# The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

OK,
Having had a chance to now read through the books and look at people's reviews and thoughts, I figured I'd include my own.

*The Good*
=========

*Team tactics* -- The game is fairly unique as an RPG that tactics of the _group_ matter so much.  And unlike the vast majority of board games, it really is a group working together. 
*Balance* -- This was clearly something they wanted to hit, and at first blush they seem to have done quite well.  Having nearly identical mechanical options for the various classes and races makes things easier to balance, and it seems they largely did a good job.  This one will have to wait for a while.
*Hit points/healing surges* -- I really really like this.  I think it not only deals with the mechanical issues of not wanted to always need a cleric, it also does a reasonably good job with "long-term" damage vs short term damage.  Much better, IMO, then for example, Champions/HERO with it's Body/Stun scheme.  
*Racial flavor* -- I think the races are more mechanical interesting than in any other edition.  The racial feats help a lot here.  Nice idea.
*Layout/Format* -- In my brief time with the books, I found things really easy to find and well organized.  Something not even vaguely true with older versions.
*Simplification* -- The cases of "stupid complex" rules, like grapple, are gone.  Really needed.

*The Bad*
==========

*Lack of Mechanical Diversity* -- One thing I liked about D&D was the ability to change characters and really change mechanical systems.  If I got tired of the huge options associated with casters I could go with a fighter type (which I mostly have in the last couple of years).  Now you can have any color you want as long as it's black.  Oh, and the Warlock and Ranger look nearly the same mechanically.  I'm pretty sure the bow ranger and warlock could have been the same class with a different special effect, and the two-weapon ranger could have been it's own class.

*Immersive problems * -- Does my fighter *know* he can't attack everyone adjacent to him because he did that 2 hours ago?  If so, why does he think that?  If not, why isn't he trying to set it up?  Same thing with the warlord, rogue, and ranger.  Also, I, and those I game with, find changing back and forth from an acting game to a board game is difficult.  3e was pretty bad at this (much worse than 2e or nearly any other game).  4e seems a lot worse.  

*Lack of options* -- The advantage of playing a game with a DM is that the DM can act as an arbitrator of the world.  The move from 2e to 3e to 4e seems to be trying to limit the need for the DM to arbitrate.  Basically shooting for a CRPG.  With no guidance on things like disarming or trying to pin someone, the DM's default ruling would almost have to be "you can't do that".  

*Lack of options Part II* -- The limited number of power options per level is a bit sad.  The blandness of most of the feats are also a bit sad (they got their stuff taken by powers).  Wizards and other casters are quite limited compared to previous editions.  

*The Ugly*
=========

There are some odd rule interactions which I suspect were not entirely indented.  There is a fighter ability that lets him do [W] damage to everyone who ends their turn next to him.  That's gonna wipe out minions in mass quantity, no matter their defenses. 
The multi-classing rules look pretty poor.  Each of the multi-classing feats are strictly better than another feat (skill training).  The next 3 feats look fairly poor on the whole, but I'm not sure.  And the Paragon replacement option just looks weak.  But there may well be some powerful combinations out there.  Finally, the inability to really get class abilities via multi-classing is understandable but annoying.  
The magic armor rules with the "masterwork armor" look pretty odd/incomplete.  I'd like some examples of how it works.
The mount rules, where a certain level is needed to "fully" use them, look odd at best.  The powers are fairly minor and the write-up in the DMG, PHB, and MM are all slightly different. 
Rituals.  I like them, but trying to balance them via gold seems like a poor plan.  
Long term problems don't really exist.  Poison lasts on the average 12 seconds.  So does everything else.  Even without magic, you can't get hurt so bad that you aren't fine after an 8 hour rest.  Weird, and actually plot-limiting.


----------



## Andur (May 30, 2008)

Disarming and pinning are both covered, disarming is specificaly stated in certain powers, pinning as in =helpless no longer exists outside of KO'ing them.

The fighter power is fine, it is suppose to wipe out a bunch of minions...

Immersion, it is a fantasy game, there are tons of examples from every edition that are simple solved by a suspension of disbelief...

I agree lack of options per level are a little lacking and overall it seems like everything has been pigeonholed into a combination of races and builds  (the dwarven two hander will be different from the eladrion two hander build, the human two hander build will either mix and match or lean one way or the other, and there are very few powers that are useful to more than one build of any class).  Course I guess it gives more room for future splat books...


----------



## Byronic (May 30, 2008)

I think that immersion is an important part of RPG's. For example if I look at 3ed Vampire the Masquerade, if I play that the rules make it *feel* as if I'm playing a Vampire.

Then again Daily powers for fighters don't break immersion that much. The circumstances have to be exactly right for that power to work, the enemies have to be placed so, the ground will be just so and God it's tiring. If I did that move one more time I don't know if I'd be able to fight as well afterwards, best not risk it.


----------



## JohnBiles (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> *Lack of Mechanical Diversity* -- One thing I liked about D&D was the ability to change characters and really change mechanical systems.  If I got tired of the huge options associated with casters I could go with a fighter type (which I mostly have in the last couple of years).  Now you can have any color you want as long as it's black.  Oh, and the Warlock and Ranger look nearly the same mechanically.  I'm pretty sure the bow ranger and warlock could have been the same class with a different special effect, and the two-weapon ranger could have been it's own class.




I have the opposite reaction; I don't want a situtation where some classes had huge amounts of options and others didn't.  Wizards and other casters could simply do vastly more things than non-casters and required increasing amounts of effort to track it all.  

That being said, it would be nice if certain fairly basic concepts weren't mostly foreclosed by the current system.  (You can't easily make a heavily armored guy who is very effective with a bow, for example)



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> *Immersive problems * -- Does my fighter *know* he can't attack everyone adjacent to him because he did that 2 hours ago?  If so, why does he think that?  If not, why isn't he trying to set it up?  Same thing with the warlord, rogue, and ranger.  Also, I, and those I game with, find changing back and forth from an acting game to a board game is difficult.  3e was pretty bad at this (much worse than 2e or nearly any other game).  4e seems a lot worse.




Because the really fancy stuff can't easily be done; you have to have the right conditions for it, and the time your character is using his encounter power is the time the conditions were right for it (if he's martial) or when you still had the mystic energy to pull it off (for divine and arcane casters).

It's not any less rational than spell memorization was, IMO.




			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> *Lack of options* -- The advantage of playing a game with a DM is that the DM can act as an arbitrator of the world.  The move from 2e to 3e to 4e seems to be trying to limit the need for the DM to arbitrate.  Basically shooting for a CRPG.  With no guidance on things like disarming or trying to pin someone, the DM's default ruling would almost have to be "you can't do that".




No, not at all.  The defense system and the skill challenge system makes it EASIER for the DM to improvise an answer for situations like where one of the PCs wants to jump onto the back of the fire beetle and ride around on it using it as a mobile sniping platform.

This is simply the flipside of what you identified as a strength:  simplification.

4E puts much more emphasis on the DM deciding this kind of thing and giving him the tools to do so.




			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> *Lack of options Part II* -- The limited number of power options per level is a bit sad.  The blandness of most of the feats are also a bit sad (they got their stuff taken by powers).  Wizards and other casters are quite limited compared to previous editions.
> [/list]




Wizards were pretty deliberately limited in order to bring them and non-casters onto the same usefulness level.





			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> [*]There are some odd rule interactions which I suspect were not entirely indented.  There is a fighter ability that lets him do [W] damage to everyone who ends their turn next to him.  That's gonna wipe out minions in mass quantity, no matter their defenses.




That's probably intended, I expect.  



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> [*]The multi-classing rules look pretty poor.  Each of the multi-classing feats are strictly better than another feat (skill training).  The next 3 feats look fairly poor on the whole, but I'm not sure.  And the Paragon replacement option just looks weak.  But there may well be some powerful combinations out there.  Finally, the inability to really get class abilities via multi-classing is understandable but annoying.




Developing a really fair system of multi-classing is, I think, just about impossible.  But I agree there's room for work here, though I'll have to see how it works in practice.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> [*]Rituals.  I like them, but trying to balance them via gold seems like a poor plan.




It looks pretty good to me; gold is one of the big resources and this ensures you can use ritual stuff a fair amount without making it unlimited.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> [*]Long term problems don't really exist.  Poison lasts on the average 12 seconds.  So does everything else.  Even without magic, you can't get hurt so bad that you aren't fine after an 8 hour rest.  Weird, and actually plot-limiting.
> [/list]




Gotta agree with you a lot here; you can throw off just about anything very quickly with the new saving throw system.


----------



## Grazzt (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> OK,
> [*]Long term problems don't really exist.  Poison lasts on the average 12 seconds.  So does everything else.  Even without magic, you can't get hurt so bad that you aren't fine after an 8 hour rest.  Weird, and actually plot-limiting.
> [/list]




Agree with ya here. I'm definitely not a huge fan of everything (poison, dazed, immobilized, dominated, etc) being shaken off as easy as it can be. I can see getting rid of the 'save or die' stuff (for the most part), but nerfing the hell outta just about everything else that lasted more than a round seems like they swung too far the other way.


----------



## Wepfmokk (May 30, 2008)

> [*]The magic armor rules with the "masterwork armor" look pretty odd/incomplete.  I'd like some examples of how it works.





It actually looks pretty easy the way i understand it. Example: Cloth

Cloth armor:  Armor Bonus +0
Feyweave:  Armor Bonus +1
Starweave:  Armot Bonus +2


Feyweave and Starweave are masterwork. They only exist as magic items.
Example: "Magic cloth armor +6"  would grant a total of +6 AC
             "Magic Starweave armor +6" would grant a total of +6 AC

There are also differences in weight.


----------



## AllisterH (May 30, 2008)

1. If you were a non-spellcaster (or like ranger had spellcasting as a SIDE option)in previous editions and came upon the 4E version of your class, I seriously think it is "NOT CRICKET" to say that their options are limited.

2. Check the rules on Disease and the effects of Raise Dead as well as the monsters that more of less EAT healing surges. There ARE conditions/creatures that last more than a round and even require extended rests. It simply is much RARER than before (along the lnes of finding a creature with TOTAL immunity to more than 2 effects)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 30, 2008)

JohnBiles said:
			
		

> Gotta agree with you a lot here; you can throw off just about anything very quickly with the new saving throw system.



How do the rules for diseases look like? 

Poisons are rarely long-term stuff in real life, are they?* I mean, most poisons are there to incapacitate the target now, not for a week. That's because they are usually attack or defense mechanism.

Diseases are a different matter. Disease (except for the occasional bio-engineered weapon-grade virus) don't exist to kill.

*) except for when they kill you, off course... if that's still count as real _life_


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> [*]The multi-classing rules look pretty poor.  Each of the multi-classing feats are strictly better than another feat (skill training).  The next 3 feats look fairly poor on the whole, but I'm not sure.  And the Paragon replacement option just looks weak.  But there may well be some powerful combinations out there.  Finally, the inability to really get class abilities via multi-classing is understandable but annoying.




After working with the multiclassing abilities a bit, they're hit or miss. My Human Rogue with Fighter multiclassing works great the whole way through, in part because fighters get Close Burst 1 powers, which fix one of the worst problems when you're a rogue fighting a little off from the party - getting swamped by minions, particularly flanking minions, and the other abilities synergize well (such as the +10 to initiative utility power). The paragon thing is really nice for a rogue/fighter that wants to hit multiple targets with an at-will via cleave. Some other races/classes I haven't been able to get good results from though.

I think paragon multiclassing would benefit from granting an additional at-will from either of his classes at level 16, where the paragon multiclasser gets nothing in comparison to the paragon classes (or granting an additional at-will from the multiclass at level 11 and allowing an at-will swap at level 16). 

Non-human multiclassers particularly look to be getting a bit of a shaft, with only 2 at-wills and one fewer feat, it really bites into a lot of things.


----------



## Andur (May 30, 2008)

Wepfmokk said:
			
		

> It actually looks pretty easy the way i understand it. Example: Cloth
> 
> Cloth armor:  Armor Bonus +0
> Feyweave:  Armor Bonus +1
> ...




Sorry but this is wrong...

Magic Cloth Armour +6 gives a total AC modifier of +6 (+0 AC, +6 Enhancement)
Magic Starweave Armour +6 gives a total AC modifier of +8 (+2 AC, +6 Enhancement)


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 30, 2008)

Wepfmokk said:
			
		

> Example: "Magic cloth armor +6"  would grant a total of +6 AC
> "Magic Starweave armor +6" would grant a total of +6 AC




You forgot to add the bonus from the base starweave armor.

So if regular cloth is +0 and starweave is +1, _+6 magic_ versions would be +6 and +7, respectively.

It seems incomplete at first, but it's actually quite simple.  A specific type of armor provides a specific bonus to AC.  Masterwork versions of armor provide a higher bonus than the regular version (typcailly +1 to +4 better) and must also be magical.

Edit: Andur beat me to it.


----------



## Sitara (May 30, 2008)

> Lack of options -- The advantage of playing a game with a DM is that the DM can act as an arbitrator of the world. The move from 2e to 3e to 4e seems to be trying to limit the need for the DM to arbitrate. Basically shooting for a CRPG. With no guidance on things like disarming or trying to pin someone, the DM's default ruling would almost have to be "you can't do that".




Wait just a minute: Are you saying they didn't include the rules for disarming and trying to pin someone? Are you serious? Was their solution of 'fixing' overly complicated rules removing them entirely? *shock!*

Disarming should be there as a basic combat option, and THEN specific classes should get powers that improve and build upon itmaking them better than disarming. 

If disarming rules are not in I am yoinking the ones in Star Wars SAGA and putting them back in.



> Lack of options Part II -- The limited number of power options per level is a bit sad. The blandness of most of the feats are also a bit sad (they got their stuff taken by powers). Wizards and other casters are quite limited compared to previous editions.




Thats very sad if true. One of the mina goals here was that no two fighters of the same level should play the same.


----------



## Grazzt (May 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> How do the rules for diseases look like?




Diseases work off of a "condition track". Make a check to move up/down the track (get better/get worse)



> Poisons are rarely long-term stuff in real life, are they? I mean, most poisons are there to incapacitate the target now, not for a week. That's because they are usually attack or defense mechanism.




Some are. Depends on the type (snake venom, spider venom, etc.) Some are also fast-acting (take effect almost immediately, like neurotoxic venom from some fixed fang elapids for example) or slow-acting, taking several hours or so to even take effect. Again, that goes to real life which is not D&D (before someone goes and points that out ).


----------



## Derren (May 30, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Thats very sad if true. One of the mina goals here was that no two fighters of the same level should play the same.




Then you will likely be disappointed by 4E. This edition is centred around balance and to make sure everything is balanced and useful it heavily restricts what people can do and how characters can be build. You have two paths for each class and these paths determine how you play. Sure you can deviate from those paths but it doesn't look like this will be a very wise choice.

One class -> One or two playstyles.


----------



## lutecius (May 30, 2008)

I pretty much agree with every point in the OP, even though I hate hobbits  

My major gripe is the per encounter/day and immersion thing. No matter how you try to justify it, it doesn't work for me. Making martial action somewhat "Vancian" completely defeats the point of reducing Vancian spellcasting.

Oh, and I would have added Tieflings, Dragonborn and Halflings in "ugly".
They're minor and easily rectifiable things, but "frowning goat-zilla tieflings" and "tail-less boobed dragons" are really poor aesthetic choices. Taller, braided Halflings with human proportions are just bland.


