be different but usually I don't think there will be one.




Dollars to donuts the defender class(es) will have stuff to punish people who stand still in enemy territory.


----------



## Ahglock

hong said:
			
		

> Dollars to donuts the defender class(es) will have stuff to punish people who stand still in enemy territory.




I got the impression they get to lay down the punishment more for people who try to move through enemy territory, though I totally could be misinterpreting it.


----------



## hong

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I got the impression they get to lay down the punishment more for people who try to move through enemy territory, though I totally could be misinterpreting it.



 To be precise, they get to punish people who stay too close to them. This could be because you started your turn next to them and decide to stand still, or because you started your turn away from them and move closer.


----------



## Steely Dan

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I got the impression they get to lay down the punishment more for people who try to move through enemy territory




Yeah, I heard they punish you if you take your attention (attack someone else) when adjacent to them, or if you move away from them – come here!


----------



## Gimby

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I don't know, this seems easy enough for me... Namely, it makes sense if you think that a character whose resources are depleted feels tired.




^ agree.

In addition, there have always been aspects of D&D which have required this sort of code-speak.  Enhancement bonuses to magic items being the most obvious.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ajanders said:
			
		

> In terms of the versimilitude, I understand the concept of, for example, invoking a magical power that lasts "only a few minutes" -- one two minute encounter, for example.
> It's when the power lasted two minutes this morning, five minutes this afternoon, and pooped out after thirty seconds yesterday that my disbelief senses start tingling.



Well, I started roleplaying with Shadowrun. In there, active spells require concentration, and it was very difficult to maintain multiple spells. When I came to D&D 3.0, I had to get accustomed to the idea that I could actually have multiple spells running and not sucking.  (though that might have been the smaller change I had to adapt to compared to the formulaic SR spells to the highly unique Vancian spells and the whole "per day" stuff... Or Hitpoints...)

So, it's not like your power actually has a variable duration - you just decide to end it because you no longer need it, and it takes effort to maintain. And if you wouldn't end it, you couldn't get enough rest to replenish your per encounter resources.


----------



## Spatula

I don't see the problem with martial X per Y abilities... how is it any different from a barbarian's rage?


----------



## frankthedm

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> You lost me as soon as you suggested that your character's bow attack is more 'real' than gravity.



It is truth in D&D. A good jump roll or skill check may flaunt gravity, but no matter the attack roll, no additional arrows can be _pop'ed_ into being mid flight without magic directly being involved, like the "Darts of the Hornet's Nest".


----------



## Imban

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, I started roleplaying with Shadowrun. In there, active spells require concentration, and it was very difficult to maintain multiple spells. When I came to D&D 3.0, I had to get accustomed to the idea that I could actually have multiple spells running and not sucking.  (though that might have been the smaller change I had to adapt to compared to the formulaic SR spells to the highly unique Vancian spells and the whole "per day" stuff... Or Hitpoints...)
> 
> So, it's not like your power actually has a variable duration - you just decide to end it because you no longer need it, and it takes effort to maintain. And if you wouldn't end it, you couldn't get enough rest to replenish your per encounter resources.




Well, this works as long as you can choose when to end it. If all of us use encounter-duration buffs, kick down the door, and find two goblins and a hostile flying goldfish behind it, I would be dissatisfied if I couldn't kick down the next door and fight another battle while my buffs remained up just because "two goblins and a hostile flying goldfish" was an encounter, albeit a one-round and stupid one.

With any luck, things will be set up such that "Well, I want my powers to recharge, time to drop out of combat mode" or "You know, I'll stay in combat mode since I'm in a dungeon, buffed with a daily buff, and haven't used a single encounter power yet, and also not stupid" is a choice characters can make.

With unluck, you'll get stupid crap like not being able to use encounter powers outside of combat, even when they'd be useful, or people actually insisting that if you use the 4e equivalent of Bull's Strength to bash down a door that it wears off right after that because that was the encounter, not the horde of orcs inside the room.


----------



## hong

Imban said:
			
		

> With any luck, things will be set up such that "Well, I want my powers to recharge, time to drop out of combat mode" or "You know, I'll stay in combat mode since I'm in a dungeon, buffed with a daily buff, and haven't used a single encounter power yet, and also not stupid" is a choice characters can make.




1st rule of thumb is: if the DM is counting initiative, the encounter is still going. 2nd rule of thumb is: if a minute passes where nothing happens, the encounter is over.


----------



## AllisterH

hong said:
			
		

> 1st rule of thumb is: if the DM is counting initiative, the encounter is still going. 2nd rule of thumb is: if a minute passes where nothing happens, the encounter is over.




As a Bo9S player, this fear about encounter length is unjustified. Has anyone else that has used BoNS had a problem with determining "what is an encounter?"


----------



## hong

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As a Bo9S player, this fear about encounter length is unjustified. Has anyone else that has used BoNS had a problem with determining "what is an encounter?"



 I certainly haven't....


----------



## small pumpkin man

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As a Bo9S player, this fear about encounter length is unjustified. Has anyone else that has used BoNS had a problem with determining "what is an encounter?"



Nope.


----------



## mach1.9pants

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As a Bo9S player, this fear about encounter length is unjustified. Has anyone else that has used BoNS had a problem with determining "what is an encounter?"



Nada
Players _could_ be jerks and _try_ to metagame it; but then I wouldn't be playing with them!


----------



## Steely Dan

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Has anyone else that has used BoNS had a problem with determining "what is an encounter?"




No, not in 21 years, regardless of using _ToB_, which we have, or not.


----------



## Derren

hong said:
			
		

> 1st rule of thumb is: if the DM is counting initiative, the encounter is still going. 2nd rule of thumb is: if a minute passes where nothing happens, the encounter is over.




Thats why you always carry a bound goblin which you can kick with you. That way something is happening and the encounter goes on.


----------



## AllisterH

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats why you always carry a bound goblin which you can kick with you. That way something is happening and the encounter goes on.




That shouldn't work since a bound goblin isn't an encoutner. It would be like kicking luggage. Now, if the luggage was THE LUGGAGE, that's an encounter


----------



## hong

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats why you always carry a bound goblin which you can kick with you. That way something is happening and the encounter goes on.



 The bound goblin can carry the bucket of snails!


----------



## Primal

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> What hong and Hussar said plus:
> 
> Your DM's solution to the problem was crap. It throws the balance off for all the PCs that *didn't* roll low and makes a lot of extra work for him, changing every monster. A much better solution would be to only change your PC's hit points. Which is what WotC are doing with their new house rule.
> 
> Your argument about metagaming applies only to NPCs, not PCs. If you want mysterious opponents there are lots of tools to do that. The NPC could hold off on some of his higher level powers, lulling the PCs into a false sense of security. He could have feats such as toughness. He could have a template or buffs. Or you could roll for his hit points if you must.
> 
> There are two huge problems with rolling for PCs hit points:
> 1) Imbalance between PCs.
> 2) Tanks who can't do their job.
> 
> While there are some good reasons for rolling for stats - they tell you something about the character and thus act as a spur to the imagination - there are *no* good reasons to roll PC hit points. They are abstract so tell you nothing in game-world terms. From 3e onwards there is no problem with 'cookie cutter' PCs as there are so many other ways to distinguish between them such as feats.




No, I don't think it takes too much effort ("extra work"), say, to give a monster lower-than-average HPs, right? Do you*really* think that a DM, who adjusts the "danger curve" of the campaign to match the party's abilities is using a "crappy" method? 

I'm a bit baffled why you'd think that it would be "bad" or "not fun" if *all* the PCs get to "shine" , since I though this was one of the design goals in 4E? So some of the guys (e.g. those with better HPs) may occasionally get to be more "heroic" than they "normally" would at their level, but I never saw this "unbalancing" the game at all. And why would "weaker" monsters make for an "unbalanced" campaign, if the DM knows how to adjust their numbers and stats for a balanced encounter? Besides, isn't this "more heroic at lower levels" another design premise of 4E? In factm I never saw anyone being more "heroic" than others just because of HPs, but *Ability scores* are another matter...

Let me tell you something -- *ALL* PCs in that campaign had lower-than-average HPs, but this wasn't actually the reason which led to the party's demise at 8th level. Here's the thing: it's the dynamic *attack rolls* in D&D that did the thing. Really. And the fact that we split the party and each PC went exploring on their own, certainly. But in the end, a regenerating BBEG slew each of us in single combat, due to horrible attack rolls. I mean, I rolled single-digits for *five* consecutive rounds with *ALL* of my three attacks... and the funny thing is that I only needed to roll 10 to hit! And the same happened to the Ranger and the Cleric. So, I don't think it was just bad luck... that was destiny.  And the funny thing is that under the "normal" circumstances any one of use should have killed that BBEG in melee. *Now, would this be a valid argument for static *attacks* in D&D? * 

You may seem to think that every PC must be "optimized" for combat, since that's the "heart and soul" of D&D, right? And "sucky" PCs are "badwrongfun", right? Yet I know many people who run campaigns in which "non-heroic" abilities and events play a much larger role. I tend to see it this way: if the basic premise of a campaign is interesting, I don't mind creating a "weak" (minimized) PC as long as the character is interesting and fun to play *and* has some sort of goals which are also possible to achieve in that campaign. If you want to play cobblers, blacksmiths and whatnot -- why should you not be able to play them in D&D? Is it because D&D *should* be about "monster bashing" and little else? Is variety in character options a bad thing, if it allows for "non-optimized" builds? I don't think so, if the DM and the players both know which sort of campaign a DM is going to run. So, maybe you don't like players who create "Tanks who can't do their job", but is that really the "heart" of the problem, or is it because you can't think of ways to work around this "problem"?

And I'm quite surprised that you seem to think that rolling for stats does not affect game balance as much as rolling for HPs. So your Fighter has 25 HPs more than my Fighter, but he has only STR 12 (your best score) while I have 14-18 in all my stats. Which of them will be "suckier" in most campaigns? And yet, although the 'Point Buy' system is far better from the perspective of game balance, it tends to produce almost identical stats -- especially if you only have 28 points to buy your stats with.

As for the NPC design -- you seriously think your "mysterious" NPC will be able to "hold back" his powers for more than a round or two? I know that this type of metagaming has always existed, but with static HPs I suspect it will become an even more significant feature in the game. In 3E, that 10th level Wizard might have 10-70 HPs (excluding Feats), so it'd be pretty pointless to "guesstimate" his HPs (except that if he's a BBEG, he's probably got more than just 10 ) and try to pick a "group assault plan" based on that. In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1. So yeah, it's just for NPCs, but I think most DMs prefer using PC races and classes for BBEGs and I think it might prove to be a serious "flaw" in 4E.
As for monster BBEGs... as the designers have hinted at 'Orc Shamans who spit acid', I think it's a random roll or two on a "Special Powers"-table (similar to how Chaos mutants work in WFRP).


----------



## Khuxan

> As for the NPC design -- you seriously think your "mysterious" NPC will be able to "hold back" his powers for more than a round or two? I know that this type of metagaming has always existed, but with static HPs I suspect it will become an even more significant feature in the game. In 3E, that 10th level Wizard might have 10-70 HPs (excluding Feats), so it'd be pretty pointless to "guesstimate" his HPs (except that if he's a BBEG, he's probably got more than just 10 ) and try to pick a "group assault plan" based on that. In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1.




How do they know what level he is? From the level of power he uses? You don't have to tell the PCs the name of the power, just describe its effects. Might they be able to guess? Sure. But that indicates a very high familiarity with the system - at which point, your best bet is probably adapting powers or introducing new ones from new books. 

And by the time the first power is used (which may not be the wizard's highest-level power), the encounter has begun and there's little opportunity for planning.


----------



## AllisterH

Primal said:
			
		

> As for the NPC design -- you seriously think your "mysterious" NPC will be able to "hold back" his powers for more than a round or two? I know that this type of metagaming has always existed, but with static HPs I suspect it will become an even more significant feature in the game. In 3E, that 10th level Wizard might have 10-70 HPs (excluding Feats), so it'd be pretty pointless to "guesstimate" his HPs (except that if he's a BBEG, he's probably got more than just 10 ) and try to pick a "group assault plan" based on that. In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1. So yeah, it's just for NPCs, but I think most DMs prefer using PC races and classes for BBEGs and I think it might prove to be a serious "flaw" in 4E.
> As for monster BBEGs... as the designers have hinted at 'Orc Shamans who spit acid', I think it's a random roll or two on a "Special Powers"-table (similar to how Chaos mutants work in WFRP).





Actually, that's not really possible UNLESS you actually purposely change the "average" value for a 10th level PC when rolling the die. Statistics math state that the more times you roll a die, the more likely the result of adding each die roll will be the average of the die * number of die. Basically, the standard deviation shrinks.

In 3E, what really determined the wide swings in HP was the CON being added. 

At 10th level, a difference in +1 in two wizard's CON modifier would result in a difference of 10 HP which from what I remember of Statistics math, should be larger than the possible standard deviation of rolling a d4. At a guess, it might break even with a d6.

At 20th level though, the effect of +1 mod difference would mean more to a barbarian's total HP than the rolling of a d12 20 times.

That's only for a +1 difference in a CON modifier. A +2 difference though, that simply blows away the std deviation at 10th level even for a barbarian I'm willing to bet.


----------



## Just Another User

Henry said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gents, let's not go this route, please. J.A.U. didn't get hysterical or insulting, he just had a point to make.
> 
> 
> Actually, the fluff explanations for those questions work the exact same way; just because they're blind, stunned, whatever, doesn't mean they give the same openings. Maybe they are, but you're not the right distance away, or they have a nearby ally that spoils your whole angle, or your character has a better opportunity to use another ability. And again, I point to the fact that boxers don't use the exact same maneuvers unless they have their opponent on the ropes (in other words, helpless) - and this would be more like a coup de grace than some fancy maneuver.




I understand your and the other point of view, it is just that it don't work for me, I would be ok if it was a videogame or a board game, you have 1 "positioning strike" token, you play it and that is it, but in a role play game I want a little more ...consistency? Believability? Realism? pick your favorite. 


Another problem I have with Encounter powers, now from the PC point of view, let's take the monster X as an example, it have the dreaded per encounter ability A (which is not magical at all) it can use it only once for fight after which we don't fall for it anymore because we have seen it... and yet we fall for it every time we fight an exemplar of the monster X. well, D'uh!!! (can't really enter in specific becasue the only per encounter abilities of monsters were magical in nature, so maybe they really can't be used more than once in a short period, but I'm willing to bet that in the monster manual there will be many monsters with P/E abilities that logically could work more than once in a fight but they just don't)


----------



## Just Another User

shilsen said:
			
		

> After all, when you're watching a movie, you're choosing to not have your sense of reality affected by the fact that the characters are actually not real but are being played by actors, or by the fact that you constantly watch it on a screen, or that there's clearly a camera in the same spot as these people but they pretend it's not there. And the fact that you're used to those conventions is a big part of it. When you play D&D, your sense of reality is presumably not affected by the fact that the halfling rogue is being played by your friend Bob, or that it's a world where giant lizards can fly without magic, or where human beings commonly can pull off things nobody in our world can.
> 
> None of the above is inherently more appropriate for a suspension of disbelief than anything else. It's all about habit and choice.




But a roleplaying game is not a movie, just to change your example a little, you are playing a videogame, your character come to a closed door, you have a ass-huge battleaxe and more than enough strength to use it so you try to hack the door to pieces... and find that you can't. the door (even if it is just a common, non-magical wooden door is indestructible, the only way to pass it is to find the key. Are you annoyed? maybe  a little, but you have to expect things like that, it is a videogame, it came with the territory. Now suppose the same happen in a traditional RPG session, would you be annoyed? Heck, I would be pissed, even enough to leave the game maybe.
What I mean is, suspension of disbelieve is a funny thing, it works differently for different media, and mine is particulary sensible when it come to P&P RPG. And I like it that way.


----------



## Lizard

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> No, not in 21 years, regardless of using _ToB_, which we have, or not.




Neither have we -- but with the exception of Barb Rage, it's never *mattered* before. "We never had a problem resolving the fixed boundaries of an abstraction when those boundaries had no effect" isn't a promise that "We will never have such problems now that they do."

I know in V:TM, we often had to ask "Is the scene over?"


----------



## ThirdWizard

Everyone needs to get to the point where this doesn't mess with their sense of verisimilitude, and everything will then work out for the best. Once you accept this, things become much easier.

*hands out kool-aid*


----------



## Lizard

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> My guess: Intimidate is an automatic skill for fighters (like Stealth and Thievery for rogues), so that fighters now have a niche in social encounters. It wouldn't really make sense to have fighters automatically know how to bluff as well, so they kept the two skills separate. (Also, they probably don't want the social skills combined TOO much... having one "Convince People To Do What You Want" skill for social encounters would be like having a "Make Enemies Be Dead" skill for combat encounters!)




Hmm...

Fighter, Ranger, Wizard: Intimidate
Paladin, Cleric, Warlord: Diplomacy
Rogue, Warlock: Bluff

?


----------



## Primal

Khuxan said:
			
		

> How do they know what level he is? From the level of power he uses? You don't have to tell the PCs the name of the power, just describe its effects. Might they be able to guess? Sure. But that indicates a very high familiarity with the system - at which point, your best bet is probably adapting powers or introducing new ones from new books.
> 
> And by the time the first power is used (which may not be the wizard's highest-level power), the encounter has begun and there's little opportunity for planning.




That's one way to determine an NPC's level ("counting magic missiles" , but I was also thinking of *rings*, because a wizard who has no magical rings on his fingers is < level 11. In any case they'd identify his 'tradition' if they get a glimpse at his 'implement' (and potentially ruin the encounter if there are protection spells from elements in 4E).


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> I know in V:TM, we often had to ask "Is the scene over?"




However, unless you routinely encountered significant controversy in deciding the answer, the issue is still moot.


