# New tidbit about spells and hit points.



## Szatany (Aug 28, 2007)

New tidbit about spells and hit points.



			
				Mike Lemmer said:
			
		

> Just got back from PAX, where I managed to get some more info on 4th edition from one of the playtesters manning the Wizards booth. Note that this info may be inaccurate or subject to change.
> 
> Will the online D&D games be user-to-user or run off a central server?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure about credibility but the info looks solid. I like the idea of "bloodied" (however I dislike the name for the condition). It effectively means that halfway the combat changes into something quite different, when many abilities and spells turn on.

He also said they tie conditions to the HP. Looks like condition track from Saga might not make it.

Source: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54978


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 28, 2007)

Sounds cool and very akin to the condition track in SW Saga edition.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 28, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> He also said they tie conditions to the HP.



I _really_ hope it isn't a hardwired death spiral.  I have a marked preference for D&D specifically because it doesn't have the death spiral.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 28, 2007)

I wonder how it would affect the game if healing was powerful but affected only bloodied characters.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 28, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Sounds cool and very akin to the condition track in SW Saga edition.




Indeed. I'd been hoping they would bring in something akin to the condition track; I'm gratified to start seeing evidence of it.


----------



## delericho (Aug 28, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I _really_ hope it isn't a hardwired death spiral.  I have a marked preference for D&D specifically because it doesn't have the death spiral.




QFT.


----------



## marune (Aug 28, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I _really_ hope it isn't a hardwired death spiral.  I have a marked preference for D&D specifically because it doesn't have the death spiral.




Yeah, but it seems that you also get some "new possibilities" when you get a status, so it's not really a death spiral.

Sounds good.


----------



## Jer (Aug 28, 2007)

> For example, you drop below half HP, you become Bloodied. Then there are abilities you can only use while Bloodied, and abilities you can only use against Bloodied opponents. (Sounds like Fighters can get a Last Stand buff, while Rogues can unleash some nasty attacks against Bloodied enemies.)




So the "drop to 1/2 hit points and get such-and-such an action" that the dragon had in the playtest article last week might be something that PCs get too?  Interesting.

I wonder if this is "inspired" by the changes to the Barbarian's rage mechanic in the PHB II - where after losing so many hitpoints you automatically get a buff instead of the standard "rage" mechanic.  I liked that idea for barbarians - it'll be interesting to see what they do for other classes and how much bookkeeping tracking that stuff is going to add at the table.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 28, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I _really_ hope it isn't a hardwired death spiral.  I have a marked preference for D&D specifically because it doesn't have the death spiral.




If it's like SW SAGA, I don't think you have too much to worry about. Hit point loss _can_ cause movement on the condition track in SAGA, but the track is mostly about other conditions (what in D&D would be things like fatigued, sickened, etc.).


----------



## Gargoyle (Aug 28, 2007)

Death at -10 has always annoyed me.  When they got rid of negative AC, they should have gotten rid of negative HP.  Give player characters 10 bonus HP and make them go unconscious at 10 hp and die at zero.


----------



## Jeph (Aug 28, 2007)

I really like the sound of bloodied. Looks like, it gets rid of the fine... fine... fine... dead thing without introducing a death spiral, and inserts a break point into combat where everyone has to shift tactics and take a new approach. Thumbs up.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 28, 2007)

I do like the idea of a bloodied condition that makes you fight harder when your back is up against the wall.  If it mitigates the death spiral, I could really get behind it.  I love the idea of a unified condition track, it's just the tied to hit points part that I don't enjoy.

If there were a sidebar that explained how to untie conditions and hit points, that'd rock.  Built-in customization options are the bomb.  I'm not a simulationist (I just wanna have fun!), but I'll not begrudge them their jollies.
-blarg


----------



## A'koss (Aug 28, 2007)

Very interesting to the Half-HP condition change apply to PCs, though I'm not so keen on the term "Bloodied" as that doesn't necessarily have to be the case (poisoned, drained, etc.). A more generic "Wounded" might be better. It also sounds like they might not be _completely_ getting away from Save or Lose/Die spells though it may still be up in the air. 

And does this mean that Saving Throws are still in, rather than a Saga-like target number?


----------



## Szatany (Aug 28, 2007)

Jeph said:
			
		

> I really like the sound of bloodied. Looks like, it gets rid of the fine... fine... fine... dead thing without introducing a death spiral, and inserts a break point into combat where everyone has to shift tactics and take a new approach. Thumbs up.



Imagine possibilities for monster design.

Crimson ooze: when reduced to half hit points it splits into 6 lesser oozes.

Magma Golem: when reduced to half HP, lava begins to flow through the cracks in golem's ceramic skin.


----------



## Someone (Aug 28, 2007)

And if you Bluff your opponent into thinking you're Bloodied, they may waste some spells on you without effect.


----------



## delericho (Aug 28, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> Death at -10 has always annoyed me.  When they got rid of negative AC, they should have gotten rid of negative HP.  Give player characters 10 bonus HP and make them go unconscious at 10 hp and die at zero.




Nah, I don't like that. As far as Okay/Not Okay thresholds go, 0 is pretty much the best and most obvious value.

That said, I think dead at -10 is a bad idea, too.

Here's what I would have done: when a character reaches 0 hit points, he must immediately make a Fort save (DC 10 + damage done in that last attack) or die. If he succeeds, he remains at 0 hit points and is incapacitated. Thereafter, the character must periodically make Fort saves to remain alive. Any further damage suffered by the character requires a new save (but leaves the character at 0 hit points). A coup de grace is automatic death.

This would get rid of the problem that -10 is basically a trivial buffer at high level. It would mean that a character who is dropped to the equivalent of -9 might not bleed out before the Cleric has any chance to get to him. Conversely, it also means that the Cleric can't just leave a colleague who dropped to -1 for a few rounds because he has more pressing matters to attend to - his friend might die at any time.


----------



## sfgiants (Aug 28, 2007)

Seems like another thing a DM has to keep track of...


----------



## Someone (Aug 28, 2007)

sfgiants said:
			
		

> Seems like another thing a DM has to keep track of...




I agree with you if the number of different triggers is too high and you can't memorize them easily. On the other hand, if many abilities trigger or can be used when at half hit points or lower, any DM or player will be used to look for them after the first session.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 28, 2007)

Pity. I don't like condition tracks. Hit points are a lot simpler. And I've got no real problem with save-or-die, it's how the system handles death that's much more of an issue, coupled with how easy it is to create a new character.

These things are all connected, mind. Perhaps fewer save-or-die could be coupled with fewer deaths from other sources (such as by increasing the -ve hit points value), so PCs deaths are less frequent. Thus PC creation could be made more complex by adding options.


----------



## olshanski (Aug 28, 2007)

sfgiants said:
			
		

> Seems like another thing a DM has to keep track of...