----------



## Aservan (May 30, 2008)

Wepfmokk said:
			
		

> Feyweave and Starweave are masterwork. They only exist as magic items.
> Example: "Magic cloth armor +6"  would grant a total of +6 AC
> "Magic Starweave armor +6" would grant a total of +6 AC




?!  I think you made a typo or a math error or something here.
Regular Cloth +6 has an AC of +6 (0 for cloth +6 for magic)
Starweave has an AC of +8 (2 for the starweave and +6 for the minimum enchantment)

The point of the masterwork materials is that they help your AC keep up with the monsters' ACs at higher levels.  For those of you hoping that equipment would not matter as much you are out of luck.  Equipment creep has been minimized in that you don't need as many items but the big three are seemingly even more important.


----------



## Sitara (May 30, 2008)

@Darren: But the said they were going to fix the whole 'fighters look alike in 3e" problem. I know there are sourcebooks down the line (i.e. martial power, etc) but still I shouldn't feel I HAVE to buy a sourcebook due to lack of options in the rules.


----------



## el-remmen (May 30, 2008)

JohnBiles said:
			
		

> It's not any less rational than spell memorization was, IMO.





Except of course, that all rule systems that emulate spell-casting are equally rational/irrational as they are modelling something that does not exist in real life at all.

Convenient/Inconvenient, elegant/inelegant, powerful/less powerful, all of these things apply to spellcasting "Vancian" or otherwise, but rational/irrational do not.

On the other hand, even if the fancy sword trick is not optimal or even self-destructive to attempt in a given situation - it should still be available to the character with whatever consequences follow from it.


----------



## Knight Otu (May 30, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Thats very sad if true. One of the mina goals here was that no two fighters of the same level should play the same.



As I understand it, there are about 4 at-wills, 4 encounters, and 4 dailies to choose from at 1st level for each class. Choosing 2 at-wills and 1 of the others each, that should work out to 96 different power combinations, right? Less for the warlock, who gets some pre-chosen, or the human, who gets an additional at-will. The big problem becomes that the powers must be distinct enough, then. If they aren't, then even fighters with different powers will play the same.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

JohnBiles said:
			
		

> That's probably intended, I expect.



With a level 5 daily, you can auto-kill a lot of minions no matter how powerful.  The most powerful in the MM is a Lich Vestige (Level 26 Minion XP 2,250).  That's more than the EXPs for defeating an 18th level "normal" baddy.  

That's mighty powerful for a 5th level ability that lasts the whole encounter.  

Just saying.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> I pretty much agree with every point in the OP, even though I hate hobbits




Hey :-(


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> That's mighty powerful for a 5th level ability that lasts the whole encounter.
> 
> Just saying.



You just used a daily to kill minions.

Just sayin'.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> On the other hand, even if the fancy sword trick is not optimal or even self-destructive to attempt in a given situation - it should still be available to the character with whatever consequences follow from it.




He can always try it. He may not always succeed. The probability of success is arbitrated by factors that happen to include whether he's done it before.


----------



## Lacyon (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> With a level 5 daily, you can auto-kill a lot of minions no matter how powerful.  The most powerful in the MM is a Lich Vestige (Level 26 Minion XP 2,250).  That's more than the EXPs for defeating an 18th level "normal" baddy.
> 
> That's mighty powerful for a 5th level ability that lasts the whole encounter.
> 
> Just saying.




To the extent that this is a problem, the solution is very simple.


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2008)

What powers grant disarm, exactly?

As for immersion, that's not a problem for me. I see Encounters/Dailies as, well, matters of dramatic presentation. Why can't the fighter use a Daily in every fight? Because he's all ready done his big spot-light thing for the day. The same reason why even though Bond can dive off a cliff and glide down on a car hood once doesn't mean that he's going to be doing it every ten minutes. 

"Speed of Plot" and all that jazz.

I mean, while we're on the topic of immersion, why do the wizards that kill orcs get better access to higher magic faster than wizards that sit in a tower all day studying magic?


----------



## Destil (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> With a level 5 daily, you can auto-kill a lot of minions no matter how powerful.  The most powerful in the MM is a Lich Vestige (Level 26 Minion XP 2,250).  That's more than the EXPs for defeating an 18th level "normal" baddy.
> 
> That's mighty powerful for a 5th level ability that lasts the whole encounter.
> 
> Just saying.



Level 26 minions don't exist if the party is level 6, though...


----------



## el-remmen (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> He can always try it. He may not always succeed. The probability of success is arbitrated by factors that happen to include whether he's done it before.




I hear that, it just doesn't work for me.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> With a level 5 daily, you can auto-kill a lot of minions no matter how powerful.  The most powerful in the MM is a Lich Vestige (Level 26 Minion XP 2,250).  That's more than the EXPs for defeating an 18th level "normal" baddy.
> 
> That's mighty powerful for a 5th level ability that lasts the whole encounter.
> 
> Just saying.




Well, if the DM decides to through 26th level minions against a 5th or 6th level party then he's playing an odd game and deserves the weirdness that results from it, frankly.


----------



## AllisterH (May 30, 2008)

You pretty much can ignore the build options as weirdly, I would say 95% of the powers for a class don't actually refer to said build.

re: THe fighter actually has more options as specific exploits depend on weapons.

re: Options
Keep in mind that many of the options arent as "limited" as before. For example, Sleep like many powers SCALES as you level so even at level 11, it is a good choice.

Similarly, a feat like Toughness and Weapon Focus are much more worthwhile options at mid-high levels. Would you take 3.x Toughness at any level above 5? Similarly, in 3.x, the bonus provided by Weapon Focus starts to be swallowed up/disappear as you hit mid level due to math behind attack bonus and monster AC.

re: Encounter/Daily powers
There is an easy way to change Encounter and Daily powers into non-discrete scenarios and I'm pretty sure Mearls et al thought of it.

Simply put a penalty for every use of encounter (say -2)/Daily (say -5) past a certain point (a.k.a psionics) in the time frame mentioned. Main reason against it is that you force players to have to keep subtracting more modifiers for every round.

The encounter/daily system is MUCH cleaner in use.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 30, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I hear that, it just doesn't work for me.




I agree. Saying "you can try it" when there is 0% chance that it will work is no answer.


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You just used a daily to kill minions.
> 
> Just sayin'.




And gained how much XP for his level that is?

Just sayin'.


----------



## drjones (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> [*]The multi-classing rules look pretty poor.  Each of the multi-classing feats are strictly better than another feat (skill training).



Only if:
a. You want the skill you can get MCing, not all skills are available that way.
b. You never want to MC for a 'real' reason.

The MC feats are probably a better value than many of the normal feats but they are still limited enough to not have a big impact on gameplay unless you take the power feats as well.  I don't see a big problem here.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I agree. Saying "you can try it" when there is 0% chance that it will work is no answer.



And moreso, does the _character_ know he can't pull it off?  He's willing to fight a large minion fight (where his daily will clean up) but only once a day?  The only answer I see that works is "yes" because that's how the tactical system works (you don't work to set up a power you can't use).  So now there needs be a reason (IMO).  

Icky.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Only if:
> a. You want the skill you can get MCing, not all skills are available that way.



Really? It looks like all or nearly all to me.




> The MC feats are probably a better value than many of the normal feats but they are still limited enough to not have a big impact on gameplay unless you take the power feats as well.  I don't see a big problem here.



Not a big problem with the feat.  Just the whole thing is much less elegant/flexible than 3e.


----------



## bganon (May 30, 2008)

JohnBiles said:
			
		

> That being said, it would be nice if certain fairly basic concepts weren't mostly foreclosed by the current system.  (You can't easily make a heavily armored guy who is very effective with a bow, for example)




I think it's partly a question of having to really think differently about what you really want to do, and why.  Why would someone effective with a bow *want* to wear heavy armor?

If what you really want is a tank that's good with a bow, then that sounds like a fighter with ranger multiclass feats.  Having a decent Dex isn't that bad a choice for a fighter anyway with the right melee weapon choice.  He won't have all the ranged options of a true ranger, but his attack and damage rolls with the bow aren't inherently any worse, and true rangers are pretty mediocre tanks.  You can't be good at everything.

If what you want is basically a skilled archer who happens to wear heavy armor... just stick with the ranger class, take the two armor proficiency feats to get scale mail and be done with it.  It doesn't make much mechanical sense if your Dex is 18 or higher, but how is that not easy?


----------



## drjones (May 30, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> Well, if the DM decides to through 26th level minions against a 5th or 6th level party then he's playing an odd game and deserves the weirdness that results from it, frankly.



 Yeah you could also give your PCs a 100k xp bonus for showing up on time, but it would be dumb.

Not to mention those 26th level minions get initiative and your party is probably going to be doing some rerolling.


----------



## wedgeski (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> And moreso, does the _character_ know he can't pull it off?  He's willing to fight a large minion fight (where his daily will clean up) but only once a day?  The only answer I see that works is "yes" because that's how the tactical system works (you don't work to set up a power you can't use).  So now there needs be a reason (IMO).



Because, as has been said, big, flashy and difficult maneuvers require an exact set of circumstances to pull off. Everything has to align just right, including not *only* the position of all of his foes, but his own defenses, the grip on his weapon, his opponent's reaction to a feint... any number of things. A fighter doesn't choose the moment to pull these things off, the moment chooses him.

How often do circumstances conspire to make this possible for heroes? Once a day, or thereabouts.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Not a big problem with the feat.  Just the whole thing is much less elegant/flexible than 3e.




Except for all its elegance, 3e multi-classing didn't work. A level 5 fighter/level 5 wizard was pretty much worthless against CR 10 encounters compared to his single classed comrades.

3e multi-classing only really worked when dipping into other classes for just a level or two. And then in some respects it was too good if that dipped class was front loaded.

4e multi-classing doesn't really work well for true hybrid characters (but neither does 3e, IMO), but as a replacement to dipping, I think it works much better than 3e dipping without the brokenness.


----------



## drjones (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Really? It looks like all or nearly all to me.



I just made a gnome wizard, he wants to boost his sneakyness to get more out of his racial abilities.  MCing to thief would give him Thievery and Sneak Attack.  Sneak attack does not work on his spells and he does not want to pick locks so he chose Stealth Skill Training instead.  And he can still MC to something later if he wants.  You get a lot more feats now so it is not an either-or situation.


----------



## Rechan (May 30, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> And gained how much XP for his level that is?
> 
> Just sayin'.



A minion is just 1/4th of a monster, Xp wise.

So it would be the equivalent of killing one monster with his daily.

Whoop-tee.


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> A minion is just 1/4th of a monster, Xp wise.
> 
> So it would be the equivalent of killing one monster with his daily.
> 
> Whoop-tee.




If what the OP says is correct minions of 30 level can be killed at give way more XP than appropriate to 5th level characters.


----------



## Andor (May 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> How do the rules for diseases look like?
> 
> Poisons are rarely long-term stuff in real life, are they?* I mean, most poisons are there to incapacitate the target now, not for a week. That's because they are usually attack or defense mechanism.




Some are quick acting, but some will really stick with you. Boomslang venom for instance does nothing, for about a day, then you start bleeding from the eyes and kinda dissolve. A lot of neurotoxic poisons will leave you with permanent damage in the event you survive. And some of the tissue destroying venoms (spider is particular) can still be causing tissue necrosis for _years_ after the bite.

Now I'll grant you this isn't terribly "heroic" perhaps but it *does* have precedent in myth and fantasy. In the Illiad an archer (I forget his name) drops one of hercules's poison arrows and pricks himself in the foot. He doesn't die but the wound oozes black gook and the sailors drop him off on an island out of fear. When they go back years later he is still there and the wound is still oozeing.


----------



## lutecius (May 30, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> As for immersion, that's not a problem for me. I see Encounters/Dailies as, well, matters of dramatic presentation. Why can't the fighter use a Daily in every fight? Because he's all ready done his big spot-light thing for the day. The same reason why even though Bond can dive off a cliff and glide down on a car hood once doesn't mean that he's going to be doing it every ten minutes.
> 
> "Speed of Plot" and all that jazz.



I find blatantly artificial narration and inconsistent plot devices even more annoying in fiction. If a character can do something at some point, there'd better be a good reason why he couldn't even try it again in a similar situation.
And movies are linear. The point of rpgs is not having a nicely predetermined outcome or scenario.


----------



## greatn (May 30, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> If what the OP says is correct minions of 30 level can be killed at give way more XP than appropriate to 5th level characters.




Why would a fifth level character ever be facing a horde of lvl 30 minions? Or even one?


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2008)

greatn said:
			
		

> Why would a fifth level character ever be facing a horde of lvl 30 minions? Or even one?




Why would advnturers go after monsters?


----------



## greatn (May 30, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Why would advnturers go after monsters?




Level 5 guy is just going to decide I'm going specifically to go search for a lvl 26 Demon Soldier Legion, all I have to do is find a portal to hell, go in, roll a 20 or get it to end its turn next to me, and then escape hell... PROFIT


----------



## abyssaldeath (May 30, 2008)

If a 5 level fighter is fighting epic tier minions it is not an problem with the game system. It is a problem with the DM. To even suggest that this is a mechanics issue is rediculous. What DM in their right mind would even let this happen.


----------



## Vorhaart (May 30, 2008)

greatn said:
			
		

> Level 5 guy is just going to decide I'm going specifically to go search for a lvl 26 Demon Soldier Legion, all I have to do is find a portal to hell, go in, roll a 20 or get it to end its turn next to me, and then escape hell... PROFIT




I know you're being sarcastic, but the sad thing is some player's brains see no fault with this plan.


----------



## lutecius (May 30, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> re: Encounter/Daily powers
> There is an easy way to change Encounter and Daily powers into non-discrete scenarios and I'm pretty sure Mearls et al thought of it.
> 
> Simply put a penalty for every use of encounter (say -2)/Daily (say -5) past a certain point (a.k.a psionics) in the time frame mentioned. Main reason against it is that you force players to have to keep subtracting more modifiers for every round.



I think there was a similar mechanic in Iron Heroes. 

There are other possibilities. if monsters can randomly recharge some of their powers, i don't see why PCs couldn't use a similar mechanic.

Another thing that could make encounter/dailies less artificial would be to allow power swapping like the 3e sorcerer, so you could actually use the same power twice when needed.

The problem if you want to implement a variant mechanic is that you have to balance things yourself.


----------



## Keenath (May 30, 2008)

JohnBiles said:
			
		

> That being said, it would be nice if certain fairly basic concepts weren't mostly foreclosed by the current system.  (You can't easily make a heavily armored guy who is very effective with a bow, for example)



Umm... can't you just use a ranger or similar and take armor proficiency feats?

Anyway I'm not sure why you'd want to do something like that, since heavy armor and dexterity don't really get along, and never have...


----------



## xechnao (May 30, 2008)

abyssaldeath said:
			
		

> If a 5 level fighter is fighting epic tier minions it is not an problem with the game system. It is a problem with the DM. To even suggest that this is a mechanics issue is rediculous. What DM in their right mind would even let this happen.




So can't a heroic army of 5th level soldiers fighting an epic group of monsters?


----------



## Grazzt (May 30, 2008)

greatn said:
			
		

> Why would a fifth level character ever be facing a horde of lvl 30 minions? Or even one?




Careless or bad DMing would be my guess.


----------



## Keenath (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> There is a fighter ability that lets him do [W] damage to everyone who ends their turn next to him.  That's gonna wipe out minions in mass quantity, no matter their defenses.



Pardon my bookless ignorance, but according to everything I've heard, minions never take damage unless they're hit by an attack roll, no matter the source.  Abilities that deal damage on a miss or automatically don't affect minions, as far as I know... but I could be wrong.