----------



## Lizard

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Everyone needs to get to the point where this doesn't mess with their sense of verisimilitude, and everything will then work out for the best. Once you accept this, things become much easier.
> 
> *hands out kool-aid*




Now I want to play Exalted.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I understand your and the other point of view, it is just that it don't work for me, I would be ok if it was a videogame or a board game, you have 1 "positioning strike" token, you play it and that is it, but in a role play game I want a little more ...consistency? Believability? Realism? pick your favorite.
> 
> 
> Another problem I have with Encounter powers, now from the PC point of view, let's take the monster X as an example, it have the dreaded per encounter ability A (which is not magical at all) it can use it only once for fight after which we don't fall for it anymore because we have seen it... and yet we fall for it every time we fight an exemplar of the monster X. well, D'uh!!! (can't really enter in specific becasue the only per encounter abilities of monsters were magical in nature, so maybe they really can't be used more than once in a short period, but I'm willing to bet that in the monster manual there will be many monsters with P/E abilities that logically could work more than once in a fight but they just don't)



You are focussing on only one of the offered options to explain per encounter or per day limitations, and try to apply it to all situations. But there are multiple explainations, they can work together, and they might even change depenging from the situation. 

It is usually not important to think about a concrete explaination. It's not as if the players or Cs have time to research it - they are buys with the adventure. But knowing that there is an explaination, and if you really bothered to explain the situation, you could, that's enough.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Primal said:
			
		

> That's one way to determine an NPC's level ("counting magic missiles" , but I was also thinking of *rings*, because a wizard who has no magical rings on his fingers is < level 11. In any case they'd identify his 'tradition' if they get a glimpse at his 'implement' (and potentially ruin the encounter if there are protection spells from elements in 4E).



If he actually has a Ring. Just because he can have one doesn't mean he has one. 

And the thing with the implement is definitely a feature.
I mean, if I look at a guy with heavy armor and a sword, I probably know that he's going to use the sword in combat, right? 
If I see a Cleric with a Holy Symbol of Gruumsh I don't exactly expect him to stay in the background and casting only healing spells...


----------



## ThirdWizard

Primal said:
			
		

> That's one way to determine an NPC's level ("counting magic missiles" , but I was also thinking of *rings*, because a wizard who has no magical rings on his fingers is < level 11. In any case they'd identify his 'tradition' if they get a glimpse at his 'implement' (and potentially ruin the encounter if there are protection spells from elements in 4E).




1st level characters can wear rings on their fingers. Heck, they can wear _eight_! And 30th level characters can be totally ring-less. I would, in fact, imagine most would be (magical) ring-less, lest the PCs keep acquiring magical items constantly (which is something they said they fixed).


----------



## hong

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 1st level characters can wear rings on their fingers. Heck, they can wear _eight_! And 30th level characters can be totally ring-less. I would, in fact, imagine most would be (magical) ring-less, lest the PCs keep acquiring magical items constantly (which is something they said they fixed).



 Eight? I count fourteen.


----------



## Cadfan

Random Thoughts and Speculation

Standard attacks seem to be OUT for player characters.  With abilities like Deft Strike as an at will attack, there doesn't seem to be much reason to do a regular, normal attack.  I'm cool with this.

[W] probably includes strength.  I think this because 1) if it does not, then strength stops giving a damage bonus to the brawny rogue, since he'll mostly be using at will attacks, and 2) if it does not, then paladin smites are completely unaffected by your strength score, which I think is implausible.  So I'm assuming its included.

Daggers - big stabby knives, and shuriken - little throwy knives.  This is probably for the best.  I never liked that all daggers came perfectly balanced for throwing.  In real life, not all knives are throwing knives.  They're small, so you CAN throw them, but that's probably best represented by rules for throwing random objects like daggers, warhammers, chairs, etc.

The rogue-with-a-rapier was a 3eism.  Now, someone needs to be fighting with a rapier, and it might be the rogue- but one way to handle this, I'm thinking possibly the best way, is to make the rapier genuinely better than the shortsword, and then charge the rogue a feat to access it.  This would suck in 3e because the damage difference is so small, but if in 4e this is not the case, it would be worthwhile.

I know people are going to miss sneak attacking with greatswords, but honestly, its not just about the sneak attack.  Its also about Deft Strike and other attacks that don't make as much sense when you do them with a giant cleaver.

I'm one of the biggest pro-swashbuckler backers around here.  I'm not sure if the rogue will satisfy my swashbuckler needs.  Guess we'll find out.  It does satisfy my lunatic-with-a-knife-who-stabs-you-in-the-face needs.

In my opinion, the proper ranged weapon for a rogue is a hand crossbow.  I am so glad this is back.  3e screwed over weapons like that on a structural level.  It was generally a bad idea to use a ranged weapon that denied you iterative attacks AND the ability to move, and being charged a feat for the right to suck that way was not cool.  Especially when the dagger was right there, begging you to take it instead.  If I can play a rogue with a rapier who has a rules viable reason to draw a concealed handbow and shoot someone while dueling someone else, I will be a happy player.  Even if the only swashbuckler available to me is not a defender.

Crimson Edge scared the crap out of me until I realized that saves happen pretty fast these days.

I'm glad for the inclusion of shuriken, and I'm cool with the name.  I think its a waste of time to heavily divide eastern and western fantasy.  It forces you to do double duty, trying to create two separate versions of things that are functionally identical.  Like small, throwable blades.

The names on the abilities seem fine.  Crimson Edge is about as flashy as it gets.  Its inevitable that we get SOME flashiness, because there's a limited number of descriptive names for things like "a strike themed after leaving an ongoing wound," but quite a lot of different ways one might want to do such a thing.  When possible abilities outnumber possible realistic names, you have to get a little flashy to make everything work.

It DOES look like miniatures are more required.  I simply don't think it will be as easy to handwave positioning as it was before.  This will require an adjustment for me, because I typically ran my fights by drawing, in pen, on a sheet of notebook paper.  I know that's awfully low budget, but it got the job done.  Now I'll want to actually use a grid.  This is more work for the DM, but at least it looks like work that produces value.  If using a grid and miniatures lets my players do things like trick an ogre into stumbling off a dock into the water, I'll be happy to do the labor involved in getting the materials and setting up.

*My overall verdict is that I could be happy playing this character, and so could my friends.  And that's all I really care about.*


----------



## Steely Dan

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I simply don't think it will be as easy to handwave positioning as it was before.




It was never easy to hand-waive positioning come 3rd Ed.


----------



## Felon

Man, I can't believe WotC is just letting the dead article sit there like that. Either put something there or take down the teaser link on the main page.


----------



## Cadfan

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> It was never easy to hand-waive positioning come 3rd Ed.



I found that it was.  Really, flanking/not flanking is a binary trigger.  That just leaves me to handwave relative distances between points.

Re: larger discussion about per encounter and per day abilities.

I've done some fighting in the past.  I'm just guessing, but I can probably hurt someone the most with a kick to the pelvis.  For some odd reason, I've never been in a fight where I kicked the other guy in the pelvis 12 times in a row, while never attacking him with my hands.  That's what happens if you allow everything as an at will attack.  It isn't realistic that you would use only your best possible attack, over and over.  The ebb and flow of the fight will force you to use other, less optimal choices.  I think its fine to represent this with a selection of at will abilities, some situational abilities, and some abilities you can only use a limited number of times.  That's the least cumbersome way I can come up with to mimic something like how often in a fight you can throw a heavy kick instead of a quick jab.


----------



## Evilhalfling

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Crimson Edge has a 'Miss' entry - which I guess is like the 'you saved against my fireball' of 3E. So Fireball will probably read something like 'Fire blasts area X. Int vs. Reflex for ? + Int damage. Miss: Half damage.'




Im predicting a fighter ability that does 1/2 damage on a miss.  Probably also a per day ability. Nifty! 

Healing Surges = 6 + con mod
Best possiblity: Recover 1/4 your hp, useable only at 1/2 hp or less. 

If it is an amount of hp gained, it does not scale.
If it a per ecnounter ability, it is wasted, 6 or more encounters in a day?  6 or more combat encounters happens only 0-2 times in each of my campaigns (6-18 months)  
If it is at will then thats a lot of actions to spend healing, 
 since it does not give an amount I can only assume it is fixed, like 1/4 of hp.  Else there is a new mechanic something like lvl 1-10 healing surge heals 2d6hp, lvl 11-20 4d6 ... etc 

This sounds like a new game, very different from 3.x D&D 
I wonder if  I will like it?


----------



## ruleslawyer

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Re: larger discussion about per encounter and per day abilities.
> 
> I've done some fighting in the past.  I'm just guessing, but I can probably hurt someone the most with a kick to the pelvis.  For some odd reason, I've never been in a fight where I kicked the other guy in the pelvis 12 times in a row, while never attacking him with my hands.  That's what happens if you allow everything as an at will attack.  It isn't realistic that you would use only your best possible attack, over and over.  The ebb and flow of the fight will force you to use other, less optimal choices.  I think its fine to represent this with a selection of at will abilities, some situational abilities, and some abilities you can only use a limited number of times.  That's the least cumbersome way I can come up with to mimic something like how often in a fight you can throw a heavy kick instead of a quick jab.



Thank you so much for this. I think it's been implied by the designers, but this is a very good way to frame the rationale. While some folk may decry this as "gamist," the fact is that the per-encounter mechanic is often the best way to _simulate_ how using special maneuvers would actually shake out in a combat, cinematic or realistic.


----------



## Steely Dan

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I found that it was.  Really, flanking/not flanking is a binary trigger.  That just leaves me to handwave relative distances between points.





What about ranges for weapons/spells etc, and players often get miffed at hand-waiving distances and range etc. 

Basically, when I cracked opened the 3rd Ed PHB, I thought "Damn, I'm going to have to finally suck it up and use miniatures!"

Something easily avoidable in 1st/2nd Ed.


----------



## Cadfan

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> What about ranges for weapons/spells etc, and players often get miffed at hand-waiving distances and range etc.
> 
> Basically, when I cracked opened the 3rd Ed PHB, I thought "Damn, I'm going to have to finally suck it up and use miniatures!"
> 
> Something easily avoidable in 1st/2nd Ed.



I never had a problem here.  Most spells seemed to fall into two categories- shoots short, or shoots real far.  Most aura effects also divided well into "near" and "far."

I kind of found that if you can handle Grover, you can hand wave 3e.  It wasn't perfect, but it was good enough for government work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf-HBMq9ggg


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Primal said:
			
		

> No, I don't think it takes too much effort ("extra work"), say, to give a monster lower-than-average HPs, right? Do you*really* think that a DM, who adjusts the "danger curve" of the campaign to match the party's abilities is using a "crappy" method?



Sure, it doesn't take much effort to give it lower HP, but it might not have the effect you want.  A creature who hits for 60 damage on a single attack with +31 to hit but only has 1 hitpoint is still extremely dangerous to a 10th level wizard if it goes first.  Just lowering hitpoints isn't sufficient to properly lower a monster's difficulty.

As for adjusting for a party's abilities being a crappy method:  Yes it is.  Because its almost always giving one party member an unfair advantage or disadvantage.  The good method is to have balanced PCs, balanced rules, and balanced enemies so no adjustment is necessary.



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> I'm a bit baffled why you'd think that it would be "bad" or "not fun" if *all* the PCs get to "shine" , since I though this was one of the design goals in 4E? So some of the guys (e.g. those with better HPs) may occasionally get to be more "heroic" than they "normally" would at their level, but I never saw this "unbalancing" the game at all. And why would "weaker" monsters make for an "unbalanced" campaign, if the DM knows how to adjust their numbers and stats for a balanced encounter?



Alright, here's an example.  You have 5 PCs.  4 of them rolled above average and 1 rolled below.  They rolled: 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, and 30% of max hitpoints respectively.  Let's say they are fighter, barbarian, cleric, wizard, rogue respectively.  Let's assume the rogue also skimped on his con since he's not all that knowledgeable about power gaming.  His con is 12.  The party is 20th level.  The rogue has 60 hitpoints.  Let's assume various ranges of powergaming amongst the rest of the party so their hitpoints are: 281, 441(while raging), 174, 86.  The fighter and barbarian are both capable of power attacking and can do a combined damage of about 150 damage a round to most creatures of their level.  The wizard can do another 75 or so damage by himself in a round.

Now the trick is to build an encounter that challenges the entire party, makes each member of the party feel like they COULD die if things go badly for them(including the barbarian) without dramatically increasing the chance that the rogue(or wizard) dies(and simply having the monster never attack the rogue doesn't count).

Compare that to the game where everyone has no con bonus and automatically rolls average hitpoints.  They would have hitpoints of: 115, 136, 94, 52, 73.  Now a creature that deals average 50 damage a round would be dangerous, but predictably so.  You know that it'll take 2 rounds to kill any member of the group except the fighter and the barbarian and they'd die in 3 rounds.  Now if you also know that the party does a combined average damage of about 100 per round, you know that if the monster has 195 hitpoints, it'll likely die in 2 rounds.  Now we have an interesting battle.  If the PCs roll below average, they might not kill it in 2 rounds and it'll get a 3rd round which might kill the fighter or barbarian.  Unless the monster rolls low as well, or all(or some) of the PCs go before it in the 3rd round.

There are variables so nothing is certain, but on average, the party wins, only just barely.  Therefore it has high tension and nail biting.  However, you can only plan this sort of encounter when you can remove a bunch of the variables.  If the monster gets + or - 100 HP than all the PCs could die.  If the PCs have + or minus 50 HP then the encounter can lose all tension since they kill the creature long before being in fear of dying.

You just can't do that with the above example since any creature capable of threatening the Barbarian in less than 6 rounds kills the rogue in one hit.  Anything that's capable of threatening more than one of the party in less than 10 rounds kills the rogue in one hit.  That's what we call "unbalancing".


			
				Primal said:
			
		

> And the funny thing is that under the "normal" circumstances any one of use should have killed that BBEG in melee. *Now, would this be a valid argument for static *attacks* in D&D? *



No, that's what we call EXTREMELY bad luck.  It happens now and then, but that much bad luck in a row is statistically very improbable(it really depends how many bad rolls caused it).

However, normally when a group of characters is all attacking the same monster, when one rolls low another rolls high and it comes out average.  This is perfectly fine in terms of attack rolls or damage rolls.  If you roll low one combat you might roll high the next.

However, compare that to a situation where one character rolls low on HP due to a string of bad luck while one of the others rolls well due to a string of good luck.  Now, both players deal with the consequence of that roll every combat for the entire game.


			
				Primal said:
			
		

> You may seem to think that every PC must be "optimized" for combat, since that's the "heart and soul" of D&D, right? And "sucky" PCs are "badwrongfun", right? Yet I know many people who run campaigns in which "non-heroic" abilities and events play a much larger role. I tend to see it this way: if the basic premise of a campaign is interesting, I don't mind creating a "weak" (minimized) PC as long as the character is interesting and fun to play *and* has some sort of goals which are also possible to achieve in that campaign. If you want to play cobblers, blacksmiths and whatnot -- why should you not be able to play them in D&D? Is it because D&D *should* be about "monster bashing" and little else? Is variety in character options a bad thing, if it allows for "non-optimized" builds? I don't think so, if the DM and the players both know which sort of campaign a DM is going to run. So, maybe you don't like players who create "Tanks who can't do their job", but is that really the "heart" of the problem, or is it because you can't think of ways to work around this "problem"?



No, it's because I shouldn't have to work around it.  When I say, "We're playing D&D next week, I'm running an adventure I bought.  It's designed for 10th level characters, everyone make up a character and have it ready to start for the beginning of the session." I shouldn't then have to delay the start of the session by an hour as I go through all of the characters at the table to make sure they fit in with the plot of the adventure.  I shouldn't have to go through the adventure with a marker changing the hitpoints of every creature in there because one player decided to make a poorly made character.

And even then, if I spend the effort to just reduce hitpoints I'm not going to get a full picture of what will happen as I mention above.  I still might kill the whole party if they are all extremely unoptimized.

Even if I tell all my players "this is a very combat intensive adventure, make characters who are good at combat", it doesn't guarantee that any character THEY think is good at combat actually is if they aren't familiar with the rules.

I'd like a game that just works.  Playing a non-combat game isn't wrongbadfun, it just isn't the default way to play the game.  My games certainly have non-combat sections, sometimes large ones.  But when I get to the combat portions of the game I don't want to slaughter the party simply because someone decided they didn't want to be good at combat.  I'd like to have a game where I KNOW the game will be balanced in combat for everyone.


			
				Primal said:
			
		

> In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1. So yeah, it's just for NPCs, but I think most DMs prefer using PC races and classes for BBEGs and I think it might prove to be a serious "flaw" in 4E.



I'm missing the part where this is a problem exactly.

We know the monster has 55 hitpoints.  The fighter has an attack that does 2d6+4, the rogue has one that does 2d6+6, the cleric has one that does 1d8+3, the paladin has one that does 1d10+4.  The rogue can do more damage when flanking.  The paladin's attack gives a bonus to someone's ac when it hits and the fighter can push the creature back when he hits.  The cleric can heal someone when he hits.

Now, how does the knowledge of the creatures hitpoints suddenly become a horrible flaw in the game?  The players know approximately how long the combat will last with average damage?  MAYBE it will cause them not to heal someone if they know the creature will die this round.  However with attack rolls and damage being variable, would they even still risk it?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I found that it was.  Really, flanking/not flanking is a binary trigger.  That just leaves me to handwave relative distances between points.



Yeah, it just reduces the tactical nature of the game.  When everyone is fighting a gargantuan creature there are a lot of ways to flank it.  However, it's also good to know if you can move into a flanking position with a 5-ft step or if it'll take a move action or a double move.  Also, is the terrain between me and the enemy?  If it happens to be in the square I'm trying to 5-ft step into then I can't do it.  Am I within 20ft of the mage so that his special ability affects me?  What about within 30ft of the cleric so he can cast Delay Death on me if I drop?  Am I within 30 ft of both the goblin behind the rock and the goblin coming through the door because I'd like to get point blank shot on both of them?  My boots let me move 5ft further this round, do they make the difference between being able to charge or not?