At least it is faster and more streamlined than the current method of tracking hit points.

_another sip of kool-aid please._


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 28, 2007)

Umm, it sounds _exactly the same_ as the current method of tracking hit points.

I don't know if it will suck or rock yet, but I do know that I have never once been DMing and not known what my monsters hit points were.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 28, 2007)

I like it...except the -10 HP relic. I'd like to see the SW Saga approach. Unconscious when knocked below 0 HP, or dead if the killing blow did exceeded your threshold.

Although, D&D does need to keep the 'you have a few rounds to save the dying character' aspect.


----------



## Someone (Aug 28, 2007)

> I don't know if it will suck or rock yet, but I do know that I have never once been DMing and not known what my monsters hit points were.




Well, I've known players not knowing what their character's hit points were. They record damage suffered, so if a critter hit them for 3,5 and 4 hit poins, they record 3,5,4 in the sheet), and sometimes when they remember to add it they discover that they died a couple rounds ago.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 28, 2007)

Hm.  I think I like that mechanic.

The condition track was interesting, but wouldn't scale to D&D very well.  For instance, D&D characters seem to take fewer BIGGER hits than SWSE characters, which would regularly top their Damage Threshold.  We were doing some quick math the other day and if we had run a combat using Damage Threshold from SWSE in our existing D&D game, every blow landed by one creature (which had multiple high-bonus attacks) would have tapped ANY of the characters' Damage Thresholds.  This would have meant a five round combat where the creature banged every character down the condition track irregardless of healing (unless, we decided, Heal removes all conditions immediately).  

In combats with creatures that have 1000hp (the dragon we've seen) the damage output expectations there would mean any level-tied Damage Threshold typed mechanic would have to scale enormously outside of level.

--fje


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 28, 2007)

Remember the combat against the dragon?

"...dropping the dragon down below half its hit points. Oh—that gives the dragon the opportunity use its breath weapon as an immediate action..."

What about that? The barbarian looses half of his HP. Now he is blooded and can activate Rage, or a more powerfull version of Rage!

It rocks!


----------



## qstor (Aug 28, 2007)

I don't like the condition track in fantasy. The developers are always about hit points being better for the fantasy style of gaming. Conditions IMHO fit better in modern/sci-fi games. And as another poster mentioned its something else the DM has to keep track of. Negative hit points are easy to keep track of. Conditions aren't.

Mike


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 28, 2007)

Yeah how am I supposed to keep track of which of my 20 goblins are bloodied? Oh I know, mook rules. They never get bloodied. That's only for a single monster versus many PCs.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah how am I supposed to keep track of which of my 20 goblins are bloodied? Oh I know, mook rules. They never get bloodied. That's only for a single monster versus many PCs.




Maybe goblins don't have any special power to activate when they drop below half hit points.


----------



## Gundark (Aug 28, 2007)

Hey F4nboy. I notice your joindate is Aug 2007. Where you a member here before? If so, what was you handle?

Just curious


----------



## Jeph (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah how am I supposed to keep track of which of my 20 goblins are bloodied? Oh I know, mook rules. They never get bloodied. That's only for a single monster versus many PCs.




If you're tracking hp, shouldn't that tell you whether a monster's bloodied? No need to keep track of it separately. If you're really feeling zealous and organized, maybe have a little tick box by each monster's stat line that you tick when they drop to half, or drop a little red glass bead by their miniature.

And also, from my reading of the OP, it kinda sounds like save or dies will still be in the game, but only target enemies who are bloodied? Or am I off base?

I'd like that if it's true. It lets you have Slay Living spells that, you know, actually slay dudes, without reducing the whole combat to a single save.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 28, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Hey F4nboy. I notice your joindate is Aug 2007. Where you a member here before? If so, what was you handle?
> 
> Just curious




Yeah, I access EnWorld since before 3E when it was eric's scoop site.
I regiester in the Forums in 2004, but never was much of a poster, more of a reader really.
I think my previous nick had 20 posts I or so.
You probably never saw it


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 28, 2007)

So basically people are happy that lots of stuff is removed from the game to make it simple, and happy that we have one more condition to keep track of?  :\

I think that extra complications could be fun, but should better be considered as variants to put in the DMG rather than making it mandatory for every game.


----------



## Gargoyle (Aug 28, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Nah, I don't like that. As far as Okay/Not Okay thresholds go, 0 is pretty much the best and most obvious value.
> 
> That said, I think dead at -10 is a bad idea, too.
> 
> ...




Yeah, your method is better, and I'm sure there are lots of ways to do it... mine was just something off the cuff.  I just don't like negative hit points for the same reason I don't like negative AC...it feels clunky.


----------



## Simplicity (Aug 28, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> So basically people are happy that lots of stuff is removed from the game to make it simple, and happy that we have one more condition to keep track of?  :\
> 
> I think that extra complications could be fun, but should better be considered as variants to put in the DMG rather than making it mandatory for every game.




Yeah, I'm not sure ADDING something to keep track of in addition to hitpoints is a great idea.  But, whatever.  I can't judge it until I see it all.


----------



## psionotic (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah how am I supposed to keep track of which of my 20 goblins are bloodied? Oh I know, mook rules. They never get bloodied. That's only for a single monster versus many PCs.




This is almost certainly the way it will work.  DMs will only have to pay attention to specific HP percentages for important / 'named' creatures, but players will have to for their own character.

I love the idea of the condition track adding some minuses as it progresses, so long as there are cool offensive and defensive abilities that players (and monsters, where appropriate) can use that makes them mean something other than the Death Spiral o Doom.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 28, 2007)

I'm not sure I'm happy with that. If I understand correctly, it means that "desintegration" does not disintegrate anybody. It means that "slay living" becomes "slay dying". Baneful polymorph won't work unless your target is bleeding and dominate or hold person are usefull only if you first have blanketed the area with fireballs... 

No, it looks too silly to be true, so I think powerfull spells should still be something else than finishing moves... Gaming is great, but this game is about story happening in fantasy settings. You can't remove the specificity of magic in the name of balance ! What else ? Invisibility only gives you +5 to discretion (so that the rogue is not screwed), fly does not allow you to fly more than 5 ft from the ground (so that the fighter can still use his sword against you ?) and teleport stop if there is a monster or a trap between you and your target ?


The road to Hell Is paved with good intentions. I hope WotC does not confound an RPG with something else...


----------



## Szatany (Aug 28, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm not sure ADDING something to keep track of in addition to hitpoints is a great idea.  But, whatever.  I can't judge it until I see it all.



It's not, but they kinda have to do this, because they are promising many new fighter powers, rogue powers, a multitude of racial powers, racial/class combination powers, and so on. They have to introduce new variable for new abilities. 
I'm not sure I like it, but if 4e plays visibly faster than 3e, and can accept it.