----------



## theemrys (May 30, 2008)

Isn't the rule for minions though that they can only be damaged if "hit"?  If so, then if an attack roll is not made... they can't die from it.  I haven't read all the rules, but I think that the excerpt covered that...


----------



## Andor (May 30, 2008)

abyssaldeath said:
			
		

> If a 5 level fighter is fighting epic tier minions it is not an problem with the game system.




Do minions exist in game? If so they should be targets of choice. If not, why are they in the game system if they are not in the game?


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So can't a heroic army of 5th level soldiers fighting an epic group of monsters?



 They can. But unless the players are involved, the rules don't need to be involved either.


----------



## theemrys (May 30, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> Pardon my bookless ignorance, but according to everything I've heard, minions never take damage unless they're hit by an attack roll, no matter the source.  Abilities that deal damage on a miss or automatically don't affect minions, as far as I know... but I could be wrong.




Beat me to it!!!


----------



## Grazzt (May 30, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So can't a heroic army of 5th level soldiers fighting an epic group of monsters?




If I actually had players suicidal enough to request such a thing, then so be it. Let them run off and find an epic level monster. It wouldn't be a Minion though. 

The Minion concept may be familiar to the players ("oooh- minions have 1 hp...free XP"). But it isnt to the characters. They will never know, IMC, whether they are facing minions (if I even use them at all) or true monsters. Sure- they can probably figure it out when monsters drop from a single hit or whatever, but the minions won't have a  big glowing bubble over their heads that say "1 HP".


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

theemrys said:
			
		

> Isn't the rule for minions though that they can only be damaged if "hit"?  If so, then if an attack roll is not made... they can't die from it.  I haven't read all the rules, but I think that the excerpt covered that...



 The rule is "damage on a miss doesn't hurt a minion". So if you don't roll an attack (like with Cleave), then there's no miss.


----------



## Deverash (May 30, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> What powers grant disarm, exactly?




There's a paragon level fighter power, Exorcism of Steel.  Does damage and opponent drops their weapon.

If you want to allow people to disarm, make a Str vs. Reflex attack as standard action.  I'd probably even give them the weapon prof bonus.  If it's used against an elite, give the elite a +5 bonus to their reflex, +10 vs. a solo (so it doesn't become a must use option against weapon-using solos and elites).  They'll deal no damage, but that monster loses their basic attack until they get their weapon back.  it drops in the PCs  square, I'd guess.  If the PC uses their minor action to pick it up, I guess the enemy is gonna have to use a disarm to get it back.  or maybe just take theirs.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 30, 2008)

theemrys said:
			
		

> Isn't the rule for minions though that they can only be damaged if "hit"?  If so, then if an attack roll is not made... they can't die from it.  I haven't read all the rules, but I think that the excerpt covered that...




The specific rule is that minions take no damage from an attack that misses, which means things that do 1/2 or lesser damage on a miss don't affect them.  In order for this rule to come into play, you have to do something that requires an attack roll AND which would still do damage if it misses.  Things that don't require an attack roll to do damage, such as a dragon's fire aura or that fighter power, for example, will still kill them like no tomorrow.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 30, 2008)

Minion entries say they never take damage on a miss.  Not "an attack roll is required to damage a minion".  So, if you had an aura that did automatic damage, I think it would affect, and kill, minions.  

Also, since when is the heavily armored archer a "fairly basic concept"?  "Hi, I depend on range to kill things.  So naturally, I enshroud myself in heavy metal armor that impedes my mobility."


----------



## abyssaldeath (May 30, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Do minions exist in game? If so they should be targets of choice. If not, why are they in the game system if they are not in the game?




Yes minions exist, but the DM controls the game. So if the players are fight minions 20 levels higher then they are then the issue is with the DM not the minion mechanics. No one is forcing you to even use minions, even level appropriate ones. So I will once again ask, why would any DM in thier right mind let a level 5 fighter fight a epic tier minion?


----------



## Andor (May 30, 2008)

abyssaldeath said:
			
		

> Yes minions exist, but the DM controls the game. So if the players are fight minions 20 levels higher then they are then the issue is with the DM not the minion mechanics. No one is forcing you to even use minions, even level appropriate ones. So I will once again ask, why would any DM in thier right mind let a level 5 fighter fight a epic tier minion?




*shrug* Becuase he's the same Monty Haul GM who's been handing out artifacts to 1st level parties since the days of the boxed set?

I'm not condoneing the practice btw.


----------



## brianm (May 30, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So can't a heroic army of 5th level soldiers fighting an epic group of monsters?




Nope!

Minions exist only relative to their opponents.  In the same way that +1 swords don't exist for epic level PCs, epic level minions don't exist for heroic level characters.  

- Brian


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

Not sure why fighting epic minions at heroic levels is even mentioned.  No sane DM would EVER run this kind of encounter.  Even if he did, there's still a good chance of a TPK.  Minions only have 1 hp, but their other stats are pretty consistent with other monsters of their level.  And if a DM throws only 1 minion at a party, it's not that much xp.  For example, the highest level core minion is lvl. 26.  2,250 xp for the group.  In contrast, a level 9 solo encounter gives 2000 xp for the group.  That's the highest "recommended" challenge for a group of 5th level.  Sure, the minion is going to be easier to kill, but that just leads back to my first point.

And seriously.  Wait until you've read the books before you make wild accusations.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

*On Minions*

Hi all,
My point about the level 5 ability taking out the level 26 minion was that the ability allows him to kill something (automatically) that he really shouldn't be able to.  I've been told there is a similar level 1 warlock power (though it only does auto damage to one thing?)  

Some of the proposed encounters in the MM seem to have some pretty powerful minions in them compared to the non-minions.  So auto-killing _any_ minion at 1st (or 5th) level can be pretty big.  

Not a huge deal, and something the DM can handle, but still odd that there exists a 5th level power that will cut through baddies that are about the same power level as a level 15 solo...  Certainly the DM can (easily) deal with it.  Just pointing it out as odd.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

It is about as odd as people pointing out that you can build half-fiend vampire beholder barbarians in 3E.


----------



## brianm (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Not a huge deal, and something the DM can handle, but still odd that there exists a 5th level power that will cut through baddies that are about the same power level as a level 15 solo...  Certainly the DM can (easily) deal with it.  Just pointing it out as odd.




It's an artifact of the system.  The other option would be to constantly increase the minimum damage the PCs do every round, to the point where having "only" 20 hit points means every time the fighter hits you, you die.  Of course, if you do that, what's a boss monster for heroic becomes a minion at epic, and I think they wanted to avoid that sort of thing.  

- Brian


----------



## Jack99 (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It is about as odd as people pointing out that you can build half-fiend vampire beholder barbarian*s* in 3E.




Was it schizophrenic?


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

brianm said:
			
		

> It's an artifact of the system.  The other option would be to constantly increase the minimum damage the PCs do every round, to the point where having "only" 20 hit points means every time the fighter hits you, you die.  Of course, if you do that, what's a boss monster for heroic becomes a minion at epic, and I think they wanted to avoid that sort of thing.
> 
> - Brian




Eh,
I'd have given high-level minions "resist all" equal to about their level by 2.  Or maybe level-10.  

Mark


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

*And one more*

Still want an answer to the following questions:

Say a fighter has a single daily attack that can hit folks in a burst.  He uses it in a fight.  There is another fight coming up where such an ability will make the fight easy.

#1 Does he realize he has no chance of pulling off that attack?  If so, he may well choose to avoid that encounter.  
#2 If #1 is "yes" what exactly does the character know?  How does he justify it in character?
#3 If the answer is "no" and he heads out to that fight, does he realize that getting baddies set up for such a burst is a bad plan?  

As a board game, the daily system is just fine.  As an RPG where you are discussing things in character (including potential tactics) it's weird at best.

And frankly, this is something the rules should touch on IMO.  3e rules answered these questions about casters.  4e rules needs to answer them too.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2008)

The good is its pretty, like MACS are.  I've come to grips that we live n the pretty world. 

The Bad, i got to the races.  And then the optomisim i had and the hope i started to regain was demolished by the descriptions of the races. 

" to be quick, quiet, and wild.
✦ to lead your companions through the deep woods
and pepper your enemies with arrows.
✦ to be a member of a race that favors the ranger,
rogue, and cleric classes."

The Ugly, when i recruit players from now on its going to take me a while to deprogram them from the 4e dnd 4 dummies mindset.  I can already imagine the conversations

" but she's an elf, isn't she suppose to be good at taking us through deep woods and firing arrows... "

And all the new batman tiefling pcs.


----------



## Nail (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Still want an answer to the following questions:
> #1 Does he realize he has no chance of pulling off that attack?  If so, he may well choose to avoid that encounter.



Yes, he knows.  Just as a caster knows he no longer has access to a spell.


			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> #2 If #1 is "yes" what exactly does the character know?  How does he justify it in character?



He knows he can only pull the "Exploit" off once in a while => usually once a day, assuming combats every day.


			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> #3 If the answer is "no" and he heads out to that fight, does he realize that getting baddies set up for such a burst is a bad plan?



The answer is not "No."



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> As a board game, the daily system is just fine.  As an RPG where you are discussing things in character (including potential tactics) it's weird at best.



 "Weird" in what sense?  In the sense of "How life is supposed to work in a Fantasy World"?

If it makes you feel better (and clearly, that's what you are looking for), pretend the Ftr has an internal, non-magical power source.  Let's call it "Chi".  He uses this source of internal non-magical power for his exploits.  Encounter powers only use Chi temporarily, and after a few minutes the Chi returns.  Daily powers use larger amounts of CHi, and it takes an extended rest for it to return.

Why is that so difficult to justify in a Fantasy World?



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> And frankly, this is something the rules should touch on IMO.  3e rules answered these questions about casters.  4e rules needs to answer them too.



You've got some rose-coloerd glasses for 3e, eh?  Gimme a pair.  

3e did not answer the spell casting rationale well.  Put another way: Vancian magic does NOT model the spell casters in Fantasy Literature very well.  This has been discussed countless times.


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Still want an answer to the following questions:
> 
> Say a fighter has a single daily attack that can hit folks in a burst.  He uses it in a fight.  There is another fight coming up where such an ability will make the fight easy.
> 
> ...




#1 Martial powers are known as exploits.  You use them when circumstances are right.  If you use the wrong power at the wrong time, then encounter a situation that's better suited to it, you've made a mistake.  Not the game system.

#2 Again, martial powers exploit a particular situation that may or may not occur.  Daily martial powers are a tremendous drain on your physical and mental resources.  Your character likely knows that he can't pull it off again, because it was so draining to do it in the first place, and he's already tired from fighting, or something to that effect.  Your character isn't going to hurt or kill himself to prevent himself from getting hurt or killed.

#3 It's not a bad plan if you have a way to deal with it.  There are plenty of things "IRL" that look to be bad plans but have a reason behind them.  Example: Intentionally walking a hitter in baseball to load the bases.  A grand slam is possible, hurting your chances of winning greatly, but you also set up a force at any base, and the possiblity of a double/triple play.

4e does answer questions about daily powers.  It's on page 54 of the PHB.  You also have some pretty good at-will and encounter powers, you know.  It's not like all you can do are daily powers and once those are gone, you only get melee basic attacks.


----------



## Nail (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> My point about the level 5 ability taking out the level 26 minion was that the ability allows him to kill something (automatically) that he really shouldn't be able to.



Two things:

  Who is the only and *final* arbiter of what monsters the PCs face?

  In 3e, wasn't it also possible to kill foes far above your level?

Again, if you're selling those 3.xe Rose Colored Glasses, I'll buy a pair.


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

Nail said:
			
		

> Two things:
> In 3e, wasn't it also possible to kill foes far above your level?




I remember quite a few games where greenbound summons, DMMersist Clerics, and save or die wizards with absurd save DCs took out quite a few things we weren't supposed to fight yet...


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Nail, your change of heart regarding 4E is rather... sudden.


----------



## Nail (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Nail, your change of heart regarding 4E is rather... sudden.



Err....?

Really?  Uhm....did I say "4e sucks" in my sleep at some point?  Source?


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

almagest said:
			
		

> #1 Martial powers are known as exploits.  You use them when circumstances are right.  If you use the wrong power at the wrong time, then encounter a situation that's better suited to it, you've made a mistake.  Not the game system.



I'm fairly sure you didn't answer my question.  Does he know he's used the power and can't use it again without a "long rest"?



> #2 Again, martial powers exploit a particular situation that may or may not occur.  Daily martial powers are a tremendous drain on your physical and mental resources.  Your character likely knows that he can't pull it off again, because it was so draining to do it in the first place, and he's already tired from fighting, or something to that effect.  Your character isn't going to hurt or kill himself to prevent himself from getting hurt or killed.



I think this tries to get at my first question.  So the _character_ is aware that he can't do it again without a long rest, and the reason is that it was so draining.  He _can_ do a higher level daily however.  I'm not sure I buy that, but it's one way to run it.

<clip>



> 4e does answer questions about daily powers.  It's on page 54 of the PHB.  You also have some pretty good at-will and encounter powers, you know.  It's not like all you can do are daily powers and once those are gone, you only get melee basic attacks.



Don't own the PHB, just looked it over.  I'll see if I get a chance to read that later.  

Mark


----------



## Nail (May 30, 2008)

almagest said:
			
		

> I remember quite a few games where greenbound summons, DMMersist Clerics, and save or die wizards with absurd save DCs took out quite a few things we weren't supposed to fight yet...



Exactly.

In the last advanture I played as a Player in 3.xe, my PC (Clr 18 or so) took out the Githyanki Lich Queen Wiz 25.......three different times, often before my other party members could even react.

Punching above your weight was common-place (yawn) in 3.xe.  Check out the Optimization Boards. I don't find it surprising that you can do the same in 4e.  ....In fact, I'm looking forward to it. 

However: Since the DM controls what monsters are where, a low level PC capping a super-high-level minions doesn't really fall into that category.  YMMV, I suppose.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

Nail said:
			
		

> Two things:
> 
> Who is the only and *final* arbiter of what monsters the PCs face?
> 
> ...




#1 Sure, I agree.  But putting up 5th level chars against 10th level minions seems fairly reasonable.  But these auto-hitting powers will have a significant impact on such encounters.
#2 Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a power/ability that allowed a 5th level (or 1st level) PC to auto-kill an epic creature.  And if there were, I think it would have been an issue for people.

It's a problem that didn't exist in 3.x.  It's not a major problem (fighter dailies are a major problem OTOH), but it is a problem.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

Nail said:
			
		

> Err....?
> 
> Really?  Uhm....did I say "4e sucks" in my sleep at some point?  Source?



 I may possibly have confused you with someone else. Yes, that "Mail" guy!


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> #2 Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a power/ability that allowed a 5th level (or 1st level) PC to auto-kill an epic creature.




There is also no power in 4E that lets a low-level PC auto-kill an epic creature. Assuming, anyway, that you're using the plain-English meaning of epic, because cross-edition comparison of terms of art makes no sense.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> There is also no power in 4E that lets a low-level PC auto-kill an epic creature. Assuming, anyway, that you're using the plain-English meaning of epic, because cross-edition comparison of terms of art makes no sense.



OK,
Both 3e and 4e have a notion of epic.  Both are for above 20th level.  The 4e version of epic appears to be intended to replace the 3e.  

If you prefer you can replace "epic" with "above 20th level".


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> #1 Sure, I agree.  But putting up 5th level chars against 10th level minions seems fairly reasonable.  But these auto-hitting powers will have a significant impact on such encounters.