I know the couple of times I've tried to DM without a battlemat I always handwaived distances so that I didn't have to keep track of exact numbers.  And I KNOW I wasn't very accurate a number of times.  My players lived in a weird world where two PCs would be 40 feet apart but the monster who was in melee with one of them was 30 feet away from the other one(and yes, the monster was on the OTHER side of the PC, further away).  But rather than keep track of exact numbers I'd just guess a lot.  Numbers changed from round to round and I was often willing to reply yes to just about anything:

"Can I get there in a single move?"  "Sure, it's about 30 feet away."  "I only move 20, I'm a dwarf."  "Well, you can still make it there." "Can I make it there?  I only move 10 right now."  "Umm, sure, what the heck."


----------



## Felon

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Daggers - big stabby knives, and shuriken - little throwy knives.  This is probably for the best.  I never liked that all daggers came perfectly balanced for throwing.  In real life, not all knives are throwing knives.  They're small, so you CAN throw them, but that's probably best represented by rules for throwing random objects like daggers, warhammers, chairs, etc.



I don't mind throwing knives and shurikens being treated as mechanically and functionally identical, but it puzzles me that they would use the name "shuriken" in a categorical sense when it's a lot more of a specific reference than "throwing blade".



> The rogue-with-a-rapier was a 3eism.  Now, someone needs to be fighting with a rapier, and it might be the rogue- but one way to handle this, I'm thinking possibly the best way, is to make the rapier genuinely better than the shortsword, and then charge the rogue a feat to access it.  This would suck in 3e because the damage difference is so small, but if in 4e this is not the case, it would be worthwhile.



It may be reasonable to treat rapiers as short swords. Again, they fill a similar niche as "light one-handed blades".



> people are going to miss sneak attacking with greatswords, but honestly, its not just about the sneak attack.  Its also about Deft Strike and other attacks that don't make as much sense when you do them with a giant cleaver.



Gotta disagree there. I think a crazy little "brawny rogue" leaping out of the shadows with a big machete and lopping off a head is very fitting. I don't mind if it requires a feat or something, but I gotta say I hated Mearls pulling this "light-one-handed-weapon-only" stuff in Iron Heroes with the harrier. It's a concept-killer.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Re: larger discussion about per encounter and per day abilities.
> I've done some fighting in the past.



So have I, but for me I'd use my best attack every time (AMRAAM) then I'd be out of missiles and go home! Probably not relevant to the discussion 
However I used to do a lot of fencing and it is the same thing- you can't do your best mvr every time.


			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm just guessing, but I can probably hurt someone the most with a kick to the pelvis.  For some odd reason, I've never been in a fight where I kicked the other guy in the pelvis 12 times in a row, while never attacking him with my hands.  That's what happens if you allow everything as an at will attack.  It isn't realistic that you would use only your best possible attack, over and over.  The ebb and flow of the fight will force you to use other, less optimal choices.  I think its fine to represent this with a selection of at will abilities, some situational abilities, and some abilities you can only use a limited number of times.  That's the least cumbersome way I can come up with to mimic something like how often in a fight you can throw a heavy kick instead of a quick jab.



This simple explanation, that in 'real' martial action (whether unarmed or blunted swords or whatever) the circumstances of a fight mean that you can only use certain attacks at a certain point, mean I have no problems at all with 'per' powers. Add in a bit of tiredness and luck. 'Per' powers make great sense.


----------



## Cadfan

I also don't know why people don't like the "build" options.  "Build" = "ranger combat style, except for more character classes than just rangers now."


----------



## Lizard

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I also don't know why people don't like the "build" options.  "Build" = "ranger combat style, except for more character classes than just rangers now."




Because it felt kludgy in the ranger? Better to have just given bonus feats.

And because it enforces the idea of 'right' and 'wrong' choices, even if there's no game mechanics?

And because it evokes MMORPG concepts and all those entail?

And because, as I noted way-back-when, it's much better to have these things discovered organically than imposed from the top?


----------



## Cadfan

Also, for the record, I really like the Weapon Talent section.

Certain weapons kind of blow, and while I personally believe that any weapon option should be viable, it is really hard to make all weapon options viable when some weapons are... well, kind of objectively superior to others.  You can fix some of this with "heroic physics," but there are limits.

The Rogue Weapon Talent section has the effect of making two less viable choices suddenly better if you happen to be a particular character class.  The way I think of this is, if a weapon is "in genre" for you, you get a boost at using it.  To other characters for whom the weapon is "out of genre," its still a weak choice.  So the Rogue gets an attack bonus with daggers, making daggers better than they would be for a character who also has access to shortswords.  And shuriken get a damage bonus, making them better than they would be in a world that has other thrown weapons.  I entirely approve.


----------



## AllisterH

Lizard said:
			
		

> Because it felt kludgy in the ranger? Better to have just given bonus feats.
> 
> And because it enforces the idea of 'right' and 'wrong' choices, even if there's no game mechanics?
> 
> And because it evokes MMORPG concepts and all those entail?
> 
> And because, as I noted way-back-when, it's much better to have these things discovered organically than imposed from the top?




And I direct your attention to earlier in the thread when WOTC explained WHY they went with suggested build options.

They originally went with your method and determined it wasn'tt he best method conducive for gaming. I don't think you can fauly WOTC for this given they explictly tried it your way and found that it didnt work as well as it should.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I also don't know why people don't like the "build" options.  "Build" = "ranger combat style, except for more character classes than just rangers now."



Especially since, unlike the 3E Ranger, they are *OPTIONAL*. Don't like 'em, don't use 'em.


----------



## Cadfan

In addition, the ranger's combat style choices were kind of set off on their own within the ranger class.  They consisted entirely of 3 bonus feats, with no integration into the rest of the ranger's abilities.  This looks to have changed.  Not only is there an initial ability gained based on rogue build selected, there are also implications for later abilities.  In my opinion, this takes the good thing about a "build" choice (turn one class into sort-of two), and improves upon it.


----------



## Primal

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If he actually has a Ring. Just because he can have one doesn't mean he has one.
> 
> And the thing with the implement is definitely a feature.
> I mean, if I look at a guy with heavy armor and a sword, I probably know that he's going to use the sword in combat, right?
> If I see a Cleric with a Holy Symbol of Gruumsh I don't exactly expect him to stay in the background and casting only healing spells...




You're correct -- yet somehow I suspect that this is expected of PCs and NPCs alike (i.e. certain "slots" have to be filled by a certain level because of game balance). Or, that wizard could be wearing "normal" bejeweled rings. 

My main points was the implement, because unless 4E has no protection spells from elements, it could ruin the encounter. For example, if that elven wizard uses a wand, your players may deduce his tradition and which elements it is linked to ("He's a Golden Wyvern -- cleric, shield us all from fire and acid!").


----------



## Incenjucar

Wait what's wrong with being able to identify a threat...?

Player:  "Look, it's a dragon, I bet it flies, has a breath weapon, and uses seriously nasty melee attacks!"

DM:  "Hey, no meta-gaming!"

 :\

Unless the CHARACTERS are grossly ignorant of the world they live in, they should be aware of things like "Rings are used only by the most powerful of souls" and whatnot.


----------



## Lizard

AllisterH said:
			
		

> And I direct your attention to earlier in the thread when WOTC explained WHY they went with suggested build options.
> 
> They originally went with your method and determined it wasn'tt he best method conducive for gaming. I don't think you can fauly WOTC for this given they explictly tried it your way and found that it didnt work as well as it should.




I read it, and still don't like it. I feel the negatives of explicit builds are worse than the negatives of 'too many choices'.


----------



## Silvergriffon

Lizard said:
			
		

> And because it evokes MMORPG concepts and all those entail?




Every time I see this sentiment I smile.  

I have played in 4 released MMOs, still play in 2 and have beta'd half a dozen more. I have spent alot of time on their respective forums. The desire to share your character creations is not unique to MMOs. In fact, there are more character "builds" posted on WotC's D&D forums than on any MMO's forums. Mostly because no MMO has more than the barest fraction of the possibilities inherent in D&D character creation.


----------



## Lizard

Cadfan said:
			
		

> In addition, the ranger's combat style choices were kind of set off on their own within the ranger class.  They consisted entirely of 3 bonus feats, with no integration into the rest of the ranger's abilities.  This looks to have changed.  Not only is there an initial ability gained based on rogue build selected, there are also implications for later abilities.  In my opinion, this takes the good thing about a "build" choice (turn one class into sort-of two), and improves upon it.




You seem to be conflating "build" with the choice of Rogue Tactics. "Build" is a suggestion of talents/feats/etc to pick. "Rogue Tactics" is a game mechanical choice. The latter is a lot more like the ranger in 3e; the former is more like the archetype suggestions discussed in Hero Builder's Guidebook or Complete XXX, just with more of an authoritarian weight to it due to the MMORPG association.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> "Rings are used only by the most powerful of souls"



4e is the Green Lantern edition.


----------



## Incenjucar

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 4e is the Green Lantern edition.




Complete with recharge mechanics.


----------



## Cam Banks

It's not the build option itself that annoys me, it's using the word "build."

Although since I can't come up with a better term other than archetype or template, I'll just grin and bear it.

I still hate "gish" though. If I see that in a 4e rulebook I'll have to go on a campage.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## ruleslawyer

Felon said:
			
		

> Gotta disagree there. I think a crazy little "brawny rogue" leaping out of the shadows with a big machete and lopping off a head is very fitting. I don't mind if it requires a feat or something, but I gotta say I hated Mearls pulling this "light-one-handed-weapon-only" stuff in Iron Heroes with the harrier. It's a concept-killer.



(Aside: Allowing harriers to use Power Attack is broken, is why mearls did that. It's also not "light one-handed weapon only"; harriers are merely not allowed to use Power feats with mobile assault. A harrier can still use a big sword, and in fact gains several advantages from doing so. Besides, you can nicely multiclass harrier with berserker and use march of ruin with Power weapons if you want that concept.)

As you said, this is probably best addressed by a feat. Rather than a concept-killer, I see it as concept reinforcement. I don't want a return to the 1e/2e days where the best weapon you could use to backstab was a frickin' greatsword... er, two-handed sword.


----------



## Klaus

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> It's not the build option itself that annoys me, it's using the word "build."
> 
> Although since I can't come up with a better term other than archetype or template, I'll just grin and bear it.
> 
> I still hate "gish" though. If I see that in a 4e rulebook I'll have to go on a campage.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



 "Suggested Progressions"?

It's not like WotC didn't use "progression" in the appendix of PHB2.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lizard said:
			
		

> Because it felt kludgy in the ranger? Better to have just given bonus feats.
> 
> And because it enforces the idea of 'right' and 'wrong' choices, even if there's no game mechanics?
> 
> And because it evokes MMORPG concepts and all those entail?
> 
> And because, as I noted way-back-when, it's much better to have these things discovered organically than imposed from the top?



Cadfan should have said: It's like with the Ranger, but totally different and better. 

It's like writing "A Fighter can take Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (Longsword), Improved Critical (Longsword) and Superior Weapon Focus (Longsword) and Superior Weapon Specialization (Longsword)
That's a 3.5 build - but a very simple one, some probably most players will work out quickly. 
It's probably also one that will turn out to be boring if used too often. But for your first character, why not make something standard? Leave the Githzerai Half Dragon Monk with Vow of Poverty for later, when the standard option begin to feel bland.

Apparently, playtest results showed that the "build options" in 4E weren't as obvious as they were in 3.0. Probably because there are even more powers to select. So they decided to present some simple builds. If the power lists per levels are just 1/4 of the size of the possible arcane spells of one level in 3.x, people really need a few pointers to figure out what to do... 
Too many options makes it hard to get into anything. Once you understand the basics, you can ignore builds and choose abilities to make your own, unique character.

One of the things WotC is aiming at is "accessibility". People should find it easy to get into the game. All the complex stuff experienced players love to learn and explore is still there, but you don't have to go into the details until you feel ready to do so.

How often did you get a new, inexperienced player in your group? How often did you pregenerate a character, how much time did you spend on explaining the characters options? We didn't have that many in the past 5 years, but we had some. And it always took a lot of time. That's okay if there is a group of experienced players around to help you. But imagine having to do this stuff on your own...

Man, when I remember starting to play Shadowrun 3rd edition (3.01D) - How much I simply didn't get until I played a few sessions? How much did I misunderstood stuff written in the book! How little did I understood how things would work together in the game...


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

I don't really want to read through 650+ posts, but one thing did stand out - Initiative skill.

I thought Initiative was a skill now in 4th edition. Wouldn't it make sense for it to fall under the Rogue's blanket of skills?


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> And because, as I noted way-back-when, it's much better to have these things discovered organically than imposed from the top?




No, RPGs are not character-building. Thank you.


----------



## Spatula

The 3e PHB has initial "builds" listed for every character class.  Later supplements had all kinds of suggested skill/feat selections for different character archtypes (this goes even further back to the days of 2e kits).  On the mechanical side, prestige class requirements practically mandated that you plan your character's advancement out ahead of time if you wished to take levels in a PrC.  This is not something new.  Nor was it something invented by MMOs (as far as video games go, the concept goes back to Diablo 2 if not further).  It's a natural consequence of allowing players to customize their characters' abilities.

In the context of the 4e rogue writeup, it's advice given to players who might not know better, and similar content can be found all throughout the 3e books (and 2e books).  Complaining about this is about as silly as all the 4e-is-better-than-3e-because-of-X strawmen.


----------



## fnwc

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Unless the CHARACTERS are grossly ignorant of the world they live in, they should be aware of things like "Rings are used only by the most powerful of souls" and whatnot.



Magical rings, perhaps. But it would seem a bit strange if people didn't wear non-magical rings, at all levels.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> You seem to be conflating "build" with the choice of Rogue Tactics. "Build" is a suggestion of talents/feats/etc to pick. "Rogue Tactics" is a game mechanical choice. The latter is a lot more like the ranger in 3e; the former is more like the archetype suggestions discussed in Hero Builder's Guidebook or Complete XXX, just with more of an authoritarian weight to it due to the MMORPG association.



 "Authoritarian weight"?


----------



## fafhrd

hong said:
			
		

> "Authoritarian weight"?




Warlord power.


----------



## Eldorian

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Warlord power.




Fat warlord power?


----------



## fafhrd

Authoritarian Weight
Warlord Attack 5
Gravitas and girth provide a weighty retort.

Encounter [ ] Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a mutton haunch.
Target: One creature
Attack: Constitution vs. Reflex

Hit: 2[W] + Charisma modifier damage. 
Fat Bastard: Target is pinned.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Moniker said:
			
		

> I don't really want to read through 650+ posts, but one thing did stand out - Initiative skill.
> 
> I thought Initiative was a skill now in 4th edition. Wouldn't it make sense for it to fall under the Rogue's blanket of skills?



Yeah I think it is in SWSE but obviously hasn't carried over to 4E
Edit: some one said that because everybody max's/trains in initiative it means a wasted 'choice'. Therefore make everyone 'untrained' and off you go.


----------



## Felon

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> (Aside: Allowing harriers to use Power Attack is broken, is why mearls did that. It's also not "light one-handed weapon only"; harriers are merely not allowed to use Power feats with mobile assault. A harrier can still use a big sword, and in fact gains several advantages from doing so. Besides, you can nicely multiclass harrier with berserker and use march of ruin with Power weapons if you want that concept.)



Whatever. There's definitely some kind of light weapon or finesse weapon restriction in the harrier's abilities. I don't have the book on hand, but I've played one and used a katana for the very reason that it combines power and finesse. Oh, and I remember that without the errata a scimitar was a no-go. 

Dunno why you'd declare Power Attack to be broken in combination with harrier abilities. I mean, it's not any more broken than the way that everyone fomds a wau to break it. It's broken that you can combine offensive and efensive challenges for mondo damage. Iron Heroes is basically a game about insan damage-dealing builds. 

In IH, if you're not broken, you're....kinda broken.


----------



## Ahglock

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I found that it was.  Really, flanking/not flanking is a binary trigger.  That just leaves me to handwave relative distances between points.
> 
> Re: larger discussion about per encounter and per day abilities.
> 
> I've done some fighting in the past.  I'm just guessing, but I can probably hurt someone the most with a kick to the pelvis.  For some odd reason, I've never been in a fight where I kicked the other guy in the pelvis 12 times in a row, while never attacking him with my hands.  That's what happens if you allow everything as an at will attack.  It isn't realistic that you would use only your best possible attack, over and over.  The ebb and flow of the fight will force you to use other, less optimal choices.  I think its fine to represent this with a selection of at will abilities, some situational abilities, and some abilities you can only use a limited number of times.  That's the least cumbersome way I can come up with to mimic something like how often in a fight you can throw a heavy kick instead of a quick jab.




Um yeah, and again that explanation only works so far.  Lets say pelvis kick is a special per encounter maneuver.  People get the idea that kicking Bob in the pelvis 12 times in a row is a bit hard to buy.  And they get the per encounter part for this style of explanation when it is appropriate.  But its even harder to buy that he couldn't do the pelvis kick 15 seconds later on Joe who didn't even see the first pelvis kick.  But mysteriously if Joe was in the 2nd room you could pelvis kick him 1 minute later.  

If you want location based moves and trick moves limited so they aren't used over and over again, make it so there would be a reason why the PC wouldn't try it.  Make them at will but flag them as trick/called shot moves.  Say anytime someone is struck by moves like pelvis kick they get +5 to there AC to try to avoid another pelvis kick from the same opponent in the encounter.  Each use of pelvis kick against the target increases the targets Ac to avoid that move by an additional +5.  Anyone who perceives the pelvis kick style moves taking place gains a +5 to there Ac to block it, but it does not stack due to additional viewings.