----------



## chaotix42 (Aug 28, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *snip*




Disintegrate just does a bucket of d6s in 3.5. I've slammed many PCs with green rays of death and rolled awful damage. Just a chunk of them disintegrated, even on a failed save. 

Also, do not assume that any of the save or die attacks will return. If they're trying to move away from that, perhaps they're just being dropped entirely?


----------



## Mercule (Aug 29, 2007)

I like the idea of minimizing the save-or-die effects, but I certainly hope a few select instances remain.  I want medusas to turn you to stone.


----------



## Zurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> Death at -10 has always annoyed me.  When they got rid of negative AC, they should have gotten rid of negative HP.  Give player characters 10 bonus HP and make them go unconscious at 10 hp and die at zero.




Negative AC didn't make mathematical sense. Negative HP does - when you're above 0 HP, you're still functioning fine. When you're below 0 HP, you're not functioning. 0 is a logical break point for functioning/not functioning; 10, not so much.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 29, 2007)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Disintegrate just does a bucket of d6s in 3.5. I've slammed many PCs with green rays of death and rolled awful damage. Just a chunk of them disintegrated, even on a failed save.



3.0 for the win. 



> Also, do not assume that any of the save or die attacks will return. If they're trying to move away from that, perhaps they're just being dropped entirely?



That's what I fear. Boring. If the only thing that wizards are able to do is more or less "fireball !", and that things like polymorph, sleep, hold person, slay living, dominate (...) disappear, I think we should better play D20 sci-fi : droids with turbo-laser are nearly as fun as damage dealing only spellcasters.

No, I think they won't strip D&D magic of its richness. They will find a solution for the so called "save or die" spells that don't involve destroying the archetypal mad wizard polymorphing his ennemy in frogs.


My solution would be to make those spells " per day" power, with only a few number of them available.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 29, 2007)

It will be a pity to lose cool spell names like 'Finger of Death'. But if it makes for a better game, I'm all for it.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 29, 2007)

Maybe spells like Finger of Death will still work but only on mooks/minions or "bloodied" monsters.  That way the player characters don't get taken down by a single failed save, but neither do special opponents, unless they've been softened up first.


----------



## marune (Aug 29, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> No, it looks too silly to be true, so I think powerfull spells should still be something else than finishing moves... Gaming is great, but this game is about story happening in fantasy settings. You can't remove the specificity of magic in the name of balance !




Killing NPCs with one spell is kewl, PCs dying with one spell is not... that's the problem D&D 4e has to solve.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 29, 2007)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> Maybe spells like Finger of Death will still work but only on mooks/minions or "bloodied" monsters.  That way the player characters don't get taken down by a single failed save, but neither do special opponents, unless they've been softened up first.




It would be balanced and fun, I guess.... But will this be interesting ?

 "the necromancer is weaving arcane forces and dark energ..." 
"I roll 34 on my spellcraft check, what is he casting ?" 
"huh, finger of death"
"haha ! I'm at 75% HP, BBEG. Looser !'


----------



## Gargoyle (Aug 29, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Negative AC didn't make mathematical sense. Negative HP does - when you're above 0 HP, you're still functioning fine. When you're below 0 HP, you're not functioning. 0 is a logical break point for functioning/not functioning; 10, not so much.




And -10 is a logical breaking point for being alive or dead?


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 29, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> It would be balanced and fun, I guess.... But will this be interesting ?
> 
> "the necromancer is weaving arcane forces and dark energ..."
> "I roll 34 on my spellcraft check, what is he casting ?"
> ...




I think we can safely conclude that, if we are right in assuming that finger of death will only work on enemies who are below 50% hit points, then it will have some other, unpleasant effect on those who are above 50%.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> It would be balanced and fun, I guess.... But will this be interesting ?
> 
> "the necromancer is weaving arcane forces and dark energ..."
> "I roll 34 on my spellcraft check, what is he casting ?"
> ...



 Psst. Power word kill already works like this.


----------



## WarlockLord (Aug 29, 2007)

I like save or dies.  I hope they stay as some of the 1/day abilities (i.e. not used, but very powerful when they are) , because blasting gets boring.  Besides, when you run into save or dies, you're high enough level for a resurrection.  And they're fun to use on BBEGs.

And no, I don't want to see save or dies that only work on blooded opponents.  That's just like Power Word Kill, as hong notes above, and I HATE that mechanic.  

Besides, I suspect that even if there are save or dies, most will be single target, thus getting rid of the 'I defeat the encounter with one spell!'

Also, something like a death ward could be up a talent tree.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 29, 2007)

Personally, I'd rather see _all_ the Save or Die effects stripped away. 

While yes it can be fun for some players to take down the BBEBoss with a single strike it is not so fun for the DM who carefully set up the final epic battle over the last two months of playing. And it's not fun for the player who spent the last two months going through an adventure only to sit out the final epic battle because he failed his SoD in the opening round. So he goes off and scowls in front of the TV for the next hour as everyone else continues with the fun.


----------



## WarlockLord (Aug 29, 2007)

True, but at least it hurts both sides.  Plus, blast...blast...blast is just repititive and dumb.  And removing many save or dies is illogical.  If a necromancer has complete mastery over death magic, why shouldn't he be able to kill people with his mind?  Why can't an enchanter shut down a target's mind? If a transmuter can rearrange matter to suit his bidding, why not turn his enemy into a toad?  Why can't an illusionist cause a heart attack via illusions? Couldn't a conjuror or evoker summon fire inside his opponent's vital organs?

Why should these guys stick to buff & blast?


----------



## grimslade (Aug 29, 2007)

I see Save or Die spells becoming Save or Lots o' Damage. I think Save or Suck spells will stay, like Baleful Polymorph, Hold Monster, Dominate. They will all have the renewed save roll each round to break the effect.
There are other conditions beyond bloodied. Shaken, Sicken and Dazed to name a few. As video gamey as it sounds this lends itself to combinations to defeating foes. We have it in 3.5. Intimidating Strike by a Hexblade followed by casting Fear with a Dark Minion moves foes down the fear condition track quickly. I expect some SoD coul return with a combination of conditions or alternate effects depending on condition. Two saves or die?


----------



## A'koss (Aug 29, 2007)

Keep in mind that straight damage is still _"save or die"_ or even _"save and die"_ for powerful beings vs lesser ones. The mighty HL Necromancer can still kill _99% of the general populace _ with a single spell, powerful Illusionists still kill with their powers and so on but when it's a battle between _peers_, it should never come down to just a single die roll. Because in HL combat that's what _every_ climatic battle will boil down to, assuming it can be used. IMO, they should be big cinematic battles, rewarding clever tactics and strategy over who gets lucky with their SoD attacks in the opening rounds.

Just my 2 bits...