Not really.  4 minions=one monster.  You'd still have everything else in the encounter to deal with.  And if it's an all-minion encounter, chances are you won't kill all 16-25 minions with that one power.  They're all not going to blindly attack you if they just saw 2 or 3 of their friends die by just coming near you.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> OK,
> Both 3e and 4e have a notion of epic.  Both are for above 20th level.  The 4e version of epic appears to be intended to replace the 3e.
> 
> If you prefer you can replace "epic" with "above 20th level".



 And in this case, since "epic" clearly means something different in substance from 4E to 3E, what is the problem?


----------



## chaotix42 (May 30, 2008)

Hey brehobit, go check out Chain Lightning. Minions won't know what hit 'em. >: )


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

almagest said:
			
		

> Not really.  4 minions=one monster.  You'd still have everything else in the encounter to deal with.  And if it's an all-minion encounter, chances are you won't kill all 16-25 minions with that one power.  They're all not going to blindly attack you if they just saw 2 or 3 of their friends die by just coming near you.



While I generally agree, I think being able to auto-kill any minion who starts next to you during the entire combat will be quite powerful.  You close with them, they die.  If they bunch up, they all die.

Just saying


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Hey brehobit, go check out Chain Lightning. Minions won't know what hit 'em. >: )




It has an attack roll, yes?


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And in this case, since "epic" clearly means something different in substance from 4E to 3E, what is the problem?



Could you provide an explanation of that difference?  They look pretty much the same from here.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> It has an attack roll, yes?




Yup. And hits every target within 20 squares!


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Could you provide an explanation of that difference?  They look pretty much the same from here.



 The narrow definition of "epic" is level 21+. But in 3E, where level is closely tied to hit points (class differences notwithstanding), it's is also an indicator of overall power. In fact, it's just about the ONLY indicator you have within the encounter design framework. Monsters with more levels/HD have higher CR than those with fewer HD, other things being equal.

The encounter design system in 4E uses not just level, but also monster type designators: minion, elite, solo, leader, etc. Because of this, you cannot just look at a monster's level and make a judgement on how powerful it is. You have to consider its type as well, and minions in particular will be much less powerful than their base level indicates.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Yup. And hits every target within 20 squares!



Yeah, but it can still miss.  Against high-level minions, it will miss a lot.  The Fighter won't.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it can still miss.  Against high-level minions, it will miss a lot.  The Fighter won't.




Miss a lot? Against minions?


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> I'm fairly sure you didn't answer my question.  Does he know he's used the power and can't use it again without a "long rest"?



The same way a spell mysteriously disappears from a wizard's memory when he casts it.  Or the same way a swordsage can't recover maneuvers without spending a couple minutes flourishing his weapons or whatever.  Why are you calling out inconsistencies that have been always been present in one form or another?  



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> I think this tries to get at my first question.  So the _character_ is aware that he can't do it again without a long rest, and the reason is that it was so draining.  He _can_ do a higher level daily however.  I'm not sure I buy that, but it's one way to run it.



Again, why is it ok that a wizard cast a level 5 daily, then follow it up with a level 15?  It's the same concept, whether you call it arcane or martial.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> Don't own the PHB, just looked it over.  I'll see if I get a chance to read that later.



Once you read through the core books the rules become more clear.  It's also really helpful to run a mock encounter or two, as well, to see rules in action.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2008)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Miss a lot? Against minions?



 Minions have level-appropriate AC and defenses. They are NOT auto-hits for high-level guys.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Miss a lot? Against minions?



Sure,
Minions tend to have reasonable defenses for their level.  Just no hit points.  So a 20th level minion will get missed a lot by a 10th level wizard.

Mark


----------



## chaotix42 (May 30, 2008)

Yeah, your chances of missing a 20th level enemy when you're level 10 are pretty good.

I don't see 20th level minions being sent against level 10 PCs though. It's entering the same realm of 26th level minions vs 5th level PCs.


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> While I generally agree, I think being able to auto-kill any minion who starts next to you during the entire combat will be quite powerful.  You close with them, they die.  If they bunch up, they all die.
> 
> Just saying




That's the point, though.  They're MEANT to be mowed down in huge numbers.  They're meant to replace groups of monsters of 4 or 5 CR below your party level in 3e.  You could kill the majority of those monsters in 1 or 2 hits in 3e, but they couldn't touch you on anything but a natural 20.  Minions still die quickly, but can actually DO something during combat now -- like, weaken/distract you for/from that brute charging at you.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

almagest said:
			
		

> The same way a spell mysteriously disappears from a wizard's memory when he casts it.  Or the same way a swordsage can't recover maneuvers without spending a couple minutes flourishing his weapons or whatever.  Why are you calling out inconsistencies that have been always been present in one form or another?



Because in one case it's "magic" and the other it isn't.  

Same with the Bo9S stuff or anything else like it.  A fighter or rogue aren't magical and in previous editions they weren't limited in the same way the magicy people (including a swordsage) were.

I can live with the notion that magical stuff behaves in an odd way, and I can accept magical abilities behaving in nearly any way. But if a non-magical fighter can only do a certain move once a day, I'm unsure how he perceives it.  My current inclination is to go with a Bo9S style answer (it's magic).  But that kills off anyone wanting to play a non-magical class...

I'd prefer if the rogue and fighter didn't have daily or even encounter powers.  But that hurts game balance...

Mark


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

almagest said:
			
		

> That's the point, though.  They're MEANT to be mowed down in huge numbers.  They're meant to replace groups of monsters of 4 or 5 CR below your party level in 3e.  You could kill the majority of those monsters in 1 or 2 hits in 3e, but they couldn't touch you on anything but a natural 20.  Minions still die quickly, but can actually DO something during combat now -- like, weaken/distract you for/from that brute charging at you.




Oh I like minions a lot.  I just don't think they interact well with "auto-hit" abilities.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 30, 2008)

I'll give it a shot



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> #1 Does he realize he has no chance of pulling off that attack?  If so, he may well choose to avoid that encounter.




His intuition tells him not to push his luck and try that wild exploit again. 
And yes, it would be wise to avoid a second combat, since all combats are dangerous and people die in them all the time... However, the fate of his hometown/kingdom/world/etc. is on the line and he will do his darned best.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> #2 If #1 is "yes" what exactly does the character know?  How does he justify it in character?
> #3 If the answer is "no" and he heads out to that fight, does he realize that getting baddies set up for such a burst is a bad plan?




I see two options here, depending on taste

You could say he does know, because that exploit is something that depends on too many variables and cannot be done reliably. It is just a coincidence that it manages to work roughly once a day.

Or 

You could say that he does not know, and in fact every time he is in combat with multiple enemies he attempts to setup the circumstances for that exploit... It doesn't always work, however, and he must use other attacks. However, every once in a while (coincidentally, roughly once a day), the circumstances are just right and the exploit works beautifully.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> 3e rules answered these questions about casters.  4e rules needs to answer them too.




Vancian casting was just as contrived: "No I can't cast that spell again, I forgot it after casting it! I have to study my spellbook to learn it again!"

Hopefully this will help narrate your 4e combats...


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Yeah, your chances of missing a 20th level enemy when you're level 10 are pretty good.
> 
> I don't see 20th level minions being sent against level 10 PCs though. It's entering the same realm of 26th level minions vs 5th level PCs.




Maybe.  EXP wise, I think they are close.  I'll want to look at the MM suggested encounters to see how much higher level minions tend to be than the encounter level....


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Because in one case it's "magic" and the other it isn't.
> 
> Same with the Bo9S stuff or anything else like it.  A fighter or rogue aren't magical and in previous editions they weren't limited in the same way the magicy people (including a swordsage) were.
> 
> ...




Calling it "magic" is just semantics.  One thing works because it's magic, yet another doesn't make sense because it's not supposed to be magic?  I can just as easily say fighters and rogues have superhuman powers that drain their physical and mental energy reserves.  And now they're non-magical classes.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (May 30, 2008)

Alright, I don't have the books, take what I say with a grain of salt.

#1 This has been addressed SO many times, I won't even go into it. I suggest everyone who has a problem read the previous explanations. But I will add this. Have your characters narrate their own stuff, and have THEM come up with an explanation. Seriously, they give you the mechanics. Do you want them to hand you a brain too?   

The designers are FULLY aware of the potentiality of a lv. 5 killing a lv. 26. I suggest you read what they read, which said that you're not supposed to do that. It breaks every single rule they have set up. So my suggestion? Listen to what they have to say.

The rules actually look like they encourage diversity, especially in fighters. The fighter very well may be the most diverse class in the PHB from the little I've seen. 

Multiclassing feats? I'm about to try it with the half elf (I changed that +2 Con to a +2 any stat besides Cha, jee that was hard). I'll be playing a half-elf paladin/wizard. Wish me luck.


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Maybe.  EXP wise, I think they are close.  I'll want to look at the MM suggested encounters to see how much higher level minions tend to be than the encounter level....




The same as any other monster.  No more than character level+4, or less than character level -2.  And you run encounters based on the XP of a standard monster of the level you're looking for times the number of characters in the party.  You then "spend" xp to add monsters to the encounter.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> I'll give it a shot
> 
> 
> 
> His intuition tells him not to push his luck and try that wild exploit again.



But he knows if he rests, it will be reasonable?




> I see two options here, depending on taste
> 
> You could say he does know, because that exploit is something that depends on too many variables and cannot be done reliably. It is just a coincidence that it manages to work roughly once a day.
> 
> ...



The first one is saying he doesn't know he can only do it once per day as is the second, yes?




> Vancian casting was just as contrived: "No I can't cast that spell again, I forgot it after casting it! I have to study my spellbook to learn it again!"



Sure.  But what the caster knows is well understood.  Here, I'm not seeing it.  

Party is arguing if they should push forward to fight the village of goblins (probably a big minion fight).  The wizard can say "I'm down to one spell, and it's not an area attack so we should rest".  Does the fighter can say "I've used my daily exploit allows me to hit lots of folks, so we should rest"?  Or does he say "I'm feeling like I'd get overwhelmed by them"? Or does he say "Let's go wimpy wizard, I've got them" even though the player knows the fighter is likely to die in such a fight given his area-of-effect daily is gone?


----------



## ryryguy (May 30, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Some are quick acting, but some will really stick with you. Boomslang venom for instance does nothing, for about a day, then you start bleeding from the eyes and kinda dissolve. A lot of neurotoxic poisons will leave you with permanent damage in the event you survive. And some of the tissue destroying venoms (spider is particular) can still be causing tissue necrosis for _years_ after the bite.
> 
> Now I'll grant you this isn't terribly "heroic" perhaps but it *does* have precedent in myth and fantasy. In the Illiad an archer (I forget his name) drops one of hercules's poison arrows and pricks himself in the foot. He doesn't die but the wound oozes black gook and the sailors drop him off on an island out of fear. When they go back years later he is still there and the wound is still oozeing.




Any reason why these kinds of poisons couldn't be modeled using the disease mechanic?  In rules its a disease, in the fiction it's a poison.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> Any reason why these kinds of poisons couldn't be modeled using the disease mechanic?  In rules its a disease, in the fiction it's a poison.



That's my plan!


----------



## Skyscraper (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> I can live with the notion that magical stuff behaves in an odd way, and I can accept magical abilities behaving in nearly any way. But if a non-magical fighter can only do a certain move once a day, I'm unsure how he perceives it.




Some manoeuvers are hard to pull off. Especially if you're not experienced. I've been playing soccer weekly for 10 years. I still can't deke opponents all the time. I don't even _try _all the time. It requires a setup that i'm not necessarily proficient enough to lay down. I.e. i need to move in such a way to position myself properly with repsect to my opponent to try my deke. Howewer, i do manage to do it more frequently now than 8 years ago. It's not that i don't want to, it's just that i can't.

Take a professional hockey player who's normally a goon (i.e. not a fancy player, never dekes during games) and get him to play with 10 year olds. He'll deke the hell out of everyone. Why does he not do that in actual professional NHL games? Because the situation doesn't lend itself to it. He's not good enough to try the move that often.

The same goes for fighters. Sure, the best of them can pull off cool stuff regularly (i.e. their 20-th level at-will powers are cool). However, the inexperienced (level-1) fighter is only good enough to set up combat to try a risky manoeuver (encounter, daily) every once in a while.

If you can accept that hit points are an abstraction of morale, stamina and actual wounds (in any edition), i don't see why you can't explain the fighter's encounter or daily powers as mundane in 4E. For me it's much simpler and it's actually a fairly good representation of how things work in sports and probably in combat (i have only little experience in the latter, namely foam weapon combat and karate).

Sky


----------



## Andor (May 30, 2008)

Nail said:
			
		

> Yes, he knows.  Just as a caster knows he no longer has access to a spell.
> He knows he can only pull the "Exploit" off once in a while => usually once a day, assuming combats every day.




Uh-huh. I've been studying various martial arts for kind of a while now. Yet to run into a 'once a day' limitation on any moves. "Once an opponent" is a pretty reasonable expectation. Once you've killed that guy and are fighting another guy who has never seen the move? Not so much.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> "Weird" in what sense?  In the sense of "How life is supposed to work in a Fantasy World"?
> 
> If it makes you feel better (and clearly, that's what you are looking for), pretend the Ftr has an internal, non-magical power source.  Let's call it "Chi".  He uses this source of internal non-magical power for his exploits.  Encounter powers only use Chi temporarily, and after a few minutes the Chi returns.  Daily powers use larger amounts of CHi, and it takes an extended rest for it to return.




This would fly better if we didn't know that "Ki" was a different power source reserved for future books. The 'martial' power source is explicitly nothing but muscle and skill. So yeah, the once a day thing does require a bit of explanation.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> 3e did not answer the spell casting rationale well.  Put another way: Vancian magic does NOT model the spell casters in Fantasy Literature very well.  This has been discussed countless times.




.... You ... do realize that it's called Vancian magic because it works in the same way as magic in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series of fantasy books. Which would conventionally count as Fantasy Literature.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

Skyscraper said:
			
		

> Some manoeuvers are hard to pull off. Especially if you're not experienced. I've been playing soccer weekly for 10 years. I still can't deke opponents all the time. I don't even _try _all the time. It requires a setup that i'm not necessarily proficient enough to lay down. I.e. i need to move in such a way to position myself properly with repsect to my opponent to try my deke. Howewer, i do manage to do it more frequently now than 8 years ago. It's not that i don't want to, it's just that i can't.
> 
> Take a professional hockey player who's normally a goon (i.e. not a fancy player, never dekes during games) and get him to play with 10 year olds. He'll deke the hell out of everyone. Why does he not do that in actual professional NHL games? Because the situation doesn't lend itself to it. He's not good enough to try the move that often.
> 
> ...




I'm going to drop this as it seems most don't have a problem with it.  But I just don't see this kind of explanation as reasonable.  Say you've managed some hot ball move in a real game.  What is the explanation that not only can't you do it again until you rest for 6 hours, but you _know_ you can't do it again until you rest for 6 hours?

Ah well, I guess it's just me and a small handful of others who have an issue here....

Letting it go....


----------



## Dausuul (May 30, 2008)

almagest said:
			
		

> The same way a spell mysteriously disappears from a wizard's memory when he casts it.  Or the same way a swordsage can't recover maneuvers without spending a couple minutes flourishing his weapons or whatever.  Why are you calling out inconsistencies that have been always been present in one form or another?




Why should it matter whether it was present in previous editions?  I call it out because I don't like it.  I didn't like it in BECMI, I didn't like it in 2E, I didn't like it in 3.X, and I don't like it now.