----------



## hong

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Um yeah, and again that explanation only works so far.  Lets say pelvis kick is a special per encounter maneuver.  People get the idea that kicking Bob in the pelvis 12 times in a row is a bit hard to buy.  And they get the per encounter part for this style of explanation when it is appropriate.  But its even harder to buy that he couldn't do the pelvis kick 15 seconds later on Joe who didn't even see the first pelvis kick.  But mysteriously if Joe was in the 2nd room you could pelvis kick him 1 minute later.




D00d, if you can grok hit points, you can grok per-encounter. Trust me, I'm a statistician.


----------



## ruleslawyer

Felon: The IH discussion is OT, so I'm responding in spoilers:


Spoiler






			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Whatever. There's definitely some kind of light weapon or finesse weapon restriction in the harrier's abilities. I don't have the book on hand, but I've played one and used a katana for the very reason that it combines power and finesse. Oh, and I remember that without the errata a scimitar was a no-go.



That's what errata is for.

"You cannot use Power feats in combination with mobile assault." That is the entirety of the language.


> _Dunno why you'd declare Power Attack to be broken in combination with harrier abilities. I mean, it's not any more broken than the way that everyone fomds a wau to break it. It's broken that you can combine offensive and efensive challenges for mondo damage. Iron Heroes is basically a game about insan damage-dealing builds._



_Not so much. D&D leads to far more brokenness due to the availability of magic. IH has very, very few means to boost attack bonuses (or any individual bonus) to insane levels due to the absence of buffing effects, magic items, and so on. (Nothing in the game is remotely equivalent to true strike, for instance.) Mobile assault is one of the very few high-scaling ways to get attack rolls, hence the prohibition._


_

Back on topic: I think it's okay for the game to foster archetypes like the light-weaponed rogue. I think it was a big problem of 3e that it had to have tools available to make pretty much anything, but those tools created all sorts of screwed-up possibilities. As I said, I don't want to see the greatsword-wielding rogue of 1e/2e coming back._


----------



## Ahglock

hong said:
			
		

> D00d, if you can grok hit points, you can grok per-encounter. Trust me, I'm a statistician.




I can grok HP, but no I can not grok per-encounter with a set of generic answers.  And certain moves there is no answer for it being per-encounter other than balance.  Heck no one in my game is really groking the per-encounter mechanics in SAGA.

To get per-encounter abilities to work for me, I'm probably going to need some flavor text in each per-encounter ability describing they why, and it better not suck to hard.


----------



## Ahglock

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Back on topic: I think it's okay for the game to foster archetypes like the light-weaponed rogue. I think it was a big problem of 3e that it had to have tools available to make pretty much anything, but those tools created all sorts of screwed-up possibilities. As I said, I don't want to see the greatsword-wielding rogue of 1e/2e coming back.




Um I want to see the great-sword wielding rogue, that being a possibility is a feature to me.  Its only a flaw when its such a good choice that it becomes the only choice.  I'd prefer a game with lots of screwed up possibilities that a DM has to step in and say no to than a game of very limited possibilities.


----------



## hong

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I can grok HP, but no I can not grok per-encounter with a set of generic answers.




You can, it'll just take a few months for the cognitive dissonance to set in.


----------



## fafhrd

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Um I want to see the great-sword wielding rogue, that being a possibility is a feature to me.  Its only a flaw when its such a good choice that it becomes the only choice.




Fortunately, it's very likely that a rogue can wield a greatsword.  It will simply suck as an option.


----------



## Ahglock

hong said:
			
		

> You can, it'll just take a few months for the cognitive dissonance to set in.




Its been a few months of running SAGA and it still hasn't set in.  We use it, we shrug are shoulders and think its dumb and probably have a lot less fun than we would if it had a better mechanic.  Heck we preferred the force mechanics in the earlier D20 star wars games.  

And besides no one at my table really cheers over the HP system, we can accept it and since its supposed to be abstract its easier to accept than concrete maneuvers that logically shouldn't be per-encounter but are, but we don't exactly love the HP system.  There aren't many fantasy games that don't use it or a variation of it so HPs it is.


----------



## Ahglock

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Fortunately, it's very likely that a rogue can wield a greatsword.  It will simply suck as an option.




And that is just as bad as it being too good of an option.


----------



## Campbell

I would just like to take some time out of the Encounter and Daily Power debate to say that the thing I like the most about the rogue class writeup are two class features rogues do not have : Trap Finding, and Evasion. Both never quite felt right to me and it warms my heart to see them disappear.


----------



## ruleslawyer

Ahglock said:
			
		

> And that is just as bad as it being too good of an option.



I disagree. If you want a rogue to go against the grain of the finesse combatant, introduce a feat that allows it. Balancing a greatsword as both an optimal rogue's weapon and optimal fighter weapon may entail some really tricky stuff that we haven't seen yet.


----------



## Ahglock

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I disagree. If you want a rogue to go against the grain of the finesse combatant, introduce a feat that allows it. Balancing a greatsword as both an optimal rogue's weapon and optimal fighter weapon may entail some really tricky stuff that we haven't seen yet.




I don't care much if it costs a feat, but if someone wants to build a character that doesn't fit the cookie cutter molds of the minds of the 4e creators he should be able to make an effective one.  A greatsword wielding rogue is something that should easily be possible to make an effective version of.  It doesn't need to be just as good, but it should be good enough that it isn't a bad idea, and it shouldn't be so good that its a bad idea not to.  The thugish rogue with a big ass weapon is an archtype that my group has seen before and wants to see again.


----------



## hong

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I don't care much if it costs a feat, but if someone wants to build a character that doesn't fit the cookie cutter molds of the minds of the 4e creators he should be able to make an effective one.  A greatsword wielding rogue is something that should easily be possible to make an effective version of.




The concept of a greatsword wielding, agile, lightly-armoured character should indeed be eminently possible under 4E. Said character concept will very likely include some levels of the rogue class. It will also very likely include some levels of the fighter class.

Does this count as a "greatsword wielding rogue"? That depends on the mindset of the person asking the question.


----------



## ruleslawyer

As I said above, I think that 3e's biggest mistake was providing this sort of option bloat. I prefer what the designers seem to be suggesting; if you want a "thuggish" rogue, take some fighter levels and I'm sure that greatsword will be quite effective. But working hard to bring the greatsword up to par (but no further, as it was in 1e/2e) as a rogue weapon is not really necessary IMO.


----------



## Ahglock

hong said:
			
		

> The concept of a greatsword wielding, agile, lightly-armoured character should indeed be eminently possible under 4E. Said character concept will very likely include some levels of the rogue class. It will also very likely include some levels of the fighter class.
> 
> Does this count as a "greatsword wielding rogue"? That depends on the mindset of the person asking the question.




It does to me, but oh well.  The classes are just names as long as the concepts are possible the game has done its job.


----------



## Ahglock

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> As I said above, I think that 3e's biggest mistake was providing this sort of option bloat. I prefer what the designers seem to be suggesting; if you want a "thuggish" rogue, take some fighter levels and I'm sure that greatsword will be quite effective. But working hard to bring the greatsword up to par (but no further, as it was in 1e/2e) as a rogue weapon is not really necessary IMO.




I think option starvation is a bigger problem than option bloat, and I'm worried that 4e will be leaving me hungry.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Primal said:
			
		

> That's one way to determine an NPC's level ("counting magic missiles" , but I was also thinking of *rings*, because a wizard who has no magical rings on his fingers is < level 11.



Player 1: Hey, does the wizard have any rings on his fingers?
DM: He's got one on each hand.
Player 2: Holy crap!  He's epic?  I run!
Player 3: Me too.  Damn you, DM!  Damn you!
Player 1: Wait a minute guys!  He's got 1st level fighters for minions, and we had no trouble killing his henchman.  He can't possibly be epic.
DM: The wizard waves at you and gestures at his rings, smiling knowingly.
Player 1: Oh jeez.  Fine.  I run too.

*later*

Player 1: What was the big idea throwing that epic wizard at us?
DM: What epic wizard?
Player 2: You know, the guy with the rings.
DM: The guy with the 10 gp nonmagical rings?  Yeah, when you started to freak out about his rings, he figured you guys were idiots and played along to scare you.  It worked too, and next week you guys get to clean up the mess you made by failing to kill him.  Also, when word gets around, you'll all be the laughing stock of the adventurer's guild.  He will make sure word gets around.  HAW HAW.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I don't care much if it costs a feat, but if someone wants to build a character that doesn't fit the cookie cutter molds of the minds of the 4e creators he should be able to make an effective one.  A greatsword wielding rogue is something that should easily be possible to make an effective version of.  It doesn't need to be just as good, but it should be good enough that it isn't a bad idea, and it shouldn't be so good that its a bad idea not to.  The thugish rogue with a big ass weapon is an archtype that my group has seen before and wants to see again.




A sneak attack is a pinpoint blow that takes advantage of your enemy's tactical weakness to hit them where it counts. Why should this be easy to do with a 50-pound, 5-foot-long hunk of iron?

I'd say it SHOULDN'T be "good enough that it isn't a bad idea." Because it just doesn't really make sense. If you want to lay the smack down with a zwiehander, I'm right there with you, but you're not gonna be "sneaking" up on anyone.

Now, sneak attack with bare hands, a club, or sap, or other smallish weapon I can understand, and I hope (and expect) there's a way to do that in 4e.


----------



## FireLance

Campbell said:
			
		

> I would just like to take some time out of the Encounter and Daily Power debate to say that the thing I like the most about the rogue class writeup are two class features rogues do not have : Trap Finding, and Evasion. Both never quite felt right to me and it warms my heart to see them disappear.



Unfortunately, there is still a chance that you may be disappointed. I can see evasion returning as a per encounter utility (or maybe defensive, if there is such a class) power.


----------



## mach1.9pants

FireLance said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there is still a chance that you may be disappointed. I can see evasion returning as a per encounter utility (or maybe defensive, if there is such a class) power.



But at least you won't have to choose it as your power. Unlike theivery and sneakery


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

hong said:
			
		

> No, RPGs are not character-building. Thank you.



So, wait, building characters doesn't build character?


----------



## hong

Thank you, thank you. We'll be here all week!


----------



## Ahglock

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> A sneak attack is a pinpoint blow that takes advantage of your enemy's tactical weakness to hit them where it counts. Why should this be easy to do with a 50-pound, 5-foot-long hunk of iron?
> 
> I'd say it SHOULDN'T be "good enough that it isn't a bad idea." Because it just doesn't really make sense. If you want to lay the smack down with a zwiehander, I'm right there with you, but you're not gonna be "sneaking" up on anyone.
> 
> Now, sneak attack with bare hands, a club, or sap, or other smallish weapon I can understand, and I hope (and expect) there's a way to do that in 4e.




Well for one its more like a 5-lb, 5 foot hunk of iron, where a one handed weapon would usually weigh around 2-3 lbs.  And if a 6' dude can sneak up you I doubt the difference in his sneaking skill is that large when he is carrying a big sword vs a small sword.  

You can make precision strikes with two handed weapons, so yeah it would make sense.


----------



## Ahglock

hong said:
			
		

> Thank you, thank you. We'll be here all week!




Try the fish, and don't forget to tip your waitress.


----------



## Pale Jackal

Ahglock said:
			
		

> It does to me, but oh well.  The classes are just names as long as the concepts are possible the game has done its job.




Indeed.


----------



## Incenjucar

Is it really that hard to imagine a feat that allows you to treat larger weapons as light weapons for the purpose of class powers?   :\


----------



## Campbell

FireLance said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there is still a chance that you may be disappointed. I can see evasion returning as a per encounter utility (or maybe defensive, if there is such a class) power.




I keep banhammer on hand for such occasions. Of course banination depends on the form the power takes. For instance I wouldn't something like this power - 


			
				 Errant Prophecy Studios said:
			
		

> Evasion
> Utility 5
> When the going gets tough you get out of the way.
> 
> Encounter * Martial, Weapon
> Immediate Action
> Personal
> Prerequisite: Trained in Acrobatics
> Trigger: Targeted by an area attack.
> 
> Effect: You can shift 2 squares if that would take you outside the area of the attack.




I just don't like the idea of completely dodging an explosive ball of fire and staying in one place.


----------



## hong

S'funny, I remember that Evasion actually did just that in the 3E playtests: if you made your save, you got shunted outside the AoE and took no damage. They ditched it because of playtesters calling down fireballs on themselves so as to escape hairy situations.


----------



## Incenjucar

Campbell said:
			
		

> I just don't like the idea of completely dodging an explosive ball of fire and staying in one place.




Agreed.

I personally like the idea of a character being able to assert their view of reality against a spell caster's, but until they start having will-based saves against Fireball, actual dodging does make more sense.

Then again, I'm also a little worried at the idea of a golem rupturing an artery as per Crimson Blade.  

--

Hong:  This makes me think that characters should reserve movement for use during a round.

Alternatively, that dodging should require a free adjacent square so you at least have somewhere TO move to (and swiftly return from).

Ultimately, it's probably just one of those "too much work for too little benefit" things.


----------



## Ahglock

hong said:
			
		

> S'funny, I remember that Evasion actually did just that in the 3E playtests: if you made your save, you got shunted outside the AoE and took no damage. They ditched it because of playtesters calling down fireballs on themselves so as to escape hairy situations.




Um, wow.  I'd like it if it shunted you and players fire balled themselves in order to get out of hairy situations.  Its kind of cool.


----------



## Campbell

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Then again, I'm also a little worried at the idea of a golem rupturing an artery as per Crimson Blade.




I'm not entirely sure they haven't thought of that. I expect to see something like the following in a golem's stat block.



			
				Errant Prophecy Studios said:
			
		

> *Inorganic:* All attacks vs. Fortitude miss.


----------



## Ahglock

Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure they haven't thought of that. I expect to see something like the following in a golem's stat block.




I'm not so sure.  That seems to fall into the same category of unfun as sneak attack not working on undead.


----------



## Campbell

hong said:
			
		

> S'funny, I remember that Evasion actually did just that in the 3E playtests: if you made your save, you got shunted outside the AoE and took no damage. They ditched it because of playtesters calling down fireballs on themselves so as to escape hairy situations.




I think tactics like that would be far less common if using Evasion actually cost something and afforded more limited movement.


----------



## Incenjucar

Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure they haven't thought of that. I expect to see something like the following in a golem's stat block.




Here's hoping.

Rogues should be able to be non-useless, but things that don't bleed don't bleed.


----------



## Primal

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Player 1: Hey, does the wizard have any rings on his fingers?
> DM: He's got one on each hand.
> Player 2: Holy crap!  He's epic?  I run!
> Player 3: Me too.  Damn you, DM!  Damn you!
> Player 1: Wait a minute guys!  He's got 1st level fighters for minions, and we had no trouble killing his henchman.  He can't possibly be epic.
> DM: The wizard waves at you and gestures at his rings, smiling knowingly.
> Player 1: Oh jeez.  Fine.  I run too.
> 
> *later*
> 
> Player 1: What was the big idea throwing that epic wizard at us?
> DM: What epic wizard?
> Player 2: You know, the guy with the rings.
> DM: The guy with the 10 gp nonmagical rings?  Yeah, when you started to freak out about his rings, he figured you guys were idiots and played along to scare you.  It worked too, and next week you guys get to clean up the mess you made by failing to kill him.  Also, when word gets around, you'll all be the laughing stock of the adventurer's guild.  He will make sure word gets around.  HAW HAW.




Yes, that's what I'm talking about.  

Seriously, although it sounds ridiculous, I think players will be paying a lot of attention to any such "telltale" signs to determine a BBEG's level and powers. Based on what I've seen so far, in 4E it seems to be pretty easy to fall into meta-gaming and I wonder if it will have much more in common with strategic boardgames than RPGs (yes, tactical aspects of the game do not actually prevent you from role-playing, but IMO they don't really encourage "immersion" either -- quite the opposite, in fact).

EDIT: I am also concerned about layers of complexity being added to combat to make it more tactical in nature. Apparently position and movement play a much larger role than in 3E, and all the examples of class abilities/powers I have seen (those of Paladin and Rogue) seem to indicate combat-related actions have become more complex although some rolls have been removed from the system and crits and damage have been "toned down" to reduce PC deaths. And let's not forget that the devs have stated that they also wanted to remove *math* from crits (and combat in general). Well, since *most* combat abilities (which are used probably more often than crits happen, right?) seem to inflict 2 X Weapon Damage + Stat Modifier anyway, I'm a bit baffled how this is different from occasionally calculating 2 X [ Weapon Damage + STR Modifier]? Or that magical weapons and "High Crit"-weapons still add dice to the roll?   

I like randomness and unpredictability in combat, because it I need my moments of ultimate triumph and utter despair. I want to have the possibility to slay a dragon with a lucky crit that inflicts 50+ damage -- and wouldn't it feel even *more* satisfying and special and *heroic*, if you were down to your last HPs? And now if I crit -- unless I'm using some kind of "combat ability" -- I have no way of slaying it (not even a chance, no matter how marginal) with a single stroke? It may make for a more *balanced* combat, but I don't see these new and awesome "combat abilities" or action points ever making up for the kind of excitement I'm talking about. 4E may be more "fun" to people who think that 3E combat is "too random" or "too chaotic" or outright unbalanced, but does it offer the same kind of "rush" I've felt in 3E? All I'm seeing so far is how they've removed a lot of the "danger factor", which will signal to me that they've removed the emotional "peaks" from the system (e.g. no 'save-or-die'-traps or abilities or spells, no level/ability score loss, action points, "healing surges", etcetera). I'm not saying that you can't have those moments of triumphs or feel "heroic" in 4E, but I'm quite certain that I'd be feeling I'm missing something in the game. If I were more into "cinematic" action (a la 'Princess Bride' or 'Indiana Jones') and preferred a less-random "performance rate" (i.e. combat effectiveness), I might be excited. At least until I got to play my third or fourth Rogue from the "Clone Factory" (TM). I wonder if 5E will introduce static attacks and damage and initiative to remove *all* randomness and "unfairness" from combat?  