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd rather see _all_ the Save or Die effects stripped away.
> 
> While yes it can be fun for some players to take down the BBEBoss with a single strike it is not so fun for the DM who carefully set up the final epic battle over the last two months of playing. And it's not fun for the player who spent the last two months going through an adventure only to sit out the final epic battle because he failed his SoD in the opening round. So he goes off and scowls in front of the TV for the next hour as everyone else continues with the fun.



 Heck, it's not that much fun for some players too. Back in 2001, the wiz in our group KO'd Imix in RttToEE with a disintegrate in the first round. It was anticlimactic enough that he's since consciously avoided using instakill spells.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 29, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> So basically people are happy that lots of stuff is removed from the game to make it simple, and happy that we have one more condition to keep track of?  :\
> 
> I think that extra complications could be fun, but should better be considered as variants to put in the DMG rather than making it mandatory for every game.




Better or worse than poison?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 29, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that straight damage is still _"save or die"_ or even _"save and die"_ for powerful beings vs lesser ones. The mighty HL Necromancer can still kill _99% of the general populace _ with a single spell, powerful Illusionists still kill with their powers and so on but when it's a battle between _peers_, it should never come down to just a single die roll. Because in HL combat that's what _every_ climatic battle will boil down to, assuming it can be used. IMO, they should be big cinematic battles, rewarding clever tactics and strategy over who gets lucky with their SoD attacks in the opening rounds.
> 
> Just my 2 bits...




Reminds me of the OotS strip with the high cleric and the goblin cleric "dueling".


----------



## A'koss (Aug 29, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Reminds me of the OotS strip with the high cleric and the goblin cleric "dueling".



I'm going to have to find that one again, I can only vaguely recall it...


----------



## MerricB (Aug 29, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to find that one again, I can only vaguely recall it...




http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html

Cheers!


----------



## A'koss (Aug 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html
> 
> Cheers!



LOL!

This is why no one ever pimps cleric duels...


----------



## Victim (Aug 29, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that straight damage is still _"save or die"_ or even _"save and die"_ for powerful beings vs lesser ones. The mighty HL Necromancer can still kill _99% of the general populace _ with a single spell, powerful Illusionists still kill with their powers and so on but when it's a battle between _peers_, it should never come down to just a single die roll. Because in HL combat that's what _every_ climatic battle will boil down to, assuming it can be used. IMO, they should be big cinematic battles, rewarding clever tactics and strategy over who gets lucky with their SoD attacks in the opening rounds.
> 
> Just my 2 bits...




In my experience, between huge damage and save or die effects, high level combat pretty much just is the opening rounds.  Getting lucky with a save or die is no worse than the power attack Axe crit or landing most hits on a full attack.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Great, they gimped the beholder.    

There was nothing wrong with the mass damage rules.  For godsakes if you are going to take that much damage in one hit that is major trauma to the freaking body.  Pathetic.


----------



## Victim (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Great, they gimped the beholder.
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the mass damage rules.  For godsakes if you are going to take that much damage in one hit that is major trauma to the freaking body.  Pathetic.




Yeah, except that every hit at high levels pretty much everything requires a massive damage save.  And the massive trauma is reflected in the 50+ damage which kills most people anyway.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Yeah, except that every hit at high levels pretty much everything requires a massive damage save.  And the massive trauma is reflected in the 50+ damage which kills most people anyway.




Yes, and that is how it should be.  When dealing with power on that level if you are on the recieving end there should be a very good chance you will die.


----------



## Victim (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Yes, and that is how it should be.  When dealing with power on that level if you are on the recieving end there should be a very good chance you will die.




In relative terms, a 50 HP blow to a 120 HP character is no more massive than a 5 HP shot to a 12 Hp character.  If the character isn't really tough, they're dead.  And there are such things as multiple attacks.  Adding a 5% chance for automatic death on every attack isn't particularly helpful - and still doesn't reflect a good chance to die.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

It just sounds to me that WotC is kiddifying DnD with 4e.  Kind of like those old GI Joe cartoons.  Hundreds of bullets flying about from machine guns and lasers but no one is ever seriously hurt or dead.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I have to disagree.
> 
> It just sounds to me that WotC is kiddifying DnD with 4e.  Kind of like those old GI Joe cartoons.  Hundreds of bullets flying about from machine guns and lasers but no one is ever seriously hurt or dead.



 You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a negative thing.




You actually think that is a good thing?!?!?!    

Sorry, but if combat goes on I expect people to get hurt, maimed, and D.E.A.D.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> You actually think that is a good thing?!?!?!



 You also say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Victim (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I have to disagree.
> 
> It just sounds to me that WotC is kiddifying DnD with 4e.  Kind of like those old GI Joe cartoons.  Hundreds of bullets flying about from machine guns and lasers but no one is ever seriously hurt or dead.




No, they'll just be dead from repeated massively damaging attacks dropping their HP to -30 instead of a fluketastic 5% chance on each attack.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

> You also say this like it's a negative thing.




Because it is.


----------



## hectorse (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> You actually think that is a good thing?!?!?!
> 
> Sorry, but if combat goes on I expect people to get hurt, maimed, and D.E.A.D.





better than losing your character every 20 landed attacks after level 10?

I believe so


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> No, they'll just be dead from repeated massively damaging attacks dropping their HP to -30 instead of a fluketastic 5% chance on each attack.




If there is a chance for the character, PC or NPC, to die on one hit then let it have that chance.  In any fight there is a slim chance there is going to be an insta-kill.  Victim, just how many fights have you, yourself have been in anyway?


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Because it is.



 Prove it.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

hectorse said:
			
		

> better than losing your character every 20 landed attacks after level 10?
> 
> I believe so



So, you want a safe padded room to adventure in.  Your choice I guesss but I don't see how much fun that is.


----------



## hectorse (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> If there is a chance for the character, PC or NPC, to die on one hit then let it have that chance.  In any fight there is a slim chance there is going to be an insta-kill.  Victim, just how many fights have you, yourself have been in anyway?





You keep saying that stuff as if massive damage was the only way of killing people. Ever heard of Hit POints?


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> So, you want a safe padded room to adventure in.  Your choice I guesss but I don't see how much fun that is.



 Clearly, this is a new definition of "safe" that I wasn't aware of before.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Prove it.



Where is the fun without danger?  Where is the thrills if you don't take the chance of facing death?  If there is no threat of death and no threat of harm for your character then what is the point?

It is the struggle that makes the game fun, and the risk of failure, of death, and over coming that risk is what makes the game worth playing.  Remove that then you might as well be playing Monoploy or Scrabble.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

hectorse said:
			
		

> You keep saying that stuff as if massive damage was the only way of killing people. Ever heard of Hit POints?




It should be one of _MANY_ ways to kill people.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Where is the fun without danger?  Where is the thrills if you don't take the chance of facing death?  If there is no threat of death and no threat of harm for your character then what is the point?