I'll probably suck it up and deal with it, just like I did in all those previous editions, but I still don't like it.



			
				brehobbit said:
			
		

> But I just don't see this kind of explanation as reasonable. Say you've managed some hot ball move in a real game. What is the explanation that not only can't you do it again until you rest for 6 hours, but you _know_ you can't do it again until you rest for 6 hours?




And this is why I don't like it.

Ultimately, it's not a big deal; but I do find it irritating.  Furthermore, it's much more pervasive than it used to be.  In 3.X, only certain classes and feats had this sort of thing going on; you could quite easily play a game in which nobody had "prepared moves" of this type.  (For example, a party of fighter, rogue, sorceror, and favored soul.)  In 4E, every single character has them.


----------



## ryryguy (May 30, 2008)

So, I think it's a fair point that the very gamey nature of the encounter and daily use limited powers may cause a few issues with immersion, character vs. player knowledge, and the story.  Basically, there is a bit of a "seam" there... in terms of story, it may make sense for one hero to shout to another, "quick! do your [daily power] whirling blade dance of death, it's our only hope!"  And with that daily power exhausted, the other hero responds, "I can't!  Because, um, er... my, uh, inner energy reserves are still drained, you know..."  A bit awkward.

On the other hand I feel doubtful that this will really be that big of an issue at the table.  Sure there's a seam, but there always have been issues of player/rules knowledge vs. character/in-game knowledge.  You just work around them.  Eventually you'll find the flavor of "exhausted inner energy reserves" handwaving that feels right for your character and his powers.  Perhaps more importantly, hero 1 just won't call for the blade dance of  death when it's not available because player 1 understands, out of game, that it's not available.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> On the other hand I feel doubtful that this will really be that big of an issue at the table.  Sure there's a seam, but there always have been issues of player/rules knowledge vs. character/in-game knowledge.  You just work around them.  Eventually you'll find the flavor of "exhausted inner energy reserves" handwaving that feels right for your character and his powers.  Perhaps more importantly, hero 1 just won't call for the blade dance of  death when it's not available because player 1 understands, out of game, that it's not available.




Well said.  

Mark


----------



## greatn (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> I'm going to drop this as it seems most don't have a problem with it.  But I just don't see this kind of explanation as reasonable.  Say you've managed some hot ball move in a real game.  What is the explanation that not only can't you do it again until you rest for 6 hours, but you _know_ you can't do it again until you rest for 6 hours?
> 
> Ah well, I guess it's just me and a small handful of others who have an issue here....
> 
> Letting it go....




How about something like he's trying to do it all the time, but most of the time it ends up being a normal attack or he can tell from the heft of the swing it isn't going to work so instead he goes for a leg sweep.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> I can live with the notion that magical stuff behaves in an odd way, and I can accept magical abilities behaving in nearly any way. But if a non-magical fighter can only do a certain move once a day, I'm unsure how he perceives it.  My current inclination is to go with a Bo9S style answer (it's magic).  But that kills off anyone wanting to play a non-magical class...
> 
> I'd prefer if the rogue and fighter didn't have daily or even encounter powers.  But that hurts game balance...
> 
> Mark




Okay Mark, consider this.

I've played a game where almost all the classes were entirely non-magical (_Iron Heroes_, for the record). However, all those non-magical classes had special moves that they could build up to, or set up, by taking actions to do so. They'd acquire tokens every round. As the fight drug on, they'd be able to pull off a minor power every round, or save up their tokens to pull off bigger, more elaborate stunts.

It was cool. It represented all the motions the character had to go through in order to set up their best moves. But what was a lot _cooler_ was when they actually got to do their best moves. In practice (and in-game), they were able to pull off a couple of their better moves about once every fight, and were able to set up their very best move about once every 4-6 fights.

To me, per-encounter powers and per-day powers are a way of modelling that _without having to worry about all the bookkeeping_. Sure, gathering tokens was, in a sense, fun, but mostly just because you knew you were setting up something cool. Building up points so you can pull off your good move is tedious. So, think about it this way.

When your fighter is using those at-wills, he's actually setting his foe up so the special move (represented by his per-encounter ability) will work. And ditto with the daily. It's a rare circumstance when it comes into play, but it's the PLAYER who gets to decide when that circumstance occurs.

Rather than playing a game of "Mother, may I?" with the DM for when his character can use his best moves, the player gets to make that call _when he feels it's appropriate_.

The player knows he can use the power once a day. But all Joe the Fighter knows is that the circumstances surrounding that exploit only occur rarely. He was lucky to set it up once today. Pulling it off again just isn't likely.

Yes, this requires you to separate player knowledge (Daily Exploits are available whenever you want, but only once a day) from character knowledge (you can't pull off a maneuver like that very often).

Basically, encounter and daily exploits are a way of abstracting luck, effort, and circumstance. Yes, there are other ways to model these things (like the _Iron Heroes_ token system), but IMO, they add a lot of unnecessary bookkeeping and achieve essentially the same result (albeit sometimes a bit "swingier").

Maybe that helps. Maybe it doesn't.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

greatn said:
			
		

> How about something like he's trying to do it all the time, but most of the time it ends up being a normal attack or he can tell from the heft of the swing it isn't going to work so instead he goes for a leg sweep.




Say there is a pit and you have a daily that would let you push the baddy into it.  If you knew you didn't have access to that daily, you wouldn't take the AoO to get there to try.  But if you didn't know, you would.  

I don't think that quite works....


----------



## Skyscraper (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> I'm going to drop this as it seems most don't have a problem with it.  But I just don't see this kind of explanation as reasonable.  Say you've managed some hot ball move in a real game.  What is the explanation that not only can't you do it again until you rest for 6 hours, but you _know_ you can't do it again until you rest for 6 hours?




Well, coming back to my hockey allegory, why does the "goon" only try a deke once every 10 games in the NHL? Why not once every game?

Because he's not good enough to get the conditions to try it that often.

Likewise, the daily powers could have been the "once-every-10-combats" powers instead, i guess it would have been more appropriate. For simplicity's sake, it's "daily", expecting that you'll be doing about 10 encounters per day. (I don't know how many you're expected to do, 10 being an example.) But the point is: the fighter would like nothing better than to get his daily power off every round. However, he's simply not good enough to do it. He's fighting for his life and moving around the battlefield and dodging swords and thinking about his next move, and at one point during one particular combat he gets things just right and BAM! he lets his daily power go. Super move! Why doesn't he do it always? For the same reason that all combattants and sportsmen are not able to use their better ability all the time in real life. The best of the pros have dazzling "at will" and "encounter" (or per-game) powers, while the ordinary (level 1) folk get the cool stuff out pretty rarely. At least, that's what it looks like in the amateur leagues that i've played in.

Sky


----------



## Thasmodious (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> While I generally agree, I think being able to auto-kill any minion who starts next to you during the entire combat will be quite powerful.  You close with them, they die.  If they bunch up, they all die.
> 
> Just saying




Minions are supposed to die.  They are built to die.  Fighters are supposed to kill lots of them.  Fighters are built to kill lots of them.


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The encounter design system in 4E uses not just level, but also monster type designators: minion, elite, solo, leader, etc. Because of this, you cannot just look at a monster's level and make a judgement on how powerful it is. You have to consider its type as well, and minions in particular will be much less powerful than their base level indicates.



Sure, but in this case the EXP for the minion is as high as a standard epic level 20.  And EXP is the point of comparison for different monsters in 4e, rather than CR in 3e.

Mark


----------



## almagest (May 30, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Why should it matter whether it was present in previous editions?  I call it out because I don't like it.  I didn't like it in BECMI, I didn't like it in 2E, I didn't like it in 3.X, and I don't like it now.
> 
> I'll probably suck it up and deal with it, just like I did in all those previous editions, but I still don't like it.
> 
> ...



Sorcerors and favored souls sure did have prepared moves.  You'd run out of [x] level spells eventually, after all.  And you had a much smaller spell list than a cleric or wizard.  Plus, the sorcerer and favored soul were a *heck* of a lot more powerful than the fighter and the rogue, even without optimization.

Also, it matters when people claim 4e has this problem, but previous editions don't.  I also don't understand why you play D&D when you have a problem with a core mechanic of every edition.


----------



## Skyscraper (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Say there is a pit and you have a daily that would let you push the baddy into it.  If you knew you didn't have access to that daily, you wouldn't take the AoO to get there to try.  But if you didn't know, you would.




Not sure i understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the daily allows you to avoid an AoO?

If so, are you saying that a character would only accept to take an AoO if he knew it was impossible to pull off otherwise?

If i understand you correctly, i'll respectfully disagree with you. Knowing that an AoO is coming in both cases, i'd decide if trying to push the baddy into the pit is worth the AoO or not. Knowing that a daily exists to avoid it would simply make me wish i had it, it wouldn't change the fact that i'd consider taking the AoO if i believe i'd survive it and kill the baddy in the process.

Sky


----------



## Dausuul (May 30, 2008)

Skyscraper said:
			
		

> Well, coming back to my hockey allegory, why does the "goon" only try a deke once every 10 games in the NHL? Why not once every game?
> 
> Because he's not good enough to get the conditions to try it that often.
> 
> ...




The problem is the way it drives a wedge between the player and the PC.  It makes it that much harder to get into the mindset of your character; because _you_ are sitting there making battle plans in the full knowledge that you will be able to choose when to use your daily and encounter powers, but _your character_ can't possibly know that.

Once my players and I get used to 4E, I'm considering offering an optional rule in which a PC's daily and encounter powers are randomized rather than fixed.  Something like this: You assign a suit to each of your powers (spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds), and then each round you draw from a deck of cards.  If you draw a card whose value is higher than (X), where X is a number dependent on your level, all of your encounter powers of that suit are available for that round.  If you draw a card whose value is higher than (Y), your daily powers of that suit are available too.

(Actually, it would probably be a customized deck rather than standard playing cards.  And there would need to be something to ensure you do run out of daily powers eventually, presumably due to fatigue.  But you get the general idea.)


----------



## brehobit (May 30, 2008)

Skyscraper said:
			
		

> Not sure i understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the daily allows you to avoid an AoO?
> 
> If so, are you saying that a character would only accept to take an AoO if he knew it was impossible to pull off otherwise?
> 
> ...



Sorry I was unclear.

Say you had a daily which would allow you to push the baddy into the "Pit of Death".  But in order to get into position, you need to take an AoO.  If you know you've used the daily, you know you can't do that action, so you don't take the AoO: you attack with some other power.  But if the character doesn't know the daily is used, then  you will take the AoO and "try" to push them (failing automatically because you don't have access to that daily).

In other words, the "I try every time, but sometimes it doesn't work" explanation would seem to suggest that the PC should be trying to set up an attack even though the player knows it can't possibly happen.


----------



## Skyscraper (May 30, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> The problem is the way it drives a wedge between the player and the PC.  It makes it that much harder to get into the mindset of your character; because _you_ are sitting there making battle plans in the full knowledge that you will be able to choose when to use your daily and encounter powers, but _your character_ can't possibly know that.




Your point is good.

Still, it doesn't appear that hard to me to take the daily powers into the game without an obvious meta-game seam, when players are able to imagine an entire virtual setting with silver waterfalls and flying dragons and a mind-dominated succubus turning against its Balor overlord in the midst of a fireball-filled battlefield. That, and hit points which represent an abstract mix of stamina and morale and wounds and... oh, i really talked about hit points, didn't i?   

I mean, i see what you guys are saying. I guess what _i'm_ saying is that it appears like a pretty standard role-play element to me.

D&D was never intended to be a simulation, it's a fantasy RPG. Some mechanics exist to streamline combat and/or make it more interesting. Giving the player a choice of when to unleash his daily power is one of those mechanics that make the game interesting to players. At the other extreme, you can take almost everything out of the player's hands and have the DM simply tell a story based on each PC's attributes.



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> Once my players and I get used to 4E, I'm considering offering an optional rule in which a PC's daily and encounter powers are randomized rather than fixed.  Something like this: You assign a suit to each of your powers (spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds), and then each round you draw from a deck of cards.  If you draw a card whose value is higher than (X), where X is a number dependent on your level, all of your encounter powers of that suit are available for that round.  If you draw a card whose value is higher than (Y), your daily powers of that suit are available too.
> 
> (Actually, it would probably be a customized deck rather than standard playing cards.  And there would need to be something to ensure you do run out of daily powers eventually, presumably due to fatigue.  But you get the general idea.)




This will add complexity and will make the game less fun for the players who will have less options during combat. It's obviously your game and you can do what you want with it, but i'd not favor such a move if i were you.

Sky


----------



## JohnSnow (May 30, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> The problem is the way it drives a wedge between the player and the PC.  It makes it that much harder to get into the mindset of your character; because _you_ are sitting there making battle plans in the full knowledge that you will be able to choose when to use your daily and encounter powers, but _your character_ can't possibly know that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Skyscraper (May 30, 2008)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Sorry I was unclear.
> 
> Say you had a daily which would allow you to push the baddy into the "Pit of Death".  But in order to get into position, you need to take an AoO.  If you know you've used the daily, you know you can't do that action, so you don't take the AoO: you attack with some other power.  But if the character doesn't know the daily is used, then  you will take the AoO and "try" to push them (failing automatically because you don't have access to that daily).
> 
> In other words, the "I try every time, but sometimes it doesn't work" explanation would seem to suggest that the PC should be trying to set up an attack even though the player knows it can't possibly happen.




You got me wrong. I didn't say the fighter tried all the time. I said he'd _like_ to try all the time, but _can't_. He can't position himself right to even start the move.

In your example above, he wouldn't provoke an AoO because he'll not initiate the move to try to push the baddy at the outset.

So the way i see things, assuming that pushing someone is a daily ability, the fighter simply won't initiate a push if the daily is not available because he just can't get into position to do it.

As an aside, i hope simple manoeuvers like pushing are doable by anyone and are not daily abilities (i've read something on that but can't remember...). But even if they're not i can live with it. (And no, i'm not a 4E fanboy that supports it whatever it's flaws.) I've done some foam-weapon combat and trying to physically reach someone without being pelted with numerous weapon strokes is pretty darn hard. I admit that i'm far from a weapon-combat reference, but my point is that i can see that trying to push an armed opponent is not an easy feat to pull off and although the Good Guys (TM) always manage it in Hollywood movies, i can see that it's not because someone is standing in front of a pit that you'll get an opportunity to push him in.

Sky


----------



## Primal (May 30, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Agree with ya here. I'm definitely not a huge fan of everything (poison, dazed, immobilized, dominated, etc) being shaken off as easy as it can be. I can see getting rid of the 'save or die' stuff (for the most part), but nerfing the hell outta just about everything else that lasted more than a round seems like they swung too far the other way.




In fact the diseases seem to be deadlier in 4E than 3E -- a couple of failed saves and you either die or suffer some kind of long-lasting effects. They're nasty, and I like how they work in 4E.

I have to agree about poisons, but petrification, for example, is still kind of SoD-type of effect -- if you fail you're immobilized (i.e. unable to act) and the second failed save petrifies you. In retrospect, I would have liked to see that "slow petrification" the designers originally hinted at, because it would have been thematically great (as someone posted here or the WoTC boards) "to see a fighter hacking at the medusa as he's slowly turning to stone".


----------



## MindWanderer (May 30, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> if you fail you're immobilized (i.e. unable to act)



Immobilized != unable to act.  It means you can't move, but you can still attack, teleport, use any powers that don't involve moving, etc.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (May 30, 2008)

There's not much point in picking at the individual issues when you can just boil it down to a design theme:

It's a game. There are game-y mechanics. I think that's pretty cool and I'm looking forward to trying them out, but it's worth saying that, generally, that's why some of this stuff is the way it is.