It's also my subjective opinion that "builds" and character optimization/maxing will still exist in 4E, but it will just be different in nature. In 3E, you concentrated on optimizing your *character*, and I'm not denying that there are a lot of "broken" and wacky builds in 3E. I'm also not suspecting that in 4E the character classes will be more "in balance" with each other. However, as the focus of the abilities are becoming more about "group synergy", I have a gut feeling that there will be "broken" ability/talent/feat combos between the classes. In that sense I see a 4E group becoming sort of like a *DDM warband* -- a player might say to another: "If you're playing a Rogue and you go for 'Storm of Slashes', I'm gonna create a Paladin who will have 'Overwhelming Light Burst' and 'Binding Smite'. If Bob creates a Warlock with Fiendish Pact, I've got a list of powers he should take to combo with our powers...". IMO this sort of "group synergy" in combat was much harder to achieve in 3E (and certainly not without spending your precious Feats).   

Now, it's easy to say that "you can houserule anything that you don't like in 4E", but why couldn't you do that in 3E if you felt something was "broken"? Maybe it felt somehow "unsatisfying" or even irritating? Maybe your solution felt "out-of-sync" with the rest of the system? Or you didn't like extra work to make the system, as a whole, to work for your group? If so, please don't use this argument.


----------



## The Shadow

Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure they haven't thought of that. I expect to see something like the following in a golem's stat block.




Not sure about golems, but the Large Fire Elemental and the Fire Archon in the Desert of Desolation minis both have an ability that states they never give combat advantage - ie, no Sneak Attack.  Granted, it's not quite 4e, but I think it's a very good sign.

There will undoubtedly be *less* things immune to Sneak Attack, but not *none*.


----------



## Imban

I'm personally quite prepared to house-rule immunities back in if things end up stupid: it's important for Rogues to not feel entirely shut down by widespread immunities to sneak attacks, but gelatinous cubes can't be sneak-attacked, skeletons can't be poisoned, and golems need not fear bleeding.

I *hope* I won't have to, and don't think I will, but if I have to, I will.


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

*A bit extreme... in that "not metal" sorta way.*



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Wait what's wrong with being able to identify a threat...?
> 
> Player:  "Look, it's a dragon, I bet it flies, has a breath weapon, and uses seriously nasty melee attacks!"
> 
> DM:  "Hey, no meta-gaming!"
> 
> :\
> 
> Unless the CHARACTERS are grossly ignorant of the world they live in, they should be aware of things like "Rings are used only by the most powerful of souls" and whatnot.




Your example here is rather ridiculous.  It's one thing to be able to identify a threat, it's another thing for a character of a low level to identify a wonderous item/artifact/insert powerful magic item here, just because the player themselves are veteran gamers (or just well-informed).

But hey, that was a joke poking fun at someone's argument about meta-gaming.

*And now for something completely different!*

I think I totally missed the boat on this whole Rogue wielding a Great Sword crap.  What, someone wants the child of Rikimaru (Tenchu games) and Cloud from Final Fantasy?  Call me crazy, but a rogue being all stealthy while carrying around a LARGE CUMBERSOME weapon that is NOT concealable and then getting a Sneak Attack on someone (which if I'm not mistaken, by definition is the ability to hit vital areas of the body like viens and organs, creating a large amount of damage) which would, in theory, cleave them in half...  So in essence, that maneuver is not a sneak attack, but a power attack.  I just don't see how that's like... super awesome and made of win.  I don't mean to be cruel or judgemental here, but could someone explain this strange phenomenon to me?  Because I don't see a whole lot of people clammering to have someone who swashbuckles with a Great Axe.... or a Ninja who wields a Pick.  Or even better, a Spell Caster who is 24th level and only 13 years old, lives in his own apartment and has a girlfriend (who looks like she's 19) who happens to have cat ears and a cat tail.


----------



## Primal

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I'm a huge fan of static hit points.
> 
> I've often said that there's plenty of randomness in the game itself, there's no need to make your character random either. That's why I like point buy ability scores and fixed hit points.
> 
> I never rolled hit points for the monsters in 3rd edition, either. I just don't think it's as big a deal or adds anywhere near the kind of flavor (or "realism") as folks claim it does. Certainly not as much as the other elements of the game do.
> 
> Overall, I really like this preview. I cringe at the use of "builds" (despite my preference for point buy characters) and I really, really hope none of the other classes has "gish" as a suggested "build option."
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




My group doesn't use point-buy, because we found that in the end, there was very little difference between, say, two fighters (especially if you use 28 points).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Primal said:
			
		

> My group doesn't use point-buy, because we found that in the end, there was very little difference between, say, two fighters (especially if you use 28 points).



In stats, maybe. But rest assured that the fighters would have played very differently - unless everyone took exactly the same feats. 

The reason why fighter ability scores will look so similar is because it is very obvious which stats are important and you need to focus on. There is little point in Wisdom or Charisma, and Int is only needed for a few builds. Dex for a fighter going for heavy armor is not required, so that leaves Strength and Con. It's just to easy to create the "optimum" build.

Rolled stats hide this pretty well, but if you look at the priorities players pick, they are the same as with point buy. Yeah, you might have one Fighter with a Strength 16 and Con 14, and one Fighter with Strength 17 and one with Con12, but the tendencies are still the same, and anyone except those looking at the stats will not see the big difference. 

It's really something that looks noteable on paper, but is hardly in play. 
If a class relies on more ability scores and it's important to choose a focus - and it's "okay" to prioritize your abilities differently, point buy will also result in very different abilty score distributions. The classes in 3.x coming closest to these are Paladin and Monk - but there, prioritizing is very hard, since you really need all the stats they require. It's not really as if it's okay for a Monk to focus more on Dex instead of Wis, or a Paladin to focus more on Cha then Str. If you can't afford both, you're playing an inferior character, not just one with a different focus.


----------



## hong

Primal said:
			
		

> My group doesn't use point-buy, because we found that in the end, there was very little difference between, say, two fighters (especially if you use 28 points).




The lack of imagination of your players cannot be attributed to the use of point buy.


----------



## devoblue

hong said:
			
		

> The lack of imagination of your players cannot be attributed to the use of point buy.



But point buy encourages min-maxing, which has an optimal solution, which means all characters are likely the same given the same inputs.  I'm sure they all used their imagination individually to come to the same conclusion.


----------



## hong

devoblue said:
			
		

> But point buy encourages min-maxing,




Point buy makes minmaxing transparent. It does not encourage or discourage it.



> which has an optimal solution, which means all characters are likely the same given the same inputs.  I'm sure they all used their imagination individually to come to the same conclusion.




1. There can be many optimal solutions (or, for the pedantic, solutions that are close within a given tolerance to the global optimum).

2. The solution depends on the problem, which depends on the player. Individual tastes and opinions can have a huge impact on the final outcome, as can any constraints imposed.

3. Optimality assumes a well-defined problem in the first place, which is a brave assumption to make in gaming.

Trust me, I'm a statistician who has used quasi-Newton algorithms to solve complex optimisation problems of several variables.


----------



## devoblue

hong said:
			
		

> Point buy makes minmaxing transparent. It does not encourage or discourage it.



It is an enabler of min-max and provides opportunity. A common strategy to encourage a behaviour is to make it easier.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> 1. There can be many optimal solutions (or, for the pedantic, solutions that are close within a given tolerance to the global optimum).
> 
> 2. The solution depends on the problem, which depends on the player. Individual tastes and opinions can have a huge impact on the final outcome, as can any constraints imposed.
> 
> 3. Optimality assumes a well-defined problem in the first place, which is a brave assumption to make in gaming.



This is character building, not gaming.  How many fighters have ever decided that they wanted to max STR, good CON then DEX, bit of WIS for a will save bonus, dump CHA and INT.  Every stat comes out with an even number so there are no odd points wasted.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Trust me, I'm a statistician who has used quasi-Newton algorithms to solve complex optimisation problems of several variables.



Nah, you is just some random dude on the intaweb.


----------



## hong

devoblue said:
			
		

> It is an enabler of min-max and provides opportunity. A common strategy to encourage a behaviour is to make it easier.




And a common strategy to manage behaviour with potential negative consequences is communication. I find I get a lot of mileage out of saying to players "build whatever you want, but please don't go overboard or get into an arms race mentality".




> This is character building, not gaming.  How many fighters have ever decided that they wanted to max STR, good CON then DEX, bit of WIS for a will save bonus, dump CHA and INT.  Every stat comes out with an even number so there are no odd points wasted.




Um, you know, there is a lot more to character building nowadays than just allocating stat points.




> Nah, you is just some random dude on the intaweb.




That's true, but I am also a statistician who has used quasi-Newton algorithms to solve complex optimisation problems of several variables.


----------



## Thaumaturge

hong said:
			
		

> That's true, but I am also a statistician who has used quasi-Newton algorithms to solve complex *optimisation* problems of several variables.




Yeah, well... you use the queen's English.  ugh.    

Thaumaturge.


----------



## devoblue

hong said:
			
		

> And a common strategy to manage behaviour with potential negative consequences is communication. I find I get a lot of mileage out of saying to players "build whatever you want, but please don't go overboard or get into an arms race mentality".



Doh! I let you play the common sense card before I did.  You win.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Um, you know, there is a lot more to character building nowadays than just allocating stat points.



Yeah but in 3e thats as far as I get before it is too hard.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> That's true, but I am also a statistician who has used quasi-Newton algorithms to solve complex optimisation problems of several variables.



95% of all statisticians are made up.


----------



## Steely Dan

hong said:
			
		

> get into an arms race mentality".




That was my problem with 3rd Ed in a nutshell – a potential arms race between the players and the DM.


'Oh, yeah, well if you take that spell/PrC etc, I'm going to blah blah…'


----------



## hong

devoblue said:
			
		

> 95% of all statisticians are made up.




Hey! I do not wear makeup!


----------



## devoblue

hong said:
			
		

> Hey! I do not wear makeup!



Damn! Here I was imaging some cute 19 year old with blonde hair and big boobies, just like most people pretending to be D&D nerds on the intaweb.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Archangel_Zer0 said:
			
		

> Or even better, a Spell Caster who is 24th level and only 13 years old, lives in his own apartment and has a girlfriend (who looks like she's 19) who happens to have cat ears and a cat tail.




I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Lizard

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> A sneak attack is a pinpoint blow that takes advantage of your enemy's tactical weakness to hit them where it counts. Why should this be easy to do with a 50-pound, 5-foot-long hunk of iron?




Because you can hit an awful lot of vital points at once? 

Rogue 1:"Didja see how I shanked that guy in the spleen with my dagger?"
Rogue 2:"Didja see how I shanked that guy in the spleen, liver, kidneys, lung, heart, and eyeballs with my greatsword?"

I'm going to 3e grognard hell for this, but I think SA with smaller weapons only is more thematically correct and breaks verisimilitude LESS for me. As long as a rogue can wield a greatsword via a feat or 'fighter training', not a problem. I have no problem with Tuffy McStabsyou, Guild Enforcer, shanking an unsuspecting guard with his shortsword (SA damage), then, when the other guard sees him (Tuffy lacks Combat Advantage now), drawing his Sword Of Mighty Hacking (+1 Greatsword) and going at the guard mano-a-mano, using some of his rogue tricks to confound his foe.

Build flexibility comes from many places. It's not a problem to me if a 'pure rogue' can't meet every possible archetype of every character ever called a 'rogue', provided you can build an *effective* character via feat choices or multiclassing. It's like complaining that, for example, a wizard who takes 20 levels of wizard but spends feats on martial weapon prof, armor prof, and weapon focus is an utterly useless 'swordmage', when you could just take a level or two of fighter and then take a 'swordmage' PrC. 

I am more concerned by the promise of 'role efficiency' and multiclassing. If you can multiclass across roles (Striker/Defender), it seems you'll HAVE to sacrifice some level of role ability in favor of flexibility, and that goes against the stated design goal of "No one will ever be bad, or even just mediocre, at their role, EVER". OTOH, if you can be 90% as good as a 'pure' Striker or Defender while multiclassing, it makes multiclassing way too attractive. 3e ultimately solved most multiclassing problems by eliminating frontloading or creating PrCs which were optimzed for 'class a+class b', even to the point of making a Paladin/rogue PrC.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> S'funny, I remember that Evasion actually did just that in the 3E playtests: if you made your save, you got shunted outside the AoE and took no damage. They ditched it because of playtesters calling down fireballs on themselves so as to escape hairy situations.




And you don't think all these 'move target X squares' abilities won't be used by PCs on each others? 

"Hey, Fingers! Pretend like you're going to attack me!"
"Sure thing, boss!"
"Oh-gee-where-did-that-sneaky-thief-go? I-seem-to-have-charged-him-and-run-20-feet, despite-my-using-up-all-my-movement-for-this-round! Good thing I ended up right next to the orc who was attacking the wizard, eh? And, oh look, now it's my initiative! I attack the orc with one of my 'you cannot move before making this attack' powers!"


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> And you don't think all these 'move target X squares' abilities won't be used by PCs on each others?
> 
> "Hey, Fingers! Pretend like you're going to attack me!"
> "Sure thing, boss!"
> "Oh-gee-where-did-that-sneaky-thief-go? I-seem-to-have-charged-him-and-run-20-feet, despite-my-using-up-all-my-movement-for-this-round! Good thing I ended up right next to the orc who was attacking the wizard, eh? And, oh look, now it's my initiative! I attack the orc with one of my 'you cannot move before making this attack' powers!"



 Did I complain or something?

But in any case, if the DM cannot tell who has the green circles around their feet and who has the red circles, that is a bad DM.


----------



## Lizard

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure.  That seems to fall into the same category of unfun as sneak attack not working on undead.




In PHB2, they added a rogue option which let you sacrifice SA damage for one attack and give an opponent -5 to AC. This was mostly for undead and golems, but, mugawd, did my 2-weapon fighter optimized swashbuckler/rogue take advantage of it! 

a)Acrobatic charge to heavily armored foe.
b)First attack -- wipe -5 off his AC.
c)Follow up with, I think, 6 other attacks (iteratives+2WF+hasted), all of which did some SA damage on top of it.
d)All other party members got an effective +5 to hit when they went after the baddie.

I would much rather see 4e rogues have an assortment of abilities to 'set up' foes which aren't vulnerable to SA than to strain logic by being able to make golems or skeletons or water elementals 'bleed'.


----------



## glass

My, what a long thread. Anyway:

I mostly like it. I don't mind the new, more-focused-class model, nor am I surprised by it (they have been saying all along that that is what they were going to do).

Re the weapon list -it does seem a bit light, but I am not overly concerned as we know there will be some ways to expand it and can readily surmise that there will be others.

Re per encounter powers -the 'player-narrative control' option works for me, and has done since I first heard about per encounter powers in Bo9S.

I'm sure I had lots of other stuff to say but that is lost at the dawn of time when I started reading the thread. 



glass.


----------



## Cadfan

Regarding rogues with greatswords:

Remember that the True Way is to first ask yourself, "why do I want this?  What do I hope to accomplish?"  And to second ask yourself, "Can I accomplish these goals in other manners?"  To restrict yourself to only one path to a conclusion may unnecessarily deny you that conclusion.

In 3e, "sneak attack" was really "hit them while they're at a disadvantage and do more damage."  This meant that it was logical to allow sneak attacking with greatswords.  In 4e, "sneak attack" includes "hit them while they're at a disadvantage and do more damage," but I'll bet an imaginary cookie that there are other abilities available which accomplish the same thing in different ways.  Do we honestly believe the Fighter will have no abilities that involve brutalizing some sucker who just gave the Fighter combat advantage?  So if that's what you want the sneak attack for, you should be covered.

If the reason you wanted a Rogue with a Greatsword was because you wanted a viable lightly armored warrior with good alertness and stealth skills (think Conan at times), you are probably a little bit screwed.  Chances are that the Fighter is going to assume you wear heavy armor, even if you can make a stealthy, alert Fighter by spending feats (almost certainly possible, see feats previewed that improve alertness to danger).  But, there's a good chance that the Barbarian will cover your needs once it is released.  In the meantime, I feel your pain- I want to play a Monk or a Shadowcaster.

If what you want is to "leap out of the shadows with a cleaver and lop someone's head off," I would suggest that you don't really want a greatsword.  Greatswords are BIG.  A cleaver is probably best modeled with a shortsword, and if you want to be a strong rogue who lops off heads, well, there's already the Brawny Rogue and attacks like Torturous Strike.

Finally there's the speculation that a feat might exist that allows you to count other weapons as light blades.  Who knows?  We'll find out.

So... ask yourself what your goals are with the greatsword wielding rogue.  Maybe the game covers those in other ways.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Discouraging rogues from wielding greatswords is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Felon

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I can grok HP, but no I can not grok per-encounter with a set of generic answers.  And certain moves there is no answer for it being per-encounter other than balance.  Heck no one in my game is really groking the per-encounter mechanics in SAGA.
> 
> To get per-encounter abilities to work for me, I'm probably going to need some flavor text in each per-encounter ability describing they why, and it better not suck to hard.



I can grok per-encounter abilities with a number of justifications. Maybe the ability requires such mental focus or physical strain that it takes some rest to recover. Maybe it requires a  combination of ideal circumstances between you and the opponent, and saying it can only happen once per encounter is just the easiest way to adjudicate it. 

Personally, if sneak attack limits a rogue to using a light blade, that is just too restrictive for me. I do bet we'll see stuff like bludgeoning sneak attacks though.

I also suspect that everyone will get simple weapon proficiencies for free, so you'll conceivably have club ansap-wielding rogues.

And maybe some maneuvers won't be weapon-restricted at all.