I fail to see the danger involved in sitting around a table eating Cheetos, while rolling dice and pretending to be elves. Do you mean death by cardiac arrest, perhaps?



> It is the struggle that makes the game fun, and the risk of failure, of death, and over coming that risk is what makes the game worth playing.  Remove that then you might as well be playing Monoploy or Scrabble.




Prove it.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> It should be one of _MANY_ ways to kill people.



 No, it shouldn't.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I fail to see the danger involved in sitting around a table eating Cheetos, while rolling dice and pretending to be elves. Do you mean death by cardiac arrest, perhaps?




Are you sure you are a gamer?  Seriously, think in your character's perspective.  Sheesh.



> Prove it.



I did.  That is my proof for me.  If that is not good enough for you then there is no point in even discussing this with you.  Have fun playing Scrabble.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Are you sure you are a gamer?  Seriously, think in your character's perspective.  Sheesh.




Ah, right. From my character's perspective, no way do they want a 5% chance of dying each time they get hit for some arbitrary number of hit points. Is that better?



> I did.  That is my proof for me.




If journals could only adopt this new, more permissive modern-day interpretation of the word "proof", a lot of problems could be solved.



> If that is not good enough for you then there is no point in even discussing this with you.  Have fun playing Scrabble.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> It is the struggle that makes the game fun, and the risk of failure, of death, and over coming that risk is what makes the game worth playing.  Remove that then you might as well be playing Monoploy or Scrabble.



Or Candyland.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Or Candyland.



Yeah, Candyland is probably more in the range of WotC's new target audience with 4e as they are trying to cater to "young gamers" according to one of their designers.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> It is the struggle that makes the game fun, and the risk of failure, of death, and over coming that risk is what makes the game worth playing.



Partially, yes. But you really put emphasis on the "risk of death"-part and try to hit other stuff with the badwrongfun-club.

And what's about "risk of failure". While I don't think that will ever happen (due to the mention of -10 death _in the first post of the thread_), let's assume the PCs are immune against damage and death. And they have to reach a certain place in a certain distance to avoid the activation of the Artefact Of Doom (TM) and the way to that place is filled with monsters, stuff. And they have to reach it in a certain time. There is still risk of failure, the fate of the world (or whatever is crucial for your plot).

Now, that won't affect the PCs directly, but the consequences of failure will change many things. And the struggle to avoid that, can surely be equally interesting.

There should be more than more way to make the game and the struggles fun, than only by the risk of death.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Victim (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> If there is a chance for the character, PC or NPC, to die on one hit then let it have that chance.  In any fight there is a slim chance there is going to be an insta-kill.  Victim, just how many fights have you, yourself have been in anyway?




None.  How many fights have you been in that featured a 20th level fighter?  I doubt you've fought someone who can wade through lava and punch through a castle wall with his fist.  I haven't seen any evidence of legendary death machines either.  So how is DnD modeling real fights?  Besides, any blow can be lethal if you deal with 1st level guys.

If any blow can be instantly lethal, then that argues against a 50 HP massive damage threshold anyway.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> There should be more than more way to make the game and the struggles fun, than only by the risk of death.




I agree, but that does not mean we should remove it as well.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Or Candyland.



 It's not a manly pursuit until you risk lead poisoning from the minis!


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> I agree, but that does not mean we should remove it as well.



 ... assuming, of course, they were removing it in the first place.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> None.  How many fights have you been in that featured a 20th level fighter?  I doubt you've fought someone who can wade through lava and punch through a castle wall with his fist.  I haven't seen any evidence of legendary death machines either.  So how is DnD modeling real fights?  Besides, any blow can be lethal if you deal with 1st level guys.
> 
> If any blow can be instantly lethal, then that argues against a 50 HP massive damage threshold anyway.




That is why in my game the Massive Damage Threshold is much much lower.  In my game the MDT is derived from d20 Modern, equal to the Character's Constitution Score, however the PCs can take feats to increase that value if they so wish it.  Also I use Monte Cook's rule on Death and Dying from Arcana Evolved.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It's not a manly pursuit until you risk lead poisoning from the minis!



Hows your dog Vrock these days?


----------



## Khaalis (Aug 29, 2007)

Nothing personal Visceris, but it sounds like core D&D (even 3.5) combat system isn't really the system of choice for you anyway. The "_Grim & Gritty_" rules set would more to your taste.
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=5022

Nothing wrong with this. Many people like a game system where combat should be avoided at almost any cost, like those mimicing the _Song of Ice and Fire_ or the _Black Company_ settings. This is why the rules set exists.

However, many (and I dare say most) people do not find running away from every combat or dying every time they pick up a weapon as fun. Many people wish to have a more cinematic game where combat is dynamic and fun. The point of the game is adventure.  Yes, I agree there should be a chance of death, but many feel that it shouldn't be the DM's sole purpose to be out to slaughter their player's characters on a regular basis. Thats not the DM's job, and I'd personally walk out on any game where this behavior became apparent. Its not fun for anyone but the DM who is getting some thrill at slaughtering characters. 

Most people prefer the game to be about the characters progressing down a story line, being heroes and seeing how they are affecting the world around them. You can't maintain a cohesive story line, where player's feel involved in the story, if they are bringing new characters into the game every other session.

JMHO. YMMV.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> Most people prefer the game to be about the characters progressing down a story line, being heroes and seeing how they are affecting the world around them. You can't maintain a cohesive story line, where player's feel involved in the story, if they are bringing new characters into the game every other session.




To tell the truth, I never had that problem.  The players played their characters smart and were careful in combat.  They mostly laid ambushes and traps when they could, but when combat crept up on them unexpectedly it took their toll.  Did player characters die?  On occasion, but that is the risk one faces when trying to be a hero.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 29, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I like save or dies.  I hope they stay as some of the 1/day abilities (i.e. not used, but very powerful when they are) , because blasting gets boring.  Besides, when you run into save or dies, you're high enough level for a resurrection.  And they're fun to use on BBEGs.



Killing a boss in the first round before he takes action is fun? I say not.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Killing a boss in the first round before he takes action is fun? I say not.




If the PC can be insta-killed then so can the NPCs.  Fair is fair.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> If the PC can be insta-killed then so can the NPCs.  Fair is fair.



 And similarly, if the PCs cannot be instakilled, then neither can the NPCs. Fair is fair.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

However, a dagger in the skull, rupturing the brain, is going to be a insta-kill for any living target.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> However, a dagger in the skull, rupturing the brain, is going to be a insta-kill for any living target.



 Assuming you get the dagger into the skull. And how is that modelled?


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Modelled?


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Modelled?



 Yes, the word has two syllables. How is the process of defeating an opponent in armed (or unarmed) combat modelled in D&D? I would hope for a familiarity with the D&D combat model if one presumes to make bold pronouncements about it.