Level 26 minions don't exist in a vacuum -- everything is relative to the PCs, because, well, the game is about the PCs. If you were to encounter a Lich Vestige when you're level 15-18, hey, maybe he should have the same abilities but full HP. That's because the DM's role when creating and balancing encounters is to come up with a mix of monsters with different roles that is plausible within the game world. The examples in the MM are all about small units that you can believe would work together, while also being mechanically unified. (So the fact that there are some minion grunts up front guarding the ranged attackers has a mechanical and an in-game reason for being that way.) The mechanical relevance of an "encounter" is actually pretty handy, I think, for helping the DM come up with the in-fiction relevance of the encounter -- a physically weak necromancer surrounds himself with cannon fodder zombies for safety, for instance. So when you look at a lvl 26 minion in a vacuum, there's no mechanical justification to ever do that, so if you want it to make sense in-fiction you might as well change it up (as the DMG/MM suggest) so that it's an encounter that both works well as a mechanical challenge and an in-game event.

Similarly, there's not a listed in-game justification for why some powers are daily vs. encounter vs. at-will except that, mechanically, that's what the characters can do, so in-game that's what they can do. The players or the DM are free to come up with an in-fiction reason it works this way, and it can differ from campaign to campaign. 

So is there a way to justify all the stuff some folks have issues with? Absolutely. Is it mandated or provided by the game, beyond saying the DM should make sure he's giving the players and himself an environment they enjoy playing in? No, that's left up to the people at the table.

It's just a matter of the focus being on providing a mechanical system that people can hang a fictional world on. It doesn't necessarily work by itself as a simulation of a fictional reality, because it doesn't try to.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 31, 2008)

Quite frankly, Vancian is here even stronger then ever.

The flaw with vancian magic wasn't that casters had to memorize spells, it was that they always made you rest.  Well hey, now it's not just casters, but EVERYONE that constantly wants to rest after every encounter (or two, should you push them hard).


----------



## Zogmo (May 31, 2008)

*Ah Ha!*



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Nail, your change of heart regarding 4E is rather... sudden.






			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Err....? Really?  Uhm....did I say "4e sucks" in my sleep at some point?  Source?




What inquiring minds want to know is _WHY_ would hong know what you say in your sleep?


----------



## StarFyre (May 31, 2008)

*my thoughts*

I've gone over about half the PHB (all the important stuff)..classes, powers, feats...the DMG and read the coolest monsters over.

My thoughts:

Someone in another thread asked for my opinion on the DMG.  As many here have said, it's pretty much a wash for an experienced DM.  There are a few rules there that make it worth having (stuff that I didn't see in the PHB) but other than that, it's all info for new DMs (which i think would be very good for a new DM).

Overall, there is a lot of stuff I like in 4E...

The healing surges are cool, and the concept of action points from "milestones" I consider a bonus due to being on an adrenaline rush via 2 or 3 victories, then charging ahead on the quest, etc and I like that better than the Eberron style action points that we use in our 3.X campaign now.  

I am so happy that warriors/rogues now have "powers" to choose from.  It's a great benefit for them overall.  The swordsage in my party likes the powers he has and can choose from and wished warriors were all like that.  Now they get a slight taste of it.  Can't wait to see the sword mage.  

The streamlined skill system is also good, although alot of what they talk about we have been doing for years already.  

monsters, the idea that they don't (unless there is a good reason for it), have the same spells, feats, powers as players I like alot and agree with this design method.  Something I had partially implemented already with my games.

Now, the bad...what I/players do not like.

1) the classes, due to the quest for exact balance has made classes, as someone else already mentioned, very stale...dull.  Even the powers in many cases are similar with very little to differentiate them.  Depending on play style, this is good (for balance) or bad (boring parties)

2) my players hate the wizards/clerics and aren't happy about them.  I haven't been happy with them either since most of 2E though, so I began work on my own house ruled versions of them. So far, the Wild Mage and Cleric are about 75% done, and an NPC in current game is previewing the cleric's powers already).  So far, friends seem to like the idea.  The wild mage is due to a character in our party, and how the 3.5E wildmage just wasn't that wild. We house ruled it as well, as a combination of 3.XE version and 2E. Now we are taking that a step further to truly make a wildmage something to see, love, and fear all at the same time.  The wizard will be harder, but currently have several ideas for how to house rule a new wizard class.  Warlock, some changed I thought they were doingg for him, to truly make the background make a difference for them...ie. the plane that their powers are tied too, or the god, etc.  so will have custom house rules for that to make 2 warlocks at least 50 to 75% different.

3) clerics and gods have never truly been happy with how they have been done.  In fact, even in myth, you get examples of warriors who worship some god and get power due to that.  What I have been working on for some time now...for each god in 4E and a few more i tossed in that are important to my campaigns, custom rules, powers, spells, ability bonuses, etc that each class and sometimes even race, can get based on what god they choose.  An example, a fighter who worships Bahamut would get some type of bonuses, that are totally different than what a cleric would get, etc.  A warlock that worships asmodeus, is automatically a hellfire warlock (to use a 3.5E prestige class term) although the amount of damage is lowered, and some other changes as well to balance it. THis makes choosing a god TRULY make a difference, roleplaying wise AND combat wise.  That said, i wanted no god to be a good choice as well, so thought of benefits (that I think make sense as well) for players who do not want to follow a god, so that is still viable.

4)  I don't think they went far enough with monsters.  For example, what I have (not done yet as I add stuff as I use the creatures and most of them I have never used yet) is a spreadsheet with powers/spells for creatures that I think would have them (ie. dragons, angels, demons, devils, etc).  Dragons for example have spells BUT they are the dragon specific spells from the 2e and 3e draconomicons, plus some custom ones that make sense for a dragon to have.  Demons have a long list of powers, and I like how the Tanar'ri are supposed to be chaotic...killing their own, etc as long as the enemy falls as well.  So they basically all function as a result of the chaotic nature of the abyss.  Essentially, all their powers are like wild mages...causing true havoc and destruction but much of it is not controllable.... a marilith/balor in my games is TRULY something to fear...  pit fiends can unleashe the power of hell, etc. Angels on the other hand, us something similar to my custom clerical rules and have other powers (many from the cool powers they had in 2E planescape).  Dragons have alot of their flavour powers back (ie. silvers will be able to cloud walk, etc and make lairs in the skies for example).

5) i do not find 4E 'truly' tactical.  Let me explain. The tactics are forced.  My players require tactics, due to how i design battles (to make sense, in terms of what they face)...when they don't use tactics, things sometimes have gone very wrong; othertimes they have had to improvise a lot to succeed.  when they use tactics correctly, they do see the benefits. When i say tactics, I mean, using cover, charging an archer maybe holding something in front of you for added cover, having rogues sneak on the rafters in the ceiling to get behind people, pelting them from above.  Spreading fire, etc around a place to cause havoc, warriors knocking people down or back, then mages targetting spells not at the enemy (due to their protections) but at the cielings (we use a detailed critical hit, material saving system so a fireball CAN destroy a structure and bring it down on the enemy if the wood, etc splinters and breaks).  Stuff like this is tactical.  Have a character's attack force an enemy back X squares into the path of another PC who can then do an AoO, which can then knock them back, etc is very forced.  It can be cool, but friends do not like it.  As well, my friends agree that even if wizards are more powerful than others at higher levels, so what..they think it 'makes sense' and they dont mind it since all our puzzles, battles, roleplaying moments, have always had opportunity for everyone to shine, and my friends like how there are times when a wizard may have to use spells indirectly to aid warriors who are the only ones able to harm something, or vice versa....

6) i do not like the dragons in 4E.  The low damages for the breathe, IMHO, make them not that fearful as well as the fear ability. if something is scary, they don' thave to 'turn it on'..it's either scary or it's not.  (unless it's a spell, in which case, it's not scary on it's own).  I will certainly use 3E or just a bit below that, breathe damages and dragon damages. We house rule draogns alot since we use them as per the 2E size scale, etc.  We like that.  I find the concept to have battles last longer, they reduced the damage of dragons so they last longer and/or don't kill people as fast.  Due to what i mentioned above in combat. My players have to think their way through a major boss battle, and dragon's crazy breathe damage has never stopped them before and if someone died from it...they deserved it for being stupid (ie. let me stand in this open area and see if the dragon cares that I'm trying to dazzle it with some sword trick...oh..it doesn't care...*crap*).... 

All that said, I am trying to figure out, should we stick with 3.XE and house rule in the stuff we like from 4E OR use 4E as the basis and make the house rule changes that we want (some mentioned above).

Overall, i'm at about a 65% like rate for 4E...and I figured if I was over a 50% like rate, we would switch and implement house rules...however, it turns out the few things we do not like, some of them are the biggest stuff to change (a couple classes)....

oh well... overall I am happy I have bought the 3 corebooks and have put in an order for the Manual of the Planes for later this year 

Sanjay


----------



## Regicide (May 31, 2008)

It's far worse... capping healing surges per day completely guts any ability to use the combat system of DnD in a role-playing game.

When the conversation in the game goes like this, your game system is retarded:
Cleric - I'll use Healing Strike on the kobold and allow the fighter to use a surge.
Fighter - I don't have any surges left.
Cleric - Uh... no, wait a minute, Pelor has forsaken the fighter... uh... uhmm... I'll... shoot a Lance of Radiance out of my anus and kill the kobold instead!


----------



## Dausuul (May 31, 2008)

Skyscraper said:
			
		

> This will add complexity and will make the game less fun for the players who will have less options during combat. It's obviously your game and you can do what you want with it, but i'd not favor such a move if i were you.
> 
> Sky




Well, that's why it's optional.  I'm not going to force anybody to use my weird experiments in this area; players are welcome to keep using the system as written, or to switch back at any time.  And I might not go with that system anyhow.  Mostly I'm trying to come up with an approach that offers a bit more verisimilitude (to me, at least), while maintaining diversity in combat and approximately the same power level.

I mean, the simplest solution is to make encounter powers interchangeable, and same with dailies; if you have 3 daily powers, you can use each of them once, or one of them three times.  Then the whole thing can be explained on the basis of fatigue (you're too tired to use any more encounter powers without a short rest; you're too tired to use any more daily powers without a long one).  But that might make combats too repetitive.  Again, something to experiment with.


----------



## Toras (May 31, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Well, that's why it's optional.  I'm not going to force anybody to use my weird experiments in this area; players are welcome to keep using the system as written, or to switch back at any time.  And I might not go with that system anyhow.  Mostly I'm trying to come up with an approach that offers a bit more verisimilitude (to me, at least), while maintaining diversity in combat and approximately the same power level.
> 
> I mean, the simplest solution is to make encounter powers interchangeable, and same with dailies; if you have 3 daily powers, you can use each of them once, or one of them three times.  Then the whole thing can be explained on the basis of fatigue (you're too tired to use any more encounter powers without a short rest; you're too tired to use any more daily powers without a long one).  But that might make combats too repetitive.  Again, something to experiment with.




Honestly, if you are going to do encounter and daily powers, that would have been the way to do it.  I find that works better honestly in terms of understanding.  If the dailies are the high flying moves, eventually they are going ot tire you out.  Same with the encounters.  Personally I'd have taken it a step farther and have an Endurance/Magic pool where at wills are free, encounters cost 1 and dailies cost 5.   How it refreshes would probably be something to work on, but I suspect I could get a working mechanic.

Also, I would have liked a feat/mechanic/spell or something that would allow the character to dig deep, push himself passed fatigue for that heroic last....  so on.  Maybe make it cost hp (significant) or healing surges.... not sure yet.  

But again I'm sort of riffing.  If you were to talk that approach, I would be much more comfortable with both if they were treated thus.  As I can buy that there are some moves that are very fatiguing and possibly put a great deal of strain on you and your weapon, some that are less so, and some that you could "functionally" do all day.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> It's far worse... capping healing surges per day completely guts any ability to use the combat system of DnD in a role-playing game.
> 
> When the conversation in the game goes like this, your game system is retarded:
> Cleric - I'll use Healing Strike on the kobold and allow the fighter to use a surge.
> ...



 Well, this is new.


----------



## Harshax (May 31, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> It's far worse... capping healing surges per day completely guts any ability to use the combat system of DnD in a role-playing game.
> 
> When the conversation in the game goes like this, your game system is retarded:
> Cleric - I'll use Healing Strike on the kobold and allow the fighter to use a surge.
> ...




Seriously?


----------



## Zogmo (May 31, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> Cleric - Uh... no, wait a minute, Pelor has forsaken the fighter... uh... uhmm... I'll... shoot a Lance of Radiance out of my anus and kill the kobold instead!




4e is gonna be awesome!  I can't wait to play a cleric now.  They seem to have some very cool options!


----------



## mmadsen (May 31, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Also, since when is the heavily armored archer a "fairly basic concept"?


----------



## mmadsen (May 31, 2008)

brianm said:
			
		

> It's an artifact of the system.  The other option would be to constantly increase the minimum damage the PCs do every round, to the point where having "only" 20 hit points means every time the fighter hits you, you die.



There's more than one other option -- but, yeah, if you're wed to ablative hit points, and you want the PCs to take out minions in one turn, then the minions have to have very few hit points, or the PCs have to be guaranteed to do a lot of damage.


			
				brianm said:
			
		

> Of course, if you do that, what's a boss monster for heroic becomes a minion at epic, and I think they wanted to avoid that sort of thing.



Why?


----------



## Keenath (Jun 2, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/images/dnd_BasicRule_s.jpg



Sorry, fail.  He's clearly wearing a shield on his back and a sword on his hip -- he's a heavily armored sword-and-board fighter who happens to be making an attack with a ranged weapon, not a heavily armored archer.


----------



## Keenath (Jun 2, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> It's far worse... capping healing surges per day completely guts any ability to use the combat system of DnD in a role-playing game.
> 
> When the conversation in the game goes like this, your game system is retarded:
> Cleric - I'll use Healing Strike on the kobold and allow the fighter to use a surge.
> ...



Forsaken?  No.  He's just too tired and wounded for that little dribble of divine healing to do him any good.  You'll need to use something more substantial, like Cure Light Wounds (2nd level daily utility -- target heals HP equal to his Healing Surge amount without spending a surge).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 2, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Careless or bad DMing would be my guess.




I would have said "First Edition Feel."

Along the lines of "Don't go down the well."

That's a _startling_ dismissal of verisimilitude coming from a Necromancer rep. 

Seriously, all snark aside, how do you see the philosophy of 4e impacting the design philosophy at Necromancer?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 2, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, Vancian is here even stronger then ever.
> 
> The flaw with vancian magic wasn't that casters had to memorize spells, it was that they always made you rest.  Well hey, now it's not just casters, but EVERYONE that constantly wants to rest after every encounter (or two, should you push them hard).




The one thing that seems to have consistently been the source of complaints in D&D, through all editions, has been the Vancian magic system. These complaints were never universal, but there has always been some people who have disliked it, tried to replace it, or otherwise modify it.

And the new edition basically says "Vancian stuff is so good, we'll give it to _everyone_". So now, instead of people just complaining about how spell casters are Vancian, we get the opportunity to complain about _every_ class.

As a result, I can only say to the designers: "Good going, smart move, I'm sure there weren't _any_ other options that would have worked and avoided this".


----------



## Scarbonac (Jun 2, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> Sorry, fail.  He's clearly wearing a shield on his back and a sword on his hip -- he's a heavily armored sword-and-board fighter who happens to be making an attack with a ranged weapon, not a heavily armored archer.