----------



## heretic888

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Um yeah, and again that explanation only works so far.  Lets say pelvis kick is a special per encounter maneuver.  People get the idea that kicking Bob in the pelvis 12 times in a row is a bit hard to buy.  And they get the per encounter part for this style of explanation when it is appropriate.  But its even harder to buy that he couldn't do the pelvis kick 15 seconds later on Joe who didn't even see the first pelvis kick.  But mysteriously if Joe was in the 2nd room you could pelvis kick him 1 minute later.
> 
> If you want location based moves and trick moves limited so they aren't used over and over again, make it so there would be a reason why the PC wouldn't try it.  Make them at will but flag them as trick/called shot moves.  Say anytime someone is struck by moves like pelvis kick they get +5 to there AC to try to avoid another pelvis kick from the same opponent in the encounter.  Each use of pelvis kick against the target increases the targets Ac to avoid that move by an additional +5.  Anyone who perceives the pelvis kick style moves taking place gains a +5 to there Ac to block it, but it does not stack due to additional viewings.




Hi Ahglock,

So, let me get this straight. You would rather increase the arithmetic players and DMs must utilize in any given round of combat to "make sense" of powerful special abilities?? Slowing down combat and making the game more complicated has more narrative power to you?? Seriously??

I personally find this mind-boggling. Reminds me of this one guy over on the WotC forums who couldn't "rationalize" the per-encounter maneuvers of _Tome of Battle_ so he created this extremely complicated sub-system that essentially wedded maneuvers to the Combat Focus feats from the PHB2. I found the whole enterprise needlessly convoluted and complicated and it seemed as if it would not only slow down combat even more, but restrict the tactical options of martial adepts at the same time.

I mean, isn't it much easier to just flip a card over when you can't use that power any more?? Wouldn't the game run much faster and smoother that way??

In either case, I find your proposed solution runs into the same problem that the developers found with the "recharge" mechanic from ToB. Characters would just use their "best" or "strongest" power as many times as they could as often as they could until it stopped working. They would, essentially, do the same thing round after round after round until the target's AC got too high. Then, they'd just move on to the next target and start over. Rinse, wash, repeat.

This defeats the whole purpose of having these powers in the first place.

I really don't see the problem you guys are having with these encounter and daily powers. I could easily narrate them as a matter of tactical positioning and opportunity. I was in just the right position at just the right time at just the distance to use my rogue's Torturous Strike power. If you want to go even further, narrate it as your swiftblade's Penetrating Blade technique. Our plucky hero didn't use this power again during the encounter because those circumstances did not reproduce themselves for him to use that attack again.

Or, if you want, narrate it as a matter of perfect concentration and focus that can only be achieved once during any given fight. Or, a transitory burst of pure adrenaline to use a special technique. Or, channeling your animus and innate reserves into a mighty strike.

I mean, really. Its that simple. No need to pigeonhole people into any fixed metanarrative because, and this is the beauty of this mechanic, you the player are free to construct your own narrative that best explains how your character's individual powers work. Badda bing.

This requires nothing more than the ability to think abstractly (y'know, the way we *all* do when it comes to hit points, armor class, and turn-based combat rounds?). Not every minutia of the game needs a concrete mechanic or rule behind it. Use generalizatons. Use abstractions. They're fun. They promote storytelling and encourage immersion.

But.... nah.

Laterz.


----------



## AllisterH

One other interesting thing about Sneak Attack (assuming that the preview was the entire writeup) which I think many people missed

No more debates about whether or not, you can sneak attack giants/dragons.   



> 3.5 Sneak attack (SRD) A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or _*striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach*_.




Was I the only one that had a DM say "You can't sneak attack a creature that is 2 size categories or larger than you". Sure, we knew about the undead thing for weeks but this last one makes me happy as both a player and as a DM.


----------



## Just Another User

hong said:
			
		

> Did I complain or something?
> 
> But in any case, if the DM cannot tell who has the green circles around their feet and who has the red circles, that is a bad DM.



Or he is color-blind.


----------



## The Little Raven

Lizard said:
			
		

> "Hey, Fingers! Pretend like you're going to attack me!"




Except the power explicitly indicates that you attack the target and deal weapon damage, so Fingers will be knifing his boss in this scenario.


----------



## hong

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Or he is color-blind.



 Well, if you have a DM that is willing to be replaced by a computer when it comes to exercising judgement, there's not much hope.


----------



## Greg K

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I've done some fighting in the past.  I'm just guessing, but I can probably hurt someone the most with a kick to the pelvis.  For some odd reason, I've never been in a fight where I kicked the other guy in the pelvis 12 times in a row, while never attacking him with my hands.  That's what happens if you allow everything as an at will attack.  It isn't realistic that you would use only your best possible attack, over and over.  The ebb and flow of the fight will force you to use other, less optimal choices.  I think its fine to represent this with a selection of at will abilities, some situational abilities, and some abilities you can only use a limited number of times.  That's the least cumbersome way I can come up with to mimic something like how often in a fight you can throw a heavy kick instead of a quick jab.




I'm going to disagree.  The way I see it,  you could try to kick the guy in the pelvis twelve times in a row (or some other maneuver), but chose not to. Why? Probably, because of risks or other circumstances. Most likely, 
a) You recognized the risk of your opponent catching on making him more likely to avoid your attack or worse come up with a counter that exploits your maneuver making you more vulnerable  to their attack and/or placing you in a vulnerable position.

b) recognizing that while you might have access to the target area it was decreased by positioning or some other factor that would have decreased accuracy and  you run the risk of being off target.

c) positioning or distance make it impossible to make contact with the target area.  You have no way to make contact with  the area you want to target. You are just better off trying something else.

d) You have attacks that while not as damaging are more reliable.

Regardless of why you chose not to, there was nothing physically preventing you from trying the attack again. Both A&B might still succeed, but you weighed your options and chose something else, because repeating the attack sequentially just becomes less optimal.  However, that doesn't mean that a good opening to reuse the maneuver can't present itself later whether at some random time (e.g.,  the opponent dropping their guard performing their own maneuver, being fatigued, or being "rocked) or because successfully created an opening using feints and combinations or trying to catch an opponent off guard by "throwing caution to the wind hoping" hoping to catch them flat-footed.  Then, there is just being able to reliably reuse your maneuver, because you completely outclass your opponent in terms of combat skill.  

Watching MMA's and professional fighting, you will see examples of fighters reusing maneuvers multiple times in a fight.  San Shou fighting Champion, Coung Le and former  multi-time kickboxing champion, Bill "Superfoot" Wallace are both good examples that come to mind right now.  Coung Le routinely and successfully utilizes leg scissor takedowns and grapple/slams against his opponent.  He may not utilize them in successive attacks, but he successfully utilizes these multiple times in a round let alone a fight, because he sets his opponent to place himself in position.  As for "Superfoot", the guy earned his name, because he only had one good leg, but he could throw kicks at nearly 60mph and he could place those kicks with precision up, over or around his opponent's defenses.  He would use a variety of combinations comprised of jab like kicks, hook kicks and roundhouse kicks using the same leg.  With both fighters, their opponent's know the technique are going to be coming especially in the case of "Superfoot", but both fighters repeatedly use these maneuvers in an "encounter" and do so successfully.


----------



## Campbell

Greg K said:
			
		

> Regardless of why you chose not to, there was nothing physically preventing you from trying the attack again. Both A&B might still succeed, but you weighed your options and chose something else, because repeating the attack sequentially just becomes less optimal.  However, that doesn't mean that a good opening to reuse the maneuver can't present itself later whether at some random time (e.g.,  the opponent dropping their guard performing their own maneuver, being fatigued, or being "rocked) or because successfully created an opening using feints and combinations or trying to catch an opponent off guard by "throwing caution to the wind hoping" hoping to catch them flat-footed.  Then, there is just being able to reliably reuse your maneuver, because you completely outclass your opponent in terms of combat skill.




This is what action points are for.


----------



## heretic888

Greg K said:
			
		

> I'm going to disagree.  The way I see it,  you could try to kick the guy in the pelvis twelve times in a row (or some other maneuver), but chose not to. Why? Probably, because of risks or other circumstances. Most likely,
> a) You recognized the risk of your opponent catching on making him more likely to avoid your attack or worse come up with a counter that exploits your maneuver making you more vulnerable  to their attack and/or placing you in a vulnerable position.
> 
> *b) recognizing that while you might have access to the target area it was decreased by positioning or some other factor that would have decreased accuracy and  you run the risk of being off target.
> 
> c) positioning or distance make it impossible to make contact with the target area.  You have no way to make contact with  the area you want to target. You are just better off trying something else.*
> 
> d) You have attacks that while not as damaging are more reliable.




Hi Greg K,

I bolded your points b and c above because these are almost exactly what I said in my last post:

I really don't see the problem you guys are having with these encounter and daily powers. I could easily narrate them as a matter of tactical positioning and opportunity. I was in just the right position at just the right time at just the distance to use my rogue's Torturous Strike power. If you want to go even further, narrate it as your swiftblade's Penetrating Blade technique. Our plucky hero didn't use this power again during the encounter because those circumstances did not reproduce themselves for him to use that attack again.​
In other words, he didn't use the "groin kick" again because the same opportunity did not present itself. Likewise, my rogue doesn't use his Torturous Strike again because, once again, the same opportunity did not present itself. He never got into the needed position, his timing was off, he wasn't the right distance, whatever.

Of course, that's not the only possible narration for why encounter powers work the way they do for the martial classes but it certainly is a feasible one and it certainly doesn't suspend disbelief any more than armor class, hit points, or combat rounds do.

Incidentally, I also agree with Campbell that action points should allow you to "refresh" encounter or daily powers.

Laterz.


----------



## Henry

Greg K said:
			
		

> Why? Probably, because of risks or other circumstances. Most likely,
> a) You recognized the risk of your opponent catching on...
> b) recognizing that [the target area] was decreased by positioning or some other factor
> c) positioning or distance make it impossible to make contact with the target area.
> d) You have attacks that while not as damaging are more reliable.




...which perfectly explains at will and per-encounter.  Whereas you seem to take a direct correlation between "power used" and "can't do it again," what Cadfan and others are saying is that the reason the power isn't used again is due to any one of the above reasons, plus others. "power used" doesn't necessarily mean "physically can't do it again," it rather means, "can't do it effectively."

Besides that, if there is some sort of recharge mechanic available, it works perfectly to what you were saying about fighters that do routinely use the same moves frequently but not repeatedly. If not, then there's still the glossing over that the above reasons do, same as how we've glossed over what hit point damage means for 30 years.


For me, the per-encounter mechanic does cause some stumbling blocks, but specifically in my worries in the game play experience vs. the daily attrition we're used to, never for the in-game reasoning, because there are many real-world and cinematic analogies to explain it.


----------



## hong

Yes, Henry! Now that you have experienced the Bo9S, you will never escape the Dark Side!


----------



## fnwc

devoblue said:
			
		

> This is character building, not gaming.  How many fighters have ever decided that they wanted to max STR, good CON then DEX, bit of WIS for a will save bonus, dump CHA and INT.  Every stat comes out with an even number so there are no odd points wasted.



If this is your strategy, this will hold true using both point buy and randomized systems. The only difference between the two is that in a randomized system you might end up with less or more to work with than the fighter standing next to you.

I'm with Hong on this one. I prefer to have destiny in my own hands.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm going to 3e grognard hell for this, but I think SA with smaller weapons only is more thematically correct and breaks verisimilitude LESS for me. As long as a rogue can wield a greatsword via a feat or 'fighter training', not a problem. I have no problem with Tuffy McStabsyou, Guild Enforcer, shanking an unsuspecting guard with his shortsword (SA damage), then, when the other guard sees him (Tuffy lacks Combat Advantage now), drawing his Sword Of Mighty Hacking (+1 Greatsword) and going at the guard mano-a-mano, using some of his rogue tricks to confound his foe.....



This I agree wholeheartedly. I like the idea of using 'the right tool for the job'. And it has been confirmed that you can take rapier as a feat (on the rapier thread) this seems to be the case.
Welcome to the dark side, you cannot resist Lizard....


----------



## Lizard

Mourn said:
			
		

> Except the power explicitly indicates that you attack the target and deal weapon damage, so Fingers will be knifing his boss in this scenario.




I can think of many circumstances where it will be worth it. Nothing says the rogue has to use his best weapon, after all. Depending on other factors, taking 1d6 from a rogue to get a 'free' 20 foot move precisely where you most need to be can be well worth it. Hell, it can be used to escape the monster who is about to do way more damage to you than the rogue could...

Players are like the dinos in Jurassic Park. They find a way. If a rule can be broken, it will be. If a power can be used in an unintended way, it will be. 

I'm pretty sure that the developers of City of Heroes didn't intend for the teleport power set to be used to create macro controlled characters called 'Taximan1', but that's what happened.  (And if you ever want to talk about unintended consequences in game design, I've got one word for you: Holocron Macro Dancers.)

Maybe this IS an intended use. Maybe they want players to be clever and tricky and use powers in wholly unexpected ways, and the game is built to handle it. If so, good design.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> This I agree wholeheartedly. I like the idea of using 'the right tool for the job'. And it has been confirmed that you can take rapier as a feat (on the rapier thread) this seems to be the case.
> Welcome to the dark side, you cannot resist Lizard....




Wait really, when did someone from WoTC state you could take rapier as a feat?


----------



## mach1.9pants

Greg K said:
			
		

> San Shou fighting Champion, Coung Le and former  multi-time kickboxing champion, Bill "Superfoot" Wallace are both good examples that come to mind right now.  Coung Le routinely and successfully utilizes leg scissor takedowns and grapple/slams against his opponent.  He may not utilize them in successive attacks, but he successfully utilizes these multiple times in a round let alone a fight



Yeah those are at will powers


----------



## Lizard

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Wait really, when did someone from WoTC state you could take rapier as a feat?




In another thread. I saw it. I think it was WOTC_Miko.


----------



## fafhrd

Miko


----------



## mach1.9pants

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Wait really, when did someone from WoTC state you could take rapier as a feat?



yeah check out michelle on the rapier thread. Her Rogue took rapier proficiency as a feat. And she said it was totally worth it.
edit: same as everyone else

@Lizard: I can see what you are saying about using your powers against your party to gain advantage but, man, there is no way I would play with anyone who so wanted to go against the spirit of the rules. As a DM there is no way I'd let the players do it!


----------



## Henry

hong said:
			
		

> Yes, Henry! Now that you have experienced the Bo9S, you will never escape the Dark Side!




Yes, God help me, I started liking that crap when I started playing my Crusader.  I still have my reservations about some of it (half of those maneuvers are magical as the day is long, and the martial adepts are spellcasters, no matter what they say!) but having per-encounter maneuvers are great fun for the purposes of playing the game itself. I'm not as averse to it as I once was.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Thanks, missed it in the 9 pages worth of text


----------



## mach1.9pants

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Thanks, missed it in the 9 pages worth of text



This thread is going for the big 1000 post shut-down, I can feel it!


----------



## Lizard

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> yeah check out michelle on the rapier thread. Her Rogue took rapier proficiency as a feat. And she said it was totally worth it.
> edit: same as everyone else
> 
> @Lizard: I can see what you are saying about using your powers against your party to gain advantage but, man, there is no way I would play with anyone who so wanted to go against the spirit of the rules. As a DM there is no way I'd let the players do it!




Then you need to explain why it's impossible, why they can move an unwilling monster 4 squares but not a willing ally. (And if said ally is mind-controlled and thus a 'foe', can you use the power THEN?)

The more you have to special-case things, the more the game intrudes upon the game, if you get my drift.

Let's assume there are powers that let you get a healing surge once per encounter when you're damaged. Let's also assume that there are talents or feats which let you do something with a healing surge other than heal -- such as remove an ongoing condition. Neither of these is unlikely from what we've seen. There would, then, likely be many situation where you'd want to do just a little damage to a friend to trigger a condition. Perhaps your warlord has a great power he can only use if Bloodied, and he's just a few hit points shy, and his initiative is next...

Saying that all of your friends have magical forcefields that make them immune to your attacks is idiotic (and I've seen nothing in 4e to indicate this is so -- indeed, the justly reviled 'Golden Wyvern Adept' feat is designed to let you save your friends from your fireballs). So assume that teammates *will* use thei abilities on each other to give the group tactical advantage, and plan accordingly -- and hope the 4e designers did, too. (Cause if this thing didn't show up in playtest, playtest was botched.)


----------



## ThirdWizard

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then you need to explain why it's impossible, why they can move an unwilling monster 4 squares but not a willing ally. (And if said ally is mind-controlled and thus a 'foe', can you use the power THEN?)




Isn't that when you raise your eyebrow, and they look down sheepishly and try to play it off as a joke?


----------



## mach1.9pants

I still just think it is playing against the 'spirit' of the rules. It is for hurting the bad guy not helping the good guy. That is enough for me. 
But I see where you get verisimiltude twinges, so I hope that WotC has thought of this. I think that they will have, I mean they ae gamers as well


----------



## Lurker37

hong said:
			
		

> Every time someone replies to "this rule doesn't work" with "but the DM can do..." or "but the DM can change...", GOD KILLS A KITTEN.
> 
> Please, think of the kittens.




*Looks at Hong's avatar.*

 



			
				hong said:
			
		

> "this rule doesn't work"



"but the DM can change..."


			
				hong said:
			
		

> "this rule doesn't work"



"but the DM can change..."


			
				hong said:
			
		

> "this rule doesn't work"



"but the DM can change..."
.
.
(100 lines later)


			
				hong said:
			
		

> "this rule doesn't work"



"but the DM can change..."

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA!  Be afraid Hong! Be very afraid!

Right, so while we wait for God to kill Hong, here's my thoughts.

Fixed Hit points? HELL YES!!! Nothing worse than having the party plate-wearer roll a 1 on Hit points! Random hit points have never made a game I was in better, and caused several otherwise viable and intelligently-planned characters to be quietly retired or die in combats where they really should have lived. The number of times I've seen a DM simply grant a character a re-roll because he doesn't want to have to rebalance the rest of the campaign against a fighter with low hit points... the situation where we all felt such a thing was necessary just shouldn't have arisen in the first place.