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> If there is a chance for the character, PC or NPC, to die on one hit then let it have that chance.  In any fight there is a slim chance there is going to be an insta-kill.  Victim, just how many fights have you, yourself have been in anyway?




I'm okay with "lethal games" and many d20 campaign settings like Black Company and Game of Thrones has that mechanic. D&D for me however has been about epic heroism, in the same way that G.I. Joe's don't lose to Cobra's infantry (Destro, Cobra Commander, Serpentor, or the Baroness, on the other hand...). I want PC death to be meaningful, not at the whim of a rolled 1.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

I just never came across using that word to describe combat.  When I see the word "model" in conjecture to gaming I think of minitures.  How it happened was a critical hit sneak attack that exceeded the NPC's MDT and he failed his Fortitude save.


----------



## takasi (Aug 29, 2007)

Speaking of miniatures, has anyone else noticed that the "Bloodied" mechanic is is similar to the morale mechanics in DDM?  I've always liked having something kick in at half HP, even if it was just "save or flee".


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> I just never came across using that word to describe combat.  When I see the word "model" in conjecture to gaming I think of minitures.




I figured that.



> How it happened was a critical hit sneak attack that exceeded the NPC's MDT and he failed his Fortitude save.




Whereas the DEFAULT way in which one defeats an opponent in combat is by dealing enough damage to take their hit points to zero (or -10, depending). And thus it is quite possible to deal an "instakill" by driving your dagger into someone's brain, whether or not there is a massive damage save. Simple, isn't it?


----------



## Szatany (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> If the PC can be insta-killed then so can the NPCs.  Fair is fair.



Games are about fairness only when players are against each other.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Whereas the DEFAULT way in which one defeats an opponent in combat is by dealing enough damage to take their hit points to zero (or -10, depending). And thus it is quite possible to deal an "instakill" by driving your dagger into someone's brain, whether or not there is a massive damage save. Simple, isn't it?




Okay, you lost me there.  How is it an instakill if it takes a number of rounds to weaken an opponent enough to kill him?  The damage alone may kill the opponent if the NPC was low level but at mid to high level, no you couldn't do it without the MDT rule I use.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Games are about fairness only when players are against each other.



And that has never happened in your campaigns?


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Okay, you lost me there.  How is it an instakill if it takes a number of rounds to weaken an opponent enough to kill him?  The damage alone may kill the opponent if the NPC was low level but at mid to high level, no you couldn't do it without the MDT rule I use.



 Exactly. It's an instakill if the opponent is weak enough. Otherwise, you have to work at it.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. It's an instakill if the opponent is weak enough. Otherwise, you have to work at it.



Unless you get very lucky and sometimes luck is on your side (or against you), hence the rolling of the die.


----------



## hong (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Unless you get very lucky and sometimes luck is on your side (or against you), hence the rolling of the die.



 Luck comes into play in how well you roll your attack, and how much you roll for damage. Relying on anything more is laziness. You don't want cheesy victories, now do you?


----------



## Zimri (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Where is the fun without danger?  Where is the thrills if you don't take the chance of facing death?  If there is no threat of death and no threat of harm for your character then what is the point?
> 
> It is the struggle that makes the game fun, and the risk of failure, of death, and over coming that risk is what makes the game worth playing.  Remove that then you might as well be playing Monoploy or Scrabble.




Awwww crud I'm having badwrongfun again. Here I thought I derived pleasure from gathering socially with my friends, breaking bread, sharing various beverages, and telling an awesome interactive story where we get to act heroic, flirt with danger and save the village, kingdom, plane, whatever. Can we die sure but we get attached to our PCs motivations and backgrounds death should mean something more than whiping out an already generated and optimized clone that magically gets ported in. It's also no fun to tell a tablemate that they get to be the "fetch it from the fridge" person because they rolled a die poorly once.

On the other hand killing the BBEG in one shot because the DM rolled poorly ? For the love of polyhedron please fudge the roll unless it is down to 1 party member and the boss.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

A victory is a victory, and most of the time if my character is still alive and standing at the end of battle that is victory enough for me.

I don't fudge dice, Zimri.  Not for or against PCs or NPCs.  Let the die roll what it may.


----------



## Fobok (Aug 29, 2007)

Personally, I'd rather a challenge I can work to overcome (a tough monster requiring tactics, and so on), than to either win or lose based on an extreme case of luck.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> And that has never happened in your campaigns?



Fairness? I am fair to my players most of the time. Sometimes I keep enemy alive for few rounds more if players are having too easy time but that's it. I used massive damage rules in 3e but only to balance weapon attacks with instakill spells. But I really dislike both. I could see a replacement for death from massive damage being mutilation from massive damage (take some serious penalty, but you still fight).


----------



## Zimri (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> And that has never happened in your campaigns?





ummm no ?

Sorry we are friends with a common goal or two: Have fun, Fulfill the mission objectives to get money and XP , have more fun. 

Making new characters is fun during downtime, when new inspiration makes you want to try a different concept, not so much at the opening of a 4 or 5 hour play session while everyone else is still playing.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Fairness? I am fair to my players most of the time. Sometimes I keep enemy alive for few rounds more if players are having too easy time but that's it. I used massive damage rules in 3e but only to balance weapon attacks with instakill spells. But I really dislike both. I could see a replacement for death from massive damage being mutilation from massive damage (take some serious penalty, but you still fight).



No, player versus player.

In one campaign, in which I was running the Dragon Mountain box set, the dragon made a deal with the fighter/rogue in the group to betray the party.  The dragon told her if she help kill the other party members she would recieve compensation.  She agree and when the moment was right she would attack the party.  The timing involved a kobold the party let live and keep its wand of fireballs which it promptly shoved it up the monk's beehind and let loose a fireball, and its buddies shooting frost arrows at those which survived the fireball.  Except for the Cleric and the Bard, everyone else was dead or dying.

The survivors picked up the bodies, except for the rogue, and fled the mountain to heal up.  It was overall a pretty fun session which everyone enjoyed.  Its not that I didn't give the party clues not to trust the kobold.  I mean the paladin decided to detect evil and detected the kobold.  He simply told the kobold to get out of his way.  Also with a name like Killet Kwik should be enough of a clue as well.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> A victory is a victory, and most of the time if my character is still alive and standing at the end of battle that is victory enough for me.
> 
> I don't fudge dice, Zimri.  Not for or against PCs or NPCs.  Let the die roll what it may.




Dice shouldn't kill PCs. They are the hero(in)es. Fantasy would suck out loud if Frodo, Drizz't, Garion, et al died because a mook rolled high and they rolled low.

Plot devices, noble sacrifice, and stupidity should kill characters otherwise leave em mangled and scarred and perhaps delootified, and of course plotting vengance. Same for recurring villains.

My  D&D is a fun engaging interactive story. Yes with some mystery and intrigue, and some scary bits. We manage to suspend our disbelief but know we'll mostly make it to the other end having grown, matured, learned about our characters developmentally speaking.