_
Double _fail; He's _obviously_ a heavily-armored archer who has a back-up weapon and a shield for when he runs out of arrows.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 2, 2008)

*One of these things is not like the others*

Warlord "We've smashed through the sublieutenant's gang this morning and our ranger spent the day tracking down the cult leader who is ahead over that ridge now with his succubus sidekick and the troop of kobold cult followers. We need to decide tactics, whether we press on now or wait until tommorrow to strike."

Wizard: "As you know the way magic works I shape my raw magic into charged spells in the morning and discharge those individual spells releasing the prepared magic. I used a bunch on the gang before but I still have some individual targeting magics left prepared if we go in now. If we wait until morning I can prepare all of my magics again for the assault including battlefield control spells."

Paladin "My god empowers me to call on his name thrice per day to channel divine might to smite evil doers. I called on him once when we fought the toad demon of the sublieutenant. I will use this power upon the succubus or the leader as I charge among them. If we rest until morning I can call upon my god the full three times for our confrontation, but my sword arm is ever ready to strike at these villains."

Fighter "I can strike really really hard once today for a powerful blow and chop at single enemies and do some defense for the wizard and a few more really powerful individual maneuvers but they are all single target. I already did my killing field exploit maneuver earlier today on the earlier gang chewing through their kobold minions, so I can't do that again today, but if we rest up overnight I expect I would really mow down those kobolds if they are about the same type of follower. That is to say I'm kind of tired from swinging my sword fast in one way but not another and a good night's rest will fix that. Or I guess I have a feeling the conditions will not be just right again for my killing field moves if we do it tonight, but tomorrow morning I expect the conditions will work out just right for me and I can be in the zone for doing so then if we need."

Warlord "Right. So if we can punch through to the leaders tonight we should do it, if we need to cut our way through the minions we should wait until morning if there are too many of them."


----------



## Toras (Jun 3, 2008)

Voadam is quite correct.  I think it becomes as much a logical issue as it is an "Uncanny Valley" scenario.  If you are to think about the various power sources, it is only really martial that we have a proper frame of reference for in our world.  We know that muscules work a certain way, and while I will admit you can use different groups for different things, like jumping vs swinging a sword, the encounter/daily largely stretches the concept.  

If the manuevers were simply grouped and you could only do a certain number of the more difficult ones before you got to tired to do them that would be one thing.  But 4th ed, in the effort to make fighters nifty and keen have robbed from it one of the truly grand things about a fighter.  The fighter is scary no matter where and when he is, as is the rogue. 

He's the kind of guy that can fight for three days and then drink you under the table.  If Shale the 20th Fighter is locked in a dungeon without weapons or equipment, she is still dangerous.  Deprived of any aid they can burst bonds, break down doors, and killing guards with their broken chains.   Antimagic might shutdown casters, but there was no true anti-violence field.


----------



## hong (Jun 3, 2008)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> _
> Double _fail; He's _obviously_ a heavily-armored archer who has a back-up weapon and a shield for when he runs out of arrows.



 Triple fail. No true archer would run out of arrows.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2008)

Toras said:
			
		

> Voadam is quite correct.  I think it becomes as much a logical issue as it is an "Uncanny Valley" scenario.  If you are to think about the various power sources, it is only really martial that we have a proper frame of reference for in our world.



I disagree here. I find it very awkward that a Paladin can say "My god allows me to smite evil only twice a day!" or a Cleric saying "My god grants me only 3 Flame Strikes per day". 

It might be explainable, because "it is magic", but it never felt right to me. Forgetting spells is a very specific concept of magic, and not a typical idea. And why would every god give the same number of spells to equal level Clerics?

I prefer the idea used for martial heroes that such powers are difficult to use and require the correct circumstances. The encounter/daily denotion just represents the players right to narrate this circumstances.

Yes, it is less... how should I put... immersive then the previous way, since the rules don't tell us exactly what the character how a character comes to the conclusion he should use a power, or if he has expended them. But then, this character perspective allows you to describe it as you want, without risking to break any in-game world laws...


----------



## Toras (Jun 3, 2008)

I will agree that having a limit to magic is something that is largely a specific concept, but I've always though it as magic having specific flow and pattern.  To construct a spell requires energy, and your god will grant you all the power he/she feels that you are worthy of/or can handle.  If you use that to prepare Flamestrikes that is left to your wisdom. 

Admitted I would have preferred spell points, but I think that is straying from topic.  

I understand that is what they are supposed to replicate, but this seems like I can only use the super move when it is dramatically appropriate. It requires genre awareness in a sense, and if they are simply circumstances why wouldn't I try to replicate those circumnstances were ever possible.  Aka, if I have an unstoppable supermove, why do I not use it early and often?  If it was simply a trick that would only work on 1 opponent or one group of opponents because once you saw it it wouldn't work on you anymore, I could see that but that's not how it works and it certainly doesn't explain dailies.


I as a player can understand the balance issues, but while the others have at least some semi-reasonable argument for running out of ...energy of a type, martial seems like the one that stretches things beyond the wierd into the absurd.  And I play roleplaying games to be immersive, why is my fighter the only one who breaks the fourth wall for his powers?  

Why didn't they just have a number of conditional powers for martial?  If  you are attacked, you can Dodge, Parry, or Block...That sort of thing I know they wanted to go universal  on the mechanics, but sometimes you just can't.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2008)

Toras said:
			
		

> To construct a spell requires energy, and your god will grant you all the power he/she feels that you are worthy of/or can handle.  If you use that to prepare Flamestrikes that is left to your wisdom.
> 
> Admitted I would have preferred spell points, but I think that is straying from topic.
> 
> ...



For Spell Points, Dodge, Parry, Block and no martial dailies I suggest HARP or Rolemaster (both published by ICE).

Either will deliver quite a different play experience from any edition of D&D, however. Rolemaster, especially, has no 4th-wall breaking devices at all in action resolution (in particular, no plot-immunity hit points). HARP has Fate Points, but these are quite distinct from the otherwise simulationist action resolution mechanics.


----------



## Toras (Jun 3, 2008)

Suggesting another system when five minutes and a decent explanation would have handled it does not help.  (Besides, save for a few of the similationist touches I loath both Harp and Rolemaster, too many bloody tables thank you muchly).  I was describing more the 3.5 psion, but again that's not here or there.

If the Dailies were simply something that put significant stress on either me or my weapon I suppose I could deal with that.  I really think that martial Encounter/Dailies should be interchangable though given the logic behind them.  (aka if they are a matter of fatigue or accumulated stress to weapon or body).

But to say that they are circumstancial while leaving out both the circumnstances and the repeatability is absurd.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2008)

Toras said:
			
		

> But to say that they are circumstancial while leaving out both the circumnstances and the repeatability is absurd.



It is not absurd, it is just a matter of the degree of details.

3 and 4E combat basically assumes squares as smallest unit of space a creature can cover or affect. It also ignores facing. This means there is little in RAW that would allow you to describe the exact of circumstances that might allow you to make a Brutal Strike. The games just don't cover these specific details. 

Maybe doing a Brutal Strike maneuver (let's pretend such a maneuver exists), you might need that your opponent is bending backwards, and trying to attack your left (or right, if left-handed), and requires you to be being in an upward movement. If you pull that off, you will probably hit the opponents torso and drop him to the ground, and he needs a lot of luck and effort to keep you from killing him (more damage). These kinds of details are not covered in the rules. 

An alternative approach would be something like a "Combo"-power system. 
First round, you deal slashing damage, second round, you make a bullrush, third round, you trip, and fourth round, your gain a +4 bonus to attack and deal triple damage.
This is similar to the 3E tactical feats. I think they were a nice idea, but they didn't play out so well in combat. Setting up the situations this way took a lot of effort and required to much specific circumstances.

Or something like Iron Heroes token system - it doesn't really tell us what you do when you collect your tokens, but if you have enough, you can fuel a special power. It's basically an abstraction of the combo-system.

The next step in abstraction is just guesstimate how often you can gather enough of these tokens per combat or day to get enough tokens for such an attack. And this leads us to a per encounter/per day mechanic.

I think one could try to move backwards along this line of abstractions and try to create a token-system for powers, and finally also a combo-system for them. But the highest playability value is probably still the last one, while the highest "immersion" value is the combo-system.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2008)

Toras said:
			
		

> Suggesting another system when five minutes and a decent explanation would have handled it does not help.  (Besides, save for a few of the similationist touches I loath both Harp and Rolemaster, too many bloody tables thank you muchly).  I was describing more the 3.5 psion, but again that's not here or there.



But the explanation has been given. Repeatedly. It's a mechancial device for facilitating the narrative. You yourself say that you can see the gameplay logic.

My suggestion was that, if you really don't like such devices (eg hit points) then D&D may not be the game for you. Conversely, if you can stomach hit points (which are a device for ensuring that basically no PC ever dies from the first blow, or from the first fall down a pit, or the first fall of a horse, or ...) then I don't see why you can't stomach per-encounters and dailies (which are a device for ensuring that only one gobling per encounter/per day opens itself up to the Manouevre of All Death).



			
				Toras said:
			
		

> If the Dailies were simply something that put significant stress on either me or my weapon I suppose I could deal with that.  I really think that martial Encounter/Dailies should be interchangable though given the logic behind them.  (aka if they are a matter of fatigue or accumulated stress to weapon or body).



Then you get a fatigue point system. That presumably has to interact with the hit point system (which seems linked to fatigue). And the movement mechanics. Rolemaster Companions are chock-full of this sort of thing, but they don't always make for a better game.



			
				Toras said:
			
		

> But to say that they are circumstancial while leaving out both the circumnstances and the repeatability is absurd.



Why? Many RPGs have Fate Points, which empower a player to declare that circumstances favour his or her character (OGL Conan is one example in the d20 line of games). These mechanics typically leave it up to the player to specify what exactly the relevant circumstances are. And by being a finite resource they put a limit on repeatability. But they are not absurd. Their metagame purpose is obvious.

Just think of dailies and per-encounters as a variant Fate Point mechanic for martial PCs. (Just like hit points are a variant Fate Point mechanic for all PCs.)

One implication of this treatment of martial dailies is that the PC does not know when his/her daily has been used (just as, in OGL Conan, a PC does not know how many Fate Points are left even though the player does). But a reasonable player should be able to find a way to bring this metagame knowledge into play at the ingame level - even if it only consists in the PC saying "I don't feel so lucky this time. Let's not press on just now."


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think one could try to move backwards along this line of abstractions and try to create a token-system for powers, and finally also a combo-system for them. But the highest playability value is probably still the last one, while the highest "immersion" value is the combo-system.



At least in my experience the combo-system does not produce immersion. It produces statistics-heavy character building and optimisation of action resolution, in order to ensure that the combo works. This can be a fun way to play an RPG - but not terribly immersive, in my experience.

The token system has its own drawbacks. It is fiddly, and (unlike a spell point system) the tokens don't particularly correspond to anything in the gameworld - they are a host of itty-bitty Fate Points. Once one goes to a token system, I can see the attraction of going all the way to per-day/per-encounter.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The token system has its own drawbacks. It is fiddly, and (unlike a spell point system) the tokens don't particularly correspond to anything in the gameworld - they are a host of itty-bitty Fate Points. Once one goes to a token system, I can see the attraction of going all the way to per-day/per-encounter.



I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Mearls thought similar after Iron Heroes and talking the initial 4E designs...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 3, 2008)

Toras said:
			
		

> If the manuevers were simply grouped and you could only do a certain number of the more difficult ones before you got to tired to do them that would be one thing.  But 4th ed, in the effort to make fighters nifty and keen have robbed from it one of the truly grand things about a fighter.  The fighter is scary no matter where and when he is, as is the rogue.




Perhaps you could remove all of the fighter's daily powers, and give a compensating bump to their per encounter and at will powers.

Their low powers won't be as low as the wizard, and their highs won't be as high, but they'll run at reliable effectiveness all the time.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 3, 2008)

greatn said:
			
		

> Why would a fifth level character ever be facing a horde of lvl 30 minions? Or even one?




I got to page 5 and there was a whole lot of missing the point about the 5th level daily automatically killing minions. Apologies if this has been mentioned from page 6 onwards...

The issue is that a 26th level character (who would quite legitimately be fighting 26th level minions) can still use a 5th level daily to automatically wipe out all adjacent minions for the duration of the encounter.

Is it too good in that context? Is it too good compared to other daily powers available?

Cheers


----------



## Keenath (Jun 3, 2008)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> _
> Double _fail; He's _obviously_ a heavily-armored archer who has a back-up weapon and a shield for when he runs out of arrows.



That's not obvious at all.

It's just Occam's Razor -- the simplest explanation is probably correct, assuming all the options explain the phenomenon.

Which is more likely?
That you're seeing a character who has gone through the contortions necessary to build an armored archer despite the fact that his key attack ability (dexterity) can't fully apply to his defense when he's wearing that armor?
Or that he's a strength-based sword-and-board meleeist who happens to be shooting an arrow for the purpose of producing a dramatic pose?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 3, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> That's not obvious at all.
> 
> It's just Occam's Razor -- the simplest explanation is probably correct, assuming all the options explain the phenomenon.
> 
> ...




Quadruple fail.

The character in question is on the cover of an edition of rules that didn't have any armor-based limitations on how much of his Dexterity bonus he can apply to his defense.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jun 3, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I got to page 5 and there was a whole lot of missing the point about the 5th level daily automatically killing minions. Apologies if this has been mentioned from page 6 onwards...
> 
> The issue is that a 26th level character (who would quite legitimately be fighting 26th level minions) can still use a 5th level daily to automatically wipe out all adjacent minions for the duration of the encounter.
> 
> Is it too good in that context? Is it too good compared to other daily powers available?




No, powers are supposed to scale up to retain some usefulness at all levels.  If a 26th level character is using a daily he first got at 5th level to wipe out 26th level minions, that's legit.  Presumably dailies he first got at higher levels would do better, but the 5th level one shouldn't be useless.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 3, 2008)

almagest said:
			
		

> 4e does answer questions about daily powers.  It's on page 54 of the PHB.




For those of us who have not yet gotten the not as of yet released PH could you tell us what it does say about daily martial powers on page 54?

Martial dailies as an in game concept is OK with a ki power type of explanation IMO (fighters as anime jedi could work), but most of the non magical explanations have not been to my taste and I am interested in what the game has to say about them.

Mechanically and story wise I like per encounter abilities much better and the explanations people provide seem to fit much better IMO. Its when the characters are deciding to rest up or press on that this issue makes itself visible to me.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I disagree here. I find it very awkward that a Paladin can say "My god allows me to smite evil only twice a day!" or a Cleric saying "My god grants me only 3 Flame Strikes per day".
> 
> It might be explainable, because "it is magic", but it never felt right to me. Forgetting spells is a very specific concept of magic, and not a typical idea. And why would every god give the same number of spells to equal level Clerics?




You find it awkward that a character can describe magical mechanics as they exist in D&D?

I dislike daily powers whether they are 3e spell-like abilities, paladin smites, or barbarian rages and much prefer at will or recharging powers (such as psionic focus and soulknife psychic strike).

4e half deals with this by making spellcasters not solely daily based spell casters, but they still do vancian magic with their daily spells and now nonmagical classes have the same issue without even the arbitrary nature of supernatural magic to explain the tempo of their abilities. 



> I prefer the idea used for martial heroes that such powers are difficult to use and require the correct circumstances. The encounter/daily denotion just represents the players right to narrate this circumstances.




I find that explanation jarring when roleplaying out making plans and decisions.



> Yes, it is less... how should I put... immersive then the previous way, since the rules don't tell us exactly what the character how a character comes to the conclusion he should use a power, or if he has expended them.




Exactly.