Random hit points were, in my opinion, the *single biggest flaw in previous editions of D&D*

The power list is most definitely NOT complete - it doesn't even include all the powers listed in the builds.

Shurikens. Most likely a catch-all phrase for any small thrown blade. The problem with a phrase like 'throwing knife' is that it is by no means clear to a group of new players that this does not include throwing a normal dagger. So if "shuriken" is a category of small bladed throwing weapons which are too small to be wielded in melee then I have no problem with it. Every player at the table can instantly recognise what it is and understand that it is different to a melee dagger.

Looking at this and the weapon list in the DDI preview, I'm concluding that there has been a move to reduce the number of weapons in 4E. This allows the designers to have more powers, combat moves etc tied to a specific weapon, thus emphasising the difference of each, instead of having 20 different weapons that were all so similar in effect that they might as well have been the same thing to start with. So my expectation is that instead of 37 different types of sword we get four or five, some of which are harder to learn but should still have powers associated with them for those who spend the feat to master them.

As for the limitations on the types of weapons that can be used with different powers - we've yet to see if there are feats etc that can extend these options. For instance, there could be a note under its description that notes that rogues who become proficient with it can now use it with powers X,Y and Z. Or there may be rogue powers that specifically apply to rapiers. Perhaps there's a feat that extends the number of weapons a rogue can sneak attack with (Backstab, maybe?). Or perhaps swashbuckler is now a build meant for rangers now. Maybe the harpoon-wielding sailor with no traditional rogue skills is better modelled in 4E as an agile fighter. We just don't know. And we're not going to know until we see a lot more of the rules system.

Int on skills - again, we don't know enough yet. There may be a general category of int-based skills which are purely rolled for 'what does this character know about the gameworld?", which characters get a number of based on int.

So my overall reaction is that what we know so far looks very much to my liking, but it raises more questions. I am not, however, pessimistic about the answers to those questions at this time.

P.S. Nothing personal Hong. It's just that Richard from LFG is my hero.


----------



## Archangel_Zer0

*I don't have issues, I have the whole subscription*



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.




It's bi-monthly, the next cover art is being done by the other patients at the home that believe they are reincarnations of famous artists.

(but yeah, that example is meant to be as anime as it gets... unless you put in the fact that the spell caster also has a card-fetish....)


----------



## hong

Why are people talking about me?

Everybody, please stop talking about me!


----------



## Ahglock

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hi Ahglock,
> 
> So, let me get this straight. You would rather increase the arithmetic players and DMs must utilize in any given round of combat to "make sense" of powerful special abilities?? Slowing down combat and making the game more complicated has more narrative power to you?? Seriously??




Um, yes, yes I would.  Why because the added arithmetic isn't challenging enough to slow my game down.  So all I get out of the per encounter mechanic was a whole fist full of lose.

I was at first excited about the per encounter and per day mechanic.  I envisioned cool powers that would almost self justify there being only used once per encounter or once per day.  Instead I get twist a knife in the wound!!!!  Um something that lame and easy to do should never be per encounter.  

Being that there lame mundane maneuvers, yeah I'd rather have more "complicated".

Ease of use doesn't make lame any better than lame.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Archangel_Zer0 said:
			
		

> Or even better, a Spell Caster who is 24th level and only 13 years old, lives in his own apartment and has a girlfriend (who looks like she's 19) who happens to have cat ears and a cat tail.



You should put spoiler tags around that.  I haven't read the last Harry Potter book.


----------



## hong

Why have people stopped talking about me?

Everybody, please start talking about me!


----------



## Ahglock

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You should put spoiler tags around that.  I haven't read the last Harry Potter book.




wait harry potter dates a cosplay girl.


----------



## Khuxan

hong said:
			
		

> Everybody, please start talking about me!




Quick, date a cosplay girl!


----------



## Greg K

Campbell said:
			
		

> This is what action points are for.




For most of those, I listed, I think requiring an action points is a horrible implementation. Then again, I prefer how maneuvers work in BOIM.


1.  Negative conditions are built into the maneuvers. Bad positioning or exceptional accuracy is a to hit penalty or the opponent reflex save to avoid some extra effect.  Putting one's self out of position or dropping one's guard is an ac penalty and/or opponent getting an AoO.  This means, I need to consider when the character uses the maneuver and how often.

a.  If  I want my character to throw caution to the wind  (e.g, either he is reckless or the situation is dire and the opponent needs to be dropped quickly), I can try a risky maneuver for a big payoff, I can do that repeatedly, but realize that that it is more likely to bite my characer in the backside via various possible penalties from attack penalties, ac penalties, or opportunity attacks.

b. I can take advantage of negative conditions on my chacter's opponent.  If they are dazed, stunned, flat-footed, those are good moments to take advantage of their  penalties. 

c. I can have my opponent try to create openings to better utilize a maneuver by bluff/feint.


2.  If an opponent uses a risky maneuver, my character can take advantage  via penalties built into their maneuver .

3. If  I determine that my character outclases my opponent in combat ability and defensive against their ac, I feel free to attempt my more powerful maneuvers more often.

and, unlike, per encounter, not once do I have the designers telling  me that I can only use the maneuver once per encounter (or have to spend an action point for another use if this is what they are going to do). Instead, I have them telling me that I need to consider the consequences of using such actions and determine when it is most approriate to use them or create such situations when it is best to do so.


----------



## devoblue

fnwc said:
			
		

> If this is your strategy, this will hold true using both point buy and randomized systems. The only difference between the two is that in a randomized system you might end up with less or more to work with than the fighter standing next to you.
> 
> I'm with Hong on this one. I prefer to have destiny in my own hands.



I wasn't advocating this strategy, I was simply illustrating a fairly common outcome of point buy.

If two players have a similar character concept, then with point buy they will build the same character concept.

With a randomized system, as a starting point the characters are no longer identical and may evolve in different ways.


----------



## ThirdWizard

devoblue said:
			
		

> I wasn't advocating this strategy, I was simply illustrating a fairly common outcome of point buy.
> 
> If two players have a similar character concept, then with point buy they will build the same character concept.
> 
> With a randomized system, as a starting point the characters are no longer identical and may evolve in different ways.




With 3e and probably all further editions, character differentiation is done with so much more than ability score values that it isn't worth it to put any worry on that particular outcome.


----------



## Just Another User

Mourn said:
			
		

> Except the power explicitly indicates that you attack the target and deal weapon damage, so Fingers will be knifing his boss in this scenario.




As you certainly know there are situations where being able to move an extra 4 squares (sigh) is worth a little damage.

But for those that have no problem groking the artful dodger variant of positioning strike, could someone being so kind to describe me how it works against:

a stone golem 

a ozee 

a 30 feet long snake

an incorporeal creature 

a gelatinous cube

or a number of other creatures that I could imagine, specifically creatures mindless, which can't reasonably be taunted or even bluffed, or that don't technically feel pain, or creatures which can't be phisically "shoved" or that deal some kind of damage or negative effect on touch or, well, you get it (I hope.)
Halfling vs ogre, I can make it work, even if it hurts, the problem is that in D&D you fight weirdest things than ogres and using some of the powers against some of the mosnters (crimson edge against a mummy?) would be excedingly weird, and there are onyl three way I can see to making then works

a) surgically remove my SoD

b) something like nth pages of exceptions for every power/monster ("you can't use power X against monster A, B, C" or "monster A is immune to powers x, y, z"

c) empowerer the rule 0 to pre-3e  levels, something that I could even like but I can't see the 4e designers do it.


----------



## Khaim

Lizard said:
			
		

> Let's assume there are powers that let you get a healing surge once per encounter when you're damaged. Let's also assume that there are talents or feats which let you do something with a healing surge other than heal -- such as remove an ongoing condition. Neither of these is unlikely from what we've seen. There would, then, likely be many situation where you'd want to do just a little damage to a friend to trigger a condition. Perhaps your warlord has a great power he can only use if Bloodied, and he's just a few hit points shy, and his initiative is next...




This is a serious issue, I think. It came up in Bo9S, even, with the Crusader's 1st-level(!) stance that let him heal 2hp any time he hit someone. So can I punch teammate A to heal teammate B? Can I use my fists and do subdual damage, which barely counts? Can I intentionally do minimal damage (1)?

And oh, let's not even get near that quagmire that is the mind-control debate...


----------



## Lizard

Khaim said:
			
		

> This is a serious issue, I think. It came up in Bo9S, even, with the Crusader's 1st-level(!) stance that let him heal 2hp any time he hit someone. So can I punch teammate A to heal teammate B? Can I use my fists and do subdual damage, which barely counts? Can I intentionally do minimal damage (1)?
> 
> And oh, let's not even get near that quagmire that is the mind-control debate...




I'm going to have to assume it's been addressed in some way. The game balance implications of letting Player A use their abilities on Player B, or damage Player B to allow him to trigger an ability, are pretty major, and it's not possible the playtesters never thought of it. Either they have some blanket and irrational restrictions, or these options were factored into balancing the powers.


----------



## glass

Just Another User said:
			
		

> But for those that have no problem groking the artful dodger variant of positioning strike, could someone being so kind to describe me how it works against: a stone golem



You trick the golem into overextending its lunge so that it stumbles into the place where you wanted it to be.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> a ozee



You trick the ooze into overextending its lunge so that it wobbles into the place where you wanted it to be.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> a 30 feet long snake



You trick the snake into overextending its lunge, then attack its tail so that it has to quickly get its tail out of the way and under it in the square where you want it to be.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> an incorporeal creature



You trick the spectre into overextending its lunge ...do you see a pattern forming here?



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> a gelatinous cube



Just to be different: You attack the cube, and then as you step back by pure luck it meanders into the square where you wanted it to be.


glass.


----------



## glass

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to assume it's been addressed in some way. The game balance implications of letting Player A use their abilities on Player B, or damage Player B to allow him to trigger an ability, are pretty major, and it's not possible the playtesters never thought of it. Either they have some blanket and irrational restrictions, or these options were factored into balancing the powers.



It is not irrational to say that you are not looking for opportunities to attack your allies in combat.


glass.


----------



## Lizard

glass said:
			
		

> It is not irrational to say that you are not looking for opportunities to attack your allies in combat.
> 
> 
> glass.




Sure you are, when you know what attacking them can do!

WOTC has made a design decision to ratchet up the 'game' aspect of D&D to 11. So expecting players to stop thinking in a gamist fashion and start thinking narrativist is sheer folly, and I can't imagine that's their only game balance mechanism. If I have an ability which can move someone X squares, and there's a tactical advantage to moving my buddy X squares which outweighs the slight damage I'll cause him, I'll do it -- and so will most D&D players, *especially* the new players WOTC hopes to recruit from the wonderful world of MMORPGs, where tactical advantage is all and any loophole is exploited until the game is patched. "Spirit of the thing" doesn't enter into the equation; if there's a way to use something the developers put in as a "fun toy" so as to kill monsters/grief players/break the system, they'll use it. And asking new DMs -- again, the focus of 4e -- to suddenly be expert game designers and house-rule when an ability can and can't be used on a PC is ludicrous.

As a DM, I will have to assume players will have ways to trigger 'bloodied' conditions, healing surges, and all sorts of other conditional powers on each other, and plan encounters accordingly, and hope the rules were written to support this.


----------



## Thyrwyn

Why is this a problem?  I can see two failry reasonable responses:

Group1 - "Attacking your allies is silly.  Next."
Group2 - "You want to give up your turn to damage the fighter so you can move him 1 (or 3 or 5) squares?  OK."

The first is fairly self explanatory and I have no problem with it.  

The second could be the rogue saying "that idiot fighter is out of position again. . . you know, if I stumbled into him, I bet he'd move. . ."; the hp loss (since hp represent more than health) are representative of the loss of focus the fighter suffers as he has to tear his attention away from his enemies.  

No "gamism" required.  Just another narrative tool.  Could be the in-joke of the party, too: "Throg is not the brightest candle in the menorah - no head for tactics - but he's tougher than 3-day old Bulette steaks.  Sly Willy spends half his time getting Throg to stand where he should."

I have no problem with this, either.


----------



## ThirdWizard

I've searched for a YouTube video of Yusuke shooting Kuabara in the back with his spirit gun to fling him at the enemy in Season 1 of Yu Yu Hakusho, but I can't find it for the life of me! Just imagine it in your head with no video representation.


----------



## glass

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sure you are, when you know what attacking them can do!



It can kill them!

Seriously, the rules assume you are constantly looking for opportunities to attack (and defend from) your enemies but not your allies. Without that assumption the whole combat system breaks (in any edition) -one little power is the least of your worries.


glass.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I've searched for a YouTube video of Yusuke shooting Kuabara in the back with his spirit gun to fling him at the enemy in Season 1 of Yu Yu Hakusho, but I can't find it for the life of me! Just imagine it in your head with no video representation.




I know the scene that youre talking about. It's the first time that Yusuke and Kuwabara "defeat" the Toguro Brothers and episode or two before Yusuke gets invited to the Dark Tournament. To me that was always a good example of Aid Another in combat...


----------



## Lizard

glass said:
			
		

> It can kill them!




Depends on how much damage you do, their hit points, etc...



> Seriously, the rules assume you are constantly looking for opportunities to attack (and defend from) your enemies but not your allies. Without that assumption the whole combat system breaks (in any edition) -one little power is the least of your worries.
> 
> 
> glass.




Disagree. I've never seen a rule where AC, etc, changes because you say "I'm going to attack the fighter, not the orc." Maybe this is part of a complex plot. Maybe you're just pissed at the fighter. Maybe you're mind controlled. Maybe you need to burn the green slime off the fighter's arm with a torch, and he's fighting an orc, and the DM rules you need to make a 'to hit' roll in order to do so, since the fighter can't stop and just let you burn him in combat.

Having powers which magically do/do not affect certain targets based on whether, from round-to-round, they are 'allies' or 'enemies' is a serious immersion breaker, unless the powers have some sort of mystical 'intelligence' (which some might -- though I've always interpreted things like 'heals all allies inside a 30' burst' to be the result of the character consciously choosing whom to heal, and he could heal an 'enemy' if he wanted to...)

You can use 'beneficial' powers on foes. You can use harmful powers on allies. The scope of powers in 4e, and the new tactical depth to the game (this is a *good* *thing*, mind you!) means the opportunity to use a power in a "non standard" way will come up more often, and DMs, players, and game designers all need to be prepared for it.

I might well do freelancing for 4e someday -- so I need to start thinking, now, about "What happens if this cool power I though of is used by one ally on another? If this ability is triggered by X, can a PC cause it to trigger on another PC, and, if so, does that break or unbalance it?"


----------



## heretic888

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Um, yes, yes I would.  Why because the added arithmetic isn't challenging enough to slow my game down.  So all I get out of the per encounter mechanic was a whole fist full of lose.
> 
> I was at first excited about the per encounter and per day mechanic.  I envisioned cool powers that would almost self justify there being only used once per encounter or once per day.  Instead I get twist a knife in the wound!!!!  Um something that lame and easy to do should never be per encounter.
> 
> Being that there lame mundane maneuvers, yeah I'd rather have more "complicated".
> 
> Ease of use doesn't make lame any better than lame.




Hi Ahglock,

If you want, I'm sure someone here can rewrite the flavor text for Torturous Strike and Positioning Strike so they're more "cool" and "un-lame" for you.  I already rewrote Torturous Strike as a dueling swiftblade technique called Penetrating Strike in an earlier post, but I'm not very good at that sort of stuff.

I mean, because its obvious you're just having issues with the fluff. Instantly dealing double damage with a single attack (plus an ability score bonus if you take the right "talent") or doing normal damage and slinging your target around (which can be up to 4 squares away if you take the right "talent") are both pretty impressive at 1st level. They're certainly the equal of most (if not all) 1st level encounter powers from, say, _Tome of Battle_.

And, you still never addressed my other query. What stops your players from using their "strongest" or "best" powers as often as they can every single fight?? They have no incentive not to, especially if they roleplay their best power as their "favorite" or "signature" attack. I mean, other than DM fiat, that is.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Greg K said:
			
		

> Then again, I prefer how maneuvers work in BOIM.




Hi Greg K,

I don't. 

Not only are the maneuvers in _Book of Iron Might_ spectacularly uninspiring, they:
 Are mostly ineffective against characters of equal or greater combat ability as your character, meaning they are typically unused (or, if used, ineffectual) against any BBEG with an attack bonus or AC even vaguely similar to your own. They are great for wiping up hopelessly outclassed mooks or completely unprepared arcane casters, though, I guess. *shrug*

 Encourage exactly the same kind of repetitive play and tactical monotony these powers were designed "fix". When a given maneuver actually does work, a melee character will simply use his "strongest" or "best" one over and over and over again. And, since there isn't any kind of limitation on how frequently the maneuver can be used as there is in _Tome of Battle_, what this practically means is they get used in *no* rounds against melee BBEGs and get used *every* round against martially underclassed mooks or casters.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> and, unlike, per encounter, not once do I have the designers telling  me that I can only use the maneuver once per encounter (or have to spend an action point for another use if this is what they are going to do). Instead, I have them telling me that I need to consider the consequences of using such actions and determine when it is most approriate to use them or create such situations when it is best to do so.




Correction:

Instead, you have a system that a) needlessly complicates the game by increasing the amount of arithmetic players are required to keep track of, and b) encourages the tactical monotony of 3E even more.

But, different strokes for different folks. I guess.

Laterz.


----------



## philippe willaume

Rechan said:
			
		

> What's the pun of Artful Dodger?
> 
> I had no clue so many people hated the word 'shuriken'.




I do not know if has been answered already 
It is the cockney rhyming slang for todger (aka the male reproductive organ)

Usage
i should have gone near that jack (as in jack and Danny), me artful looks like a blind cobbler's thumb.