My D&D isn't a tactical war sim. It seems yours is and more power to ya if thats what you enjoy. It isn't my cup of Tea, Earl Grey, Hot


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Dice shouldn't kill PCs. They are the hero(in)es. Fantasy would suck out loud if Frodo, Drizz't, Garion, et al died because a mook rolled high and they rolled low.
> 
> Plot devices, noble sacrifice, and stupidity should kill characters otherwise leave em mangled and scarred and perhaps delootified, and of course plotting vengance. Same for recurring villains.
> 
> ...




Actually I try to have a balance between story and combat sim.  Sometimes a useless death is a useless death.  Sometimes its not.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> No, player versus player.
> 
> In one campaign, in which I was running the Dragon Mountain box set, the dragon made a deal with the fighter/rogue in the group to betray the party.  The dragon told her if she help kill the other party members she would recieve compensation.  She agree and when the moment was right she would attack the party.




Was she charmed, did she fail a will save or something ? Do your PLAYERS not like one another or value the time and mental effort put in to crafting a persona you plan to spend 10-20 levels with ? No really I am trying to understand I've run up against this attitude here before and it always vexes me. 

I create characters I PLAN  on keeping until their story is told, something from the past is resolved and well they get an ending, happy, noble, or otherwise. I don't understand the concept of "it's just numbers on paper" of course I am not so far gone as to think I am the character I just think like them while playing, and I have yet to try to do anything in RL because my character could.

So please explain it and use small words I don't seem to be able to pick it up quickly.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a negative thing.




hong...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## FireLance (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't mind a little randomness in my games, even if it means that I get a bad roll every once in a while. However, I want to be able to react and respond to the bad luck, and to overcome it with good thinking and tactics. Dropping dead on a single bad roll robs me of that opportunity.

Consider the following variants of chess (normally a game of pure skill and tactics):

1. Whenever one player captures a piece, roll 1d20. On a roll of 1, his opponent automatically loses the game.

2. Whenever one player captures a piece, roll 1d6. On a roll of 1, his opponent loses another piece (his opponent gets to choose which piece).

I would much rather play variant #2 than variant #1. In variant #2, losing an extra piece is a setback, but it is something that I can overcome if I am skilled enough, or if I get a lucky break myself. In variant #1, there is no chance of recovery once the 1 is rolled, even if it happens on the first P x P exchange. Regardless of whether I won or lost that game, I wouldn't find it very satisfying.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Was she charmed, did she fail a will save or something ? Do your PLAYERS not like one another or value the time and mental effort put in to crafting a persona you plan to spend 10-20 levels with ? No really I am trying to understand I've run up against this attitude here before and it always vexes me.




The character wasn't charmed and the players get along just nicely.  He was was playing his character's alignment, being Neutral Evil.  She was always an opportunist and an opportunity she couldn't refused arose.  The player played his character's personality to a "T."



> I create characters I PLAN  on keeping until their story is told, something from the past is resolved and well they get an ending, happy, noble, or otherwise. I don't understand the concept of "it's just numbers on paper" of course I am not so far gone as to think I am the character I just think like them while playing, and I have yet to try to do anything in RL because my character could.




I do make characters that I plan on keeping but sometimes there is a need to have a change in plans.  You can plan on keeping your character around til level 20 but if he dies with so much of his or her past unresolved its even moreso the tragedy.  



> So please explain it and use small words I don't seem to be able to pick it up quickly.




Its about the role playing, and the consequences of adventuring.  Adventuring is a dangerous job and it can be rewarding but it is also deadly for it is rife with danger and possible betrayels.  I try to keep my world dynamic, for both the PCs and NPCs.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> The character wasn't charmed and the players get along just nicely.  He was was playing his character's alignment, being Neutral Evil.  She was always an opportunist and an opportunity she couldn't refused arose.  The player played his character's personality to a "T."
> 
> I do make characters that I plan on keeping but sometimes there is a need to have a change in plans.  You can plan on keeping your character around til level 20 but if he dies with so much of his or her past unresolved its even moreso the tragedy.
> 
> Its about the role playing, and the consequences of adventuring.  Adventuring is a dangerous job and it can be rewarding but it is also deadly for it is rife with danger and possible betrayels.  I try to keep my world dynamic, for both the PCs and NPCs.




Ahh see we don't play evils. I don't even think we've had a CN ever though LN is fairly common.

It's not always a "plan to 20" it's a here is my history with a bunch of plot hooks for the dm to use. Here is the thing about my past that motivates me, lets work together you provide situations relevant for her to explore them, and I'll provide hooks for you to tell an awesome tale and at the end of the day we all get what we want.

See although *I* the player am relatively secure that the DM won't kill my character without cause, my CHARACTER knows no such thing. She does get afraid, she does keep her guard up. Yes we handwave joining the party because it makes things simpler. The philosophy being .... look we are friends I *AM* going to be playing with you lets say a few things make some assurances and move on like she was the last character. We also won't betray one another it's just not something we find fun. We have had player player conflict a couple times but it was a "No you really can't beat on the DMNPC/plot device and if you do we'll kill you" thing.

I guess we get enough "reality" in "reality" in fantasy we want to be mangled hurting heroes but heroes none the less. We are fine with that  and it doesn't feel empty to us.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> I do make characters that I plan on keeping but sometimes there is a need to have a change in plans.  You can plan on keeping your character around til level 20 but if he dies with so much of his or her past unresolved its even moreso the tragedy.




I suppose you've got rid of resurrection spells as well then, otherwise, where's the danger?


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Killing NPCs with one spell is kewl




…Not for the DM.

'Oh great, the NPC I spent 3 hours tweaking out last night just went down because he lost initiative to the players and the wizard cast _that_ spell.'

Bo-Ring!


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

I agree with some of the others that the -10 dying rule is clunky and antiquated, I'm really hoping they go with something similar to _Saga_ when reaching 0 hp.  I also hope they drop saves and make them static Defence scores that you must roll against.

That being said, I don't think the Threshold rule would work, as other have pointed out, at one point in the game (past a certain level) every round you would be taking damage equal to your threshold.  

I'm also glad they are changing the Massive Damage rule, as it had the same problem as the above – at a certain point in the game 50 + point of damage is being flung around every round and the game devolves into "Don't roll a 1 on your Fort save!"

I like the sound of this Bloodied rule to replace Massive Damage and/or Threshold.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 29, 2007)

It's funny, but i'm a bit ambivalent about death effects, insta-kills, save or die effects, etc. On the one hand, I think they should be in the game for the simple adrenaline-raising shock effect. Nothing gets my blood pumping like a danger that cannot be shrugged off by enough hit points, or by throwing enough damage at it. It reminds you that sometimes, a little luck is all that separates the heroes from the commoners. At least if you care for your character, and would like him to stay alive a little longer. Risk of instant death is something that makes me sweat for my character, moreso than level drain. Having to balance over a pool of fuming acid on a pole a handspan wide, knowing that the only thing that keeps my PC from dissolving is a successful Reflex save in case I don't manage the Balance check is exciting for sure. Seeing an ally hanging from the spikes of a death trap can drive the fear of death home as well. And for adventurers, a little adrenaline should be part of the job.