> But then, this character perspective allows you to describe it as you want, without risking to break any in-game world laws...




I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> You find it awkward that a character can describe magical mechanics as they exist in D&D?



I don't like it that I am forced to use only one explanation for magic, especially one that is so alien to me as Vancian magic. It never felt right to me, and I don't see many fantasy settings supporting this kind of "fire and forget" mechanic.



> I dislike daily powers whether they are 3e spell-like abilities, paladin smites, or barbarian rages and much prefer at will or recharging powers (such as psionic focus and soulknife psychic strike).
> 
> 4e half deals with this by making spellcasters not solely daily based spell casters, but they still do vancian magic with their daily spells and now nonmagical classes have the same issue without even the arbitrary nature of supernatural magic to explain the tempo of their abilities.



Personally, I probably could have done with a lot less daily powers as it is. Just enough to ensure that you can't go on forever due to unlimited healing. 



> I find that explanation jarring when roleplaying out making plans and decisions.



Yes, I can see that happening. For planning it might be easiest to just "hand-wave" and say that the character feels to tired to pull of the plan. (Especially if the plan the players come up with rely on using a lot of daily powers you no longer have access to.)



> Exactly.
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.



Explainations for the Daily and Encounter nature of powers for martial characters are left to interpretation of the player. 

Vancian Magic á la 3E didn't give this freedom. You could memorize/prepare X spells of level Y, and if you expended them, they were gone. The explaination was that this is how magic works in D&D. If you don't like it, create a new subsystem (aka psioncs).

4E now gives me an alternate route to explain the daily or encounter limitations of spells. I can use the same approach I use for martial powers also for spells and prayers. 

Off course, no one really forced me to use only the old "vancian" flavor text for 3E. But I never had an idea how to do it differently, until now. And since the whole system assumes such an approach, it also feels a lot of easier to "get through" with it. If I want that Mages are gathering Mana to fuel their spells, I don't have to rewrite a spell point system for 4E. I can just use the existing framework and narrate the mana gathering stuff into the game.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> 
> Explainations for the Daily and Encounter nature of powers for martial characters are left to interpretation of the player.
> ...




Can you give some examples of what you are applying from the martials to magic powers?

I'm having a hard time picturing once a day magic powers as "getting into the zone" or "circumstances being just right".

"Do it yourself and make it work" when it doesn't seem to work for me makes this more of a bug than a feature for me.

If you didn't like the default explanation for before even though it worked and you come up with one or multiple ones now that work for you then I fully understand you seeing it as a feature instead of a bug.  

As a matter of preference I too dislike Vancian and per day abilities, though from a gameplay and world flavor angle. I liked the UA spontaneous divine casters options, the recharge magic variant and 3e warlocks and dragonfire adept magic classes a lot for their style of D&D magic. Vancian and magical per day abilities could be easily explained in game though which I enjoyed a lot.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

Hard example:

Mana Flow. The world is permeated with Mana. There is not an infinite amount, and there are different levels, and it in constant flux. 
Spellcasters can try to gather mana, but it takes a little time.
At-Will Powers can do fine with the ambient mana commonly available.
Encounter Powers require some gathering of mana. Hence, a short rest allows a spellcaster to recover enough mana to fuel his encounter powers.
Daily Powers require a larger then usual concentration of mana.

Using a magical power requires manipulating not only the mana available to you, but also the mana in the power. If the mana flux in your target is right, you can try to to pull of your encounter or daily power.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Hard example:
> 
> Mana Flow. The world is permeated with Mana. There is not an infinite amount, and there are different levels, and it in constant flux.
> Spellcasters can try to gather mana, but it takes a little time.
> ...




How does this work with dailies recharging after a 6 hour rest but only once a day.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> How does this work with dailies recharging after a 6 hour rest but only once a day.



To power a daily power, you need a stronger concentration of mana. These happens rarely. The player gets to decide when. 

(Remember, it's not a "rules as physics" of the game-world. It's about transforming the game mechanics to what happens in the game-world.)


----------



## Keenath (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Quadruple fail.
> 
> The character in question is on the cover of an edition of rules that didn't have any armor-based limitations on how much of his Dexterity bonus he can apply to his defense.



Quintuple super duper infinity plus one fail. ::eyeroll::

Fine, but that doesn't indicate in any way that this is a "heavily armored archer" rather than a "heavily armed melee guy" who happens to be using a bow at the moment.  If he weren't wearing a sword and shield I could be convinced that he was an archer, but as is -- he's a bog-standard knight with a bow.

The argument is that 4e fails to support an important archetype, the armored archer, which I dispute being an important -- or even extant! -- archetype.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 4, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> Fine, but that doesn't indicate in any way that this is a "heavily armored archer" rather than a "heavily armed melee guy" who happens to be using a bow at the moment.  If he weren't wearing a sword and shield I could be convinced that he was an archer, but as is -- he's a bog-standard knight with a bow.




Sure it does. If he were a melee guy, he wouldn't be wasting his time with a bow, he'd be running into melee with his sword at the ready. His opponent is on the ground, the bow is a much less effective weapon in that edition, and movement rates are so large that he could cover the ground shown in a single round. The only reason he would be using a bow in the circumstance shown is that it is his preferred weapon.

Or he's an idiot.

I'll go with the "not an idiot" solution.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Why do ppl think that one David C. Sutherland illustration constitutes an "important archetype"?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Why do ppl think that one David C. Sutherland illustration constitutes an "important archetype"?




Well, it _is_ Sutherland. And the cover of the blue book edition.

That's probably it.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, it _is_ Sutherland. And the cover of the blue book edition.
> 
> That's probably it.



 Why do ppl think that David C. Sutherland and one book cover from 30 years ago constitutes an "important archetype"?


----------



## Voadam (Jun 4, 2008)

PC archers have often been heavy armored tanks in D&D.

Going slower in heavier armor than in light armor is less of a drawback for an archer than a melee character, archers have range while melee characters must get to their foe.

Pre 3e dex bonus to AC is not limited in armor.

Pre 3e the primary reasons for an archer to be in lighter or no armor are if you are a multiclassed or dual classed character who avoids armor for the use of non fighter class abilities.

In 3e straight fighters with their tons of archery applicable feats were the dominant archers IME and heavy armor is still a good way to go even with dex limits for armors and 20' vs 30' move. You have to have a 26 dex before leather armor is a better straight AC option than full plate.

In D&D it has always been wise for combatants to have both a ranged and melee option and characters with multiple weapons (bow and sword and shield for example) are not uncommon IME.

From looking at a picture of a D&D character in armor using a bow with a shield on his back and a sword at his side it is impossible to say from the picture alone whether he is primarily a heavy armor archer with melee weapons or a primarily melee combatant who happens to be using a bow. It can reasonably be either.


----------



## Keenath (Jun 5, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> PC archers have often been heavy armored tanks in D&D.
> 
> Going slower in heavier armor than in light armor is less of a drawback for an archer than a melee character, archers have range while melee characters must get to their foe.



Of course, being at range makes AC a lot less important than for a melee fighter...



> Pre 3e dex bonus to AC is not limited in armor.
> 
> Pre 3e the primary reasons for an archer to be in lighter or no armor are if you are a multiclassed or dual classed character who avoids armor for the use of non fighter class abilities.
> 
> In 3e straight fighters with their tons of archery applicable feats were the dominant archers IME and heavy armor is still a good way to go even with dex limits for armors and 20' vs 30' move. You have to have a 26 dex before leather armor is a better straight AC option than full plate.



Nnnno, it's still +1 worse, because if you have 26 dex, you can still only apply +6 of it to your AC due to the max dex ceiling that you hit back at Dex 22.  You'd need padded armor to do that.

Full plate is +1 better than any of the other armors except Padded, which requires a ridiculously high dex.  That is to say, if you have the armor's maximum dex bonus, you always have +8 armor bonus, except Full Plate, which is +9.

If you ignore full plate (and a single +1 is rarely worth it in 3e), there's no reason to wear heavy armor when you have Dex 16; a breastplate gives you as good an AC as anything else.

But that aside, the problem with your argument is that real life archers don't wear heavy armor.  Like ever.  Normally bowmen would be wearing something like scale or chain, if that.  So, where's this archetype of a heavily armored archer?  Who's the example?  What novel did you see that guy in -- even a D&D novel?  What movie features Robin Hood and William Tell walking around in shining plate?

Sorry.  I can't mourn the loss of an archetype that doesn't exist except as a mechanical artifact.


----------



## Andor (Jun 5, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> But that aside, the problem with your argument is that real life archers don't wear heavy armor.  Like ever.  Normally bowmen would be wearing something like scale or chain, if that.  So, where's this archetype of a heavily armored archer?  Who's the example?  What novel did you see that guy in -- even a D&D novel?  What movie features Robin Hood and William Tell walking around in shining plate?
> 
> Sorry.  I can't mourn the loss of an archetype that doesn't exist except as a mechanical artifact.




Genovese crossbowman wore breastplates which was about as much armour as anyone wore at the time. Samurai were fearsome archers, and wore heavy armour. Most archers wore armour as heavy as was practical. What sometimes made heavy armour impractical were either a need for mobility as with the Parthians, poverty as with all yeoman archers, or climate.


----------



## Kichwas (Jun 5, 2008)

Byronic said:
			
		

> Then again Daily powers for fighters don't break immersion that much. The circumstances have to be exactly right for that power to work, the enemies have to be placed so, the ground will be just so and God it's tiring. If I did that move one more time I don't know if I'd be able to fight as well afterwards, best not risk it.




1e, 2e, and 3e: Vancian magic to gimp the casters.
Fanbase: Enough with the Vancian already!
4e: Vancian everything to gimp everybody.

1-3E sample fight:

Round 1:
Fighter: wack, wack wack!
Mage: I nuke the universe with a fireball!

Round 2:
Fighter: wack, wack, wack!
Mage: [twiddles thumbs, waiting for tomorrow]

4E sample fight:
Round 1:
Fighter: wack, wack wack!
Mage: I nuke 7 squares with a fireball!

Round 2:
Fighter: [twiddles thumbs, waiting for the monsters to run away long enough for a respawn.]
Mage: [twiddles thumbs, waiting for the monsters to run away long enough for a respawn.]
Rogue: "You guys camping this spawn? Can I join to share quest credit?"


----------



## Keenath (Jun 6, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Genovese crossbowman wore breastplates which was about as much armour as anyone wore at the time.



Crossbow is a totally different thing from what we're talking about.  A crossbow doesn't require the arm and chest flexibility that a true bow does, and thus is not inhibited by armor.*  It's not archery -- it's a gun.


> Samurai were fearsome archers, and wore heavy armour.



I can't absolutely swear to this, but my understanding is "...but not at the same time."  Yabusame, however distantly related to actual samurai horse-archery, is performed while wearing a single arm-covering pad, and against targets meant to simulate a fully armored samurai (whose weak point was the face, between helmet and gorget).

So far as I know, no kyudo today is performed in even simulated armor, and I don't think I've ever seen a period painting of a fully equipped samurai doing so.  I think there are some of the terracotta warriors in China who are weilding bows, but they're all wearing a sort of jacket of small plates that resembles what we would probably call scale armor.


> Most archers wore armour as heavy as was practical. What sometimes made heavy armour impractical were either a need for mobility as with the Parthians, poverty as with all yeoman archers, or climate.



Well, or the fact that not being able to fully bend your arm is kind of going to be a problem when you try to shoot a bow!

Of course they wore all the armor that was practical -- what I'm arguing is that full plate just isn't very practical for an archer, which we can see by the fact that people didn't do it.

* Of course, in real life the advent of crossbows pretty much eliminated the true bow from the battlefield; in D&D we have elements of many different real time periods squished together into a single game.  Still, crossbows won out not becuase of armor, but because J. Random Farmer could learn to use a crossbow proficiently inside of a week, while a longbow took years of constant practice to reach the same level.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 6, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> But that aside, the problem with your argument is that real life archers don't wear heavy armor.  Like ever.  Normally bowmen would be wearing something like scale or chain, if that.  So, where's this archetype of a heavily armored archer?  Who's the example?  What novel did you see that guy in -- even a D&D novel?  What movie features Robin Hood and William Tell walking around in shining plate?




Not 'real life" (but when does that truly count in D&D discussions), but the Gondorian archers in the LotR movies wore heavy armor. The only Gondorian soldiers that _didn't_ wear heavy armor were Faramir's guys, and they weren't the only archers in the army. Of course, it is Hollywood armor - which apparently doesn't protect its wearer against being punched or bitten, but even so.

Archers in full plate also show up in a couple other places - I think there are a few in _Excalibur_, and a couple other movies (for example, _Prince Valiant_, if I remember correctly). I have a couple model soldiers from when I was a kid of knights, in full plate armor, using bows.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 6, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> Of course, being at range makes AC a lot less important than for a melee fighter...




But not unimportant. And no significant drawback for wearing heavy armor.



> Nnnno, it's still +1 worse, because if you have 26 dex, you can still only apply +6 of it to your AC due to the max dex ceiling that you hit back at Dex 22.  You'd need padded armor to do that.
> 
> Full plate is +1 better than any of the other armors except Padded, which requires a ridiculously high dex.  That is to say, if you have the armor's maximum dex bonus, you always have +8 armor bonus, except Full Plate, which is +9.
> 
> If you ignore full plate (and a single +1 is rarely worth it in 3e), there's no reason to wear heavy armor when you have Dex 16; a breastplate gives you as good an AC as anything else.




Oops! I was mistakenly thinking leather had no max dex cap. You are right, there is always an AC incentive for archers to wear full plate in 3e unless they have a 26 dex.



> But that aside, the problem with your argument is that real life archers don't wear heavy armor.  Like ever.  Normally bowmen would be wearing something like scale or chain, if that.  So, where's this archetype of a heavily armored archer?  Who's the example?  What novel did you see that guy in -- even a D&D novel?  What movie features Robin Hood and William Tell walking around in shining plate?




My statement was that heavily armored archers have been common throughout D&D for the AC benefits.

Arguing that this is not historically accurate does not show a problem with my assertion. Where is the example in history or film of the heavily armored guy with a mace turning mummies?   

I don't remember off the top of my head and I can't find a picture, were the archers in Army of Darkness heavily armored or just medium armored?

The elven archers in the Lord of the Rings movies look pretty heavily armored up. 

http://www.theargonath.cc/stuff/fotrobservation6.jpg

http://www.theargonath.cc/pictures/hdelves/hdelves26.jpg

http://www.theargonath.cc/pictures/hdelves/hdelves44.jpg 

http://www.theargonath.cc/pictures/hdelves/hdelves29.jpg



> Sorry.  I can't mourn the loss of an archetype that doesn't exist except as a mechanical artifact.




I won't ask you to. Seems a taste question for a fantasy game to me that can reasonably vary.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 6, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> Crossbow is a totally different thing from what we're talking about.  A crossbow doesn't require the arm and chest flexibility that a true bow does, and thus is not inhibited by armor.*  It's not archery -- it's a gun.




So to bring this back on topic, does 4e accomodate the archetype of a heavy armored crossbow specialist?

If I wanted to create a dwarven warrior who wears heavy armor, doesn't particularly care about mobility, but is great with his crossbow is that easy to effect mechanically in 4e?


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 7, 2008)

Nail said:
			
		

> You've got some rose-coloerd glasses for 3e, eh?  Gimme a pair.
> 
> 3e did not answer the spell casting rationale well.  Put another way: Vancian magic does NOT model the spell casters in Fantasy Literature very well.  This has been discussed countless times.




Is your 3e PHB missing the pages with the sorcerer?


----------