Basically you getting two words that rhyme with word you want to replace. Drop the rhyming and use  the other word instead
Ie 
dog and bone= telephone. So you say  "I am on the dog"
butcher's hook= a look ; give that a buchter.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

philippe willaume said:
			
		

> I do not know if has been answered already
> It is the cockney rhyming slang for todger (aka the male reproductive organ)
> 
> Usage
> i should have gone near that jack (as in jack and Danny), me artful looks like a blind cobbler's thumb.
> 
> Basically you getting two words that rhyme with word you want to replace. Drop the rhyming and use  the other word instead
> Ie
> dog and bone= telephone. So you say  "I am on the dog"
> butcher's hook= a look ; give that a buchter.



Okay. I see as a non-native speaker I really have no chance of getting this. No surprise that Doctor Who proved very difficult to understand too me, despite years of experience with American TV-shows and movies!


----------



## Lenaianel

Just Another User said:
			
		

> As you certainly know there are situations where being able to move an extra 4 squares (sigh) is worth a little damage.
> 
> But for those that have no problem groking the artful dodger variant of positioning strike, could someone being so kind to describe me how it works against:
> 
> a stone golem
> 
> a ozee
> 
> a 30 feet long snake
> 
> an incorporeal creature
> 
> a gelatinous cube
> 
> or a number of other creatures that I could imagine, specifically creatures mindless, which can't reasonably be taunted or even bluffed, or that don't technically feel pain, or creatures which can't be phisically "shoved" or that deal some kind of damage or negative effect on touch or, well, you get it (I hope.)
> Halfling vs ogre, I can make it work, even if it hurts, the problem is that in D&D you fight weirdest things than ogres and using some of the powers against some of the mosnters (crimson edge against a mummy?) would be excedingly weird, and there are onyl three way I can see to making then works
> 
> a) surgically remove my SoD
> 
> b) something like nth pages of exceptions for every power/monster ("you can't use power X against monster A, B, C" or "monster A is immune to powers x, y, z"
> 
> c) empowerer the rule 0 to pre-3e  levels, something that I could even like but I can't see the 4e designers do it.





What if those monters have better will def  than average for monster of their level ?


----------



## Imban

Lenaianel said:
			
		

> What if those monters have better will def  than average for monster of their level ?




Unless the difference is massive, uh... nothing? And even if it is, you still have the glaring possibility that it could happen, even if it doesn't see play because it's a poor tactical choice.

If the system doesn't provide for it out of the box, one of my first houserules is going to be going back in and rewriting things so that monsters are appropriately immune to powers that could never work on them.


----------



## Spatula

Leading mindless (or dim-witted) opponents into poor tactical positions by presenting yourself as a tasy target *never* happens in movies, books, or tv shows.  No one could possibly imagine such a thing...

...right?


----------



## Imban

Spatula said:
			
		

> Leading mindless (or dim-witted) opponents into poor tactical positions by presenting yourself as a tasy target *never* happens in movies, books, or tv shows.  No one could possibly imagine such a thing...
> 
> ...right?




Honestly, I only have a problem with Positioning Strike if it's used to move monsters further than their own maximum movement would allow. You can bluff a Roper, but you can't bluff a Roper into moving 30'. My comment was more directed towards things like Crimson Edge - bleeding damage is bleeding damage, and I reserve the right to deny that against enemies which can't bleed. (The double damage/normal damage on a miss parts would stick, though.)


----------



## Thyrwyn

> b) something like nth pages of exceptions for every power/monster ("you can't use power X against monster A, B, C" or "monster A is immune to powers x, y, z"



You don't need anything that cumbersome: since  "Slide" is a defined term, all you need is "Gelatinous Cubes are immune to Slide effects" or "Gelatinous Cubes gain +10 to resist Slide effects" .


----------



## Just Another User

Lenaianel said:
			
		

> What if those monters have better will def  than average for monster of their level ?




How I said the difficulty I have is specifically with the artful dodger variant, making a feint and moving a monster 5 feet is acceptable, in general, making a feint and move it 20+ feet... it is not (in general).


----------



## Spatula

Imban said:
			
		

> Honestly, I only have a problem with Positioning Strike if it's used to move monsters further than their own maximum movement would allow. You can bluff a Roper, but you can't bluff a Roper into moving 30'. My comment was more directed towards things like Crimson Edge - bleeding damage is bleeding damage, and I reserve the right to deny that against enemies which can't bleed. (The double damage/normal damage on a miss parts would stick, though.)



My guess is that would be a property of the monster, rather than encumbering the power description with exceptions.  Assuming that bleeding damage is something that's common enough for monsters to be immune to it.


----------



## Imban

As I said, I'm not losing sleep over it until I get the actual books. I'll continue to assume 4e's rules aren't actually *really* stupid until proven otherwise.


----------



## Greg K

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hi Greg K,
> they:
> Are mostly ineffective against characters of equal or greater combat ability as your character, meaning they are typically unused (or, if used, ineffectual) against any BBEG with an attack bonus or AC even vaguely similar to your own.






Hey heretic, 
Are you coming over from the WOTC boards?

Anyway, I don't see  a problem. In my opinion, it should be riskier and more difficult to pull off maneuvers against those that are your equal or greater in combat ability. Against such opponent's, you should be doing so only out of desperation, to try an catch them off guard (think of a MMA fighter opening the round with a Muay Thai flying knee strike. It rarely works, but when it does it rocks the opponent or takes them out of the fight), or if you can get the opponent in an unfavorable position that you can take advantage.  Therefore, you need to be wise when you use a big maneuver.

a) set up the attack with a bluff or some maneuver. It might be difficult, but use action points to help you out.
b) wait until creature does something that gives them an AC penalty 
c) if there is a condition track with penalties, wait until the creature is suffering penalties
d) use another maneuver that can inflict a condition and take advantage of it
e) have someone else can inflict a condition, take advantage

and spend action points to increase you chance of success with the attack



> They are great for wiping up hopelessly outclassed mooks or completely unprepared arcane casters, though, I guess. *shrug*




Again makes sense to me.  When you outclass your opponents, you can take advantage of their relative or complete lack of skill.  



> And, since there isn't any kind of limitation on how frequently the maneuver can be used as there is in _Tome of Battle_, what this practically means is they get used in *no* rounds against melee BBEGs and get used *every* round against martially underclassed mooks or casters.




I think whether or not a maneuver gets used it depends on the encounter.  If the character is in a circumstance against a tough opponent and exchanging the whittling down of hps are unfavorable (e.g.,  a  character getting low on hit points and/or having comrades falling in combat) may try a more desperate maneuver and spend action points to improve the attack.  Otherwise, they are going to need to rely on teamwork to make pulling off maneuvers practical.





> Correction:
> 
> Instead, you have a system that a) needlessly complicates the game by increasing the amount of arithmetic players are required to keep track of, and b) encourages the tactical monotony of 3E even more.
> 
> But, different strokes for different folks. I guess.




Definitely different strokes. I don't see it or the math as needlessly complicated. As for b) I see the need for players to used maneuvers when appropriate circumstances present themselves or the need for players to use teamwork and/or creativity to create appropriate circumstances to try a maneuver.


----------



## shilsen

philippe willaume said:
			
		

> I do not know if has been answered already
> It is the cockney rhyming slang for todger (aka the male reproductive organ)
> 
> Usage
> i should have gone near that jack (as in jack and Danny), me artful looks like a blind cobbler's thumb.
> 
> Basically you getting two words that rhyme with word you want to replace. Drop the rhyming and use  the other word instead
> Ie
> dog and bone= telephone. So you say  "I am on the dog"
> butcher's hook= a look ; give that a buchter.



 I think it's more likely just a reference to the character in Dickens' _Oliver Twist_. His name is admittedly working off the same pun, but since he essentially added that phrase to the lexicon even for those who don't know cockney rhyming slang, and it means someone who's good at, well, dodging artfully.


----------



## heretic888

Greg K said:
			
		

> Hey heretic,
> Are you coming over from the WOTC boards?




Hi Greg,

Yep.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Anyway, I don't see  a problem. In my opinion, it should be riskier and more difficult to pull off maneuvers against those that are your equal or greater in combat ability.




If an opponent has equal or greater combat ability to you (attack bonus, AC, hit points, etc) , then using encounter or daily powers against him is *also* "riskier" and "more difficult to pull off". As such, this particular point can claim no greater sense of verisimilitude for BoIM than it can for 4E.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Against such opponent's, you should be doing so only out of desperation, to try an catch them off guard (think of a MMA fighter opening the round with a Muay Thai flying knee strike. It rarely works, but when it does it rocks the opponent or takes them out of the fight), or if you can get the opponent in an unfavorable position that you can take advantage.  Therefore, you need to be wise when you use a big maneuver.




No offense, but I can narrate all that without implementing a complicated sub-system that encourages system mastery reward and tactical monotony.

Seriously, these are exactly the kind of narrative devices I was using to explain how encounter and daily martial powers might "work" in my last two or three posts. The only difference is I believe it *takes away* from the fun and spontaneity of the game to transform all these narrations into a set of numbers, rules, and unnecessary crunch.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> a) set up the attack with a bluff or some maneuver. It might be difficult, but use action points to help you out.
> b) wait until creature does something that gives them an AC penalty
> c) if there is a condition track with penalties, wait until the creature is suffering penalties
> d) use another maneuver that can inflict a condition and take advantage of it
> e) have someone else can inflict a condition, take advantage
> 
> and spend action points to increase you chance of success with the attack




Honestly, it sounds to me that what you are describing means a player has to invoke system mastery reward just to make use of these mechanics. If you don't know the combat system inside and out, you basically can't use these maneuvers against thematically relevant enemies (i.e., other badass martial dudes).

Such a design is extremely unfriendly to beginners and casual players.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Again makes sense to me.  When you outclass your opponents, you can take advantage of their relative or complete lack of skill.




You can do that with encounter and daily powers, too, and you don't need complicated mechanics and tactical monotony to do it, either.  



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> I think whether or not a maneuver gets used it depends on the encounter.  If the character is in a circumstance against a tough opponent and exchanging the whittling down of hps are unfavorable (e.g.,  a  character getting low on hit points and/or having comrades falling in combat) may try a more desperate maneuver and spend action points to improve the attack.




Once again, encounter and daily powers can accomplish this just as well, but don't have the negatives that this system has to overcome to use.

Also, while it is true that there may be certain opponents that just this particular maneuver will totally kick ass against, in general characters will still be firing off their strongest moves as often as they possibly can. There is still monotony, it just isn't absolute.  



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Otherwise, they are going to need to rely on teamwork to make pulling off maneuvers practical.




More system mastery reward. Not only do I have to know the combat system inside and out, but everyone in my party does, too. Ewwwww.

Also, I think fans of martial power source characters might be a little annoyed that they have to rely on others to use any of their better abilities, whereas the arcane and divine guys need not do anything other than point and shoot.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Definitely different strokes. I don't see it or the math as needlessly complicated. As for b) I see the need for players to used maneuvers when appropriate circumstances present themselves or the need for players to use teamwork and/or creativity to create appropriate circumstances to try a maneuver.




Okay, look. We basically have two competing martial systems here.

On the one hand, we have the 4E power model which provides characters with a set of once-per-encounter and once-per-day abilities whose requirements and conditions to use can be narrated by players as they see fit, allowing for alternative interpretations and unique narratives that no one here has taken into account yet. Expenditure of action points and/or feats *may* allow characters in this system to use these abilities more often, if needed.

On the other hand, we have the BoIM maneuver model which provides a set of abilities with very specific mechanical conditions that dictates when they can and cannot be used (and therefore rules out unique narrative explanations for such abilities). Unfortunate features of this model include system mastery reward, the slowing down and complicating of combat by imposing additional arithmetic, encouraging tactical monotony, restricting narrative possibilities, and general-use inefficacy of the abilities against other martial characters.

Now, if *I* were designing a new edition of D&D, why would I *ever* choose the latter model over the former model?? I mean, seriously??

Laterz.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Khaim said:
			
		

> This is a serious issue, I think. It came up in Bo9S, even, with the Crusader's 1st-level(!) stance that let him heal 2hp any time he hit someone. So can I punch teammate A to heal teammate B? Can I use my fists and do subdual damage, which barely counts? Can I intentionally do minimal damage (1)?
> 
> And oh, let's not even get near that quagmire that is the mind-control debate...




Didn't that have exactly the same restriction as every other healing strike attack which prevented such sillyness?


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> WOTC has made a design decision to ratchet up the 'game' aspect of D&D to 11.




To be precise, WotC has made a design decision to wind back some of the "take the DM out of the equation" philosophy that pervaded 3E. You can see this in things like per-encounter abilities, or leaving out details for monster stats that are unlikely to be used. You can just as easily say that the DM is expected to adjudicate heal-on-damage in a way that is in accordance with storytelling sensitivities, as opposed to letting players run the whole show.



> So expecting players to stop thinking in a gamist fashion and start thinking narrativist is sheer folly, and I can't imagine that's their only game balance mechanism. If I have an ability which can move someone X squares, and there's a tactical advantage to moving my buddy X squares which outweighs the slight damage I'll cause him, I'll do it -- and so will most D&D players, *especially* the new players WOTC hopes to recruit from the wonderful world of MMORPGs, where tactical advantage is all and any loophole is exploited until the game is patched.




Said players will also be used to arbitrary limits built into the game, so as to give the AI an even break. If all you want is gamism, a rule "no self-nuking is allowed" with no s*mul*tionist justification behind it works perfectly.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> Said players will also be used to arbitrary limits built into the game, so as to give the AI an even break. If all you want is gamism, a rule "no self-nuking is allowed" with no s*mul*tionist justification behind it works perfectly.




"Cool! I'm not going to blow a feat on GWA, then, since my friends are immune to my area spells!"

"Uh...no, they're not."

"But you just said I can't hurt them."

"You can't hurt them when you WANT to hurt them. You CAN hurt them when you DON'T want to hurt them. If you don't like it, you're one of those 'simulationists'. You're not a 'simulationist', are you? ARE YOU? 'Cuz we don't allow those types round this here table..."


----------



## Lizard

shilsen said:
			
		

> I think it's more likely just a reference to the character in Dickens' _Oliver Twist_. His name is admittedly working off the same pun, but since he essentially added that phrase to the lexicon even for those who don't know cockney rhyming slang, and it means someone who's good at, well, dodging artfully.




Yeah, I know from Dickens, but I never knew about the Cockney slang before.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> "You can't hurt them when you WANT to hurt them. You CAN hurt them when you DON'T want to hurt them. If you don't like it, you're one of those 'simulationists'. You're not a 'simulationist', are you? ARE YOU? 'Cuz we don't allow those types round this here table..."




See? You're getting it already.


----------



## Khaim

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Didn't that have exactly the same restriction as every other healing strike attack which prevented such sillyness?




Nope. Although I would like to point out how stupid and nonsensical that "restriction" was. Sadly, we'll probably see a similar wording on the cleric's healing strikes and such.


----------



## Doug McCrae

In 3e you could kill anything so long as you had your bag of rats with you. And we're being told that was simulationist.

See also: Deadly keetoms, octogenarians with 20/20 vision and wonky gravity.

This planet better start falling into the sun right now! If it doesn't my suspension of disbelief will be ruined. Ruined!


----------



## shilsen

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This planet better start falling into the sun right now! If it doesn't my suspension of disbelief will be ruined. Ruined!






You know, I think that's one of the reasons why my sense of disbelief seems to be much more robust than many other posters'. If I can deal with the idea that I live on a rock which flies around a giant flaming ball, both of which are hanging in space, I can deal with a whole lot of the stuff in D&D.


----------



## Ahglock

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hi Ahglock,
> 
> If you want, I'm sure someone here can rewrite the flavor text for Torturous Strike and Positioning Strike so they're more "cool" and "un-lame" for you.  I already rewrote Torturous Strike as a dueling swiftblade technique called Penetrating Strike in an earlier post, but I'm not very good at that sort of stuff.
> 
> I mean, because its obvious you're just having issues with the fluff. Instantly dealing double damage with a single attack (plus an ability score bonus if you take the right "talent") or doing normal damage and slinging your target around (which can be up to 4 squares away if you take the right "talent") are both pretty impressive at 1st level. They're certainly the equal of most (if not all) 1st level encounter powers from, say, _Tome of Battle_.
> 
> And, you still never addressed my other query. What stops your players from using their "strongest" or "best" powers as often as they can every single fight?? They have no incentive not to, especially if they roleplay their best power as their "favorite" or "signature" attack. I mean, other than DM fiat, that is.
> 
> Laterz.




    Yeah, I'm mainly having issues with the fluff.  If want to have a per encounter system that is great I think it makes balancing different campaign styles easier.  You don't have to assume 4 encounters per day.  If the fluff is making it a mundane move, it should be at will.

  Well what stops my players form using the same move over and over again would either add penalties for lots of moves because people rarely fall for the same move multiple times in a row, or more importantly the designers not making worse moves.  Its a novel idea but it they I don't know balance the maneuvers instead of using the best you will use the best for that situation, because there is no best.

   And if its balanced what is it to you if someone uses the same move over and over again?  Maybe he likes  Super Fly Ninja Stomp.


----------



## glass

Lizard said:
			
		

> Depends on how much damage you do, their hit points, etc...



No it doesn't. We are talking IC here, there are no such thing as 'hit points', just honking great buts of steel swung at their squishy bits -and those can kill.


glass.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Ahglock said:
			
		

> And if its balanced what is it to you if someone uses the same move over and over again?  Maybe he likes  Super Fly Ninja Stomp.



In a special case, it might be okay. Generally, it leads to boring combats. And as long as D&D retains its combat focus, you better keep combat interesting. And it sucks if you have to choose between an effective choice and an interesting one. 
(Like, say, playing a Fighter with lots of feats regarding combat maneuvers like trip/disarm, and simply playing one with the Weapon Focus tree. My personal 3.x pet peeve.  )


----------