On the other hand, it heavily depends on the flavour of the campaign...and in some, it shouldn't ever happen. Nothing destroys a heroic character worse than a pretty meaningless death. Examples: Trinity in Matrix 3, Wash in Serenity. These were, in my opinion, completely senseless and useless deaths that shouldn't have happened to the characters like that. In a heroic D&D campaign, it can severely dampen the enjoyment of play for some players. It'd be as if the Fellowship of the Ring had just escaped the orcs of Moria, running out of the mines, only to have Aragorn fall in an old dwarven pit trap and break his neck.

So what I'd like to see would be the possibility of those threats that directly affect the character and sidestep hit points (which after all mainly represent how hard the character is to kill with weapons or physical damage spells), but also an extensive piece of advice in the new DMG about how to adjudicate and use these effects in context of campaign flavour. After all, if one doesn't want his BBEG to fall from a simple _Disintegration_, there's always the possibility to give him a defense against it in the form of a new spell, a magical ability, or a magical item. In the last case, it even means the adventurers have some interesting new item afterwards, or a new spell.

I simply believe that it's better, in the long run, to teach folks, especially the newcomers, how to be more flexible with more options in a game, instead of having people wonder why the heck something as deadly as Curare is simply not able to kill a character, even if the guy is riddled with blowpipe darts, because deadly poisons were removed...or why a spell is called _Disintegration_ if all it does is hit point damage like the _Fireball_.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 29, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> …Not for the DM.
> 
> 'Oh great, the NPC I spent 3 hours tweaking out last night just went down because he lost initiative to the players and the wizard cast _that_ spell.'
> 
> Bo-Ring!




Dunno, I guess values differ. Last time that happened to me, I had a troll ramped up to 16th level with the Half-Fiendish template and Fighter levels to challenge one of the characters, a ranger with trolls as favored enemy. It was summoned into an elven forest to create chaos, and the characters confronted it...the ranger, and a wizard. The ranger went into personal combat, enjoying two rounds of that before the wizard player asked "Hey, isn't that beast summoned from some other plane?" "Uhm, yeah...you found the summoning circle earlier." "Great...Banishment!".

Which made me look and feel like an idiot for 5 seconds...and then I thought "Hey, COOL, the wizard is finally using something else than blasting spells, and paying ATTENTION to his versatile spell list!" I still grin about that for some weird reason.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

3 hours to make a NPC?  The most I spend on a big bad NPC is about 30 minutes at the most.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> It'd be as if the Fellowship of the Ring had just escaped the orcs of Moria, running out of the mines, only to have Aragorn fall in an old dwarven pit trap and break his neck.




Exactly, or how about Boba's death?

One of the worst all time ever.  When I was 10 years old and I heard him squeal as he went down the Sarlac Pit; that was a very disappointing day for that boy.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> 3 hours to make a NPC?  The most I spend on a big bad NPC is about 30 minutes at the most.




...Right on.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Fredrik Svanberg said:
			
		

> I suppose you've got rid of resurrection spells as well then, otherwise, where's the danger?




Got rid of it?  Nope.  Made it more difficult and expensive to get?  Yes.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Got rid of it?  Nope.  Made it more difficult and expensive to get?  Yes.




So then there is no real danger.

Seems like it would be easier and more exciting to reduce the risk of dying all the time due to random rolls and then remove the resurrection cop-out so that when someone actually dies due to real actual failure they actually stay dead.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Well, more often than not when a character dies in my group we just opt to make a new character than have the old character raised.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> The timing involved a kobold the party let live and keep its wand of fireballs which it promptly shoved it up the monk's beehind and let loose a fireball, and its buddies shooting frost arrows at those which survived the fireball.




Credibility = 0.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Hey, it is what happened.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 29, 2007)

Wow. Undeniable pride in middle school gaming antics *and* an edition wars troll of the most dedicated breed?

You, Visceris, are clearly a king among men and the Pope of Roleplaying.

Piratecat here. I missed this earlier. If you have a problem with another poster, please report the post instead of insulting them. Sarcastic rudeness isn't appropriate.

~ PCat


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Wow. Undeniable pride in middle school gaming antics *and* an edition wars troll of the most dedicated breed?
> 
> You, Visceris, are clearly a king among men and the Pope of Roleplaying.




Hmmmm...  I will take that as a compliment.    

The main point is that player versus player can be fun and it was.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> That is why in my game the Massive Damage Threshold is much much lower.  In my game the MDT is derived from d20 Modern, equal to the Character's Constitution Score, however the PCs can take feats to increase that value if they so wish it.  Also I use Monte Cook's rule on Death and Dying from Arcana Evolved.



Besides the fact you're assuming (from no evidence I've seen pointed out quite yet) that the MDT is gone, you house ruled it from 3rd to begin with? And then you go on to not only claim your way is the only RIGHT way to play, but that everyone else not playing by your style MUST be playing 'candyland'?  Do you have any idea how badly you're presenting yourself here? 

If people want grittier games, they can always put there own additions in. DnD has always been a HEROIC game IMO.  Dying messily because you failed a saving throw from a lucky hit might be more 'realistic' for you, but not everyone WANTS that realism or even enjoys it.  If you prefer that, more power to you, but dont go telling the rest of us we're playing wrong or that the current design is 'wrong' because it doesnt follow your narrow idea of what makes for a good game.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 29, 2007)

I am not the one who brought up Candyland.  I said Monopoly and Scrabble.  I am just saying that WotC is basically dumbing down the rules of the game so that the action in the game is safer for the PC.  They are trying to remove the danger of adventuring so it won't be as _threatening_, but by doing so the are also removing the fun of the game.  If you guys want to play it safe then more power to you but I find it far more satisfying and fun to actually be able to survive an adventure and getting the rewards without the need of the kidgloves being on.

If you want to see how DnD has become more and more sterile and bland just compare 1e _Tomb of Horrors_ to 3.5e's _Heart of Nightfang Spire_. 4e is going to be even worse.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> I am just saying that WotC is basically dumbing down the rules of the game so that the action in the game is safer for the PC.  They are trying to remove the danger of adventuring so it won't be as _threatening_, but by doing so the are also removing the fun of the game.  If you guys want to play it safe then more power to you but I find it far more satisfying and fun to actually be able to survive an adventure and getting the rewards without the need of the kidgloves being on.




Oh, sorry, none of us knew that you know exactly what WotC has planned…

I think you should give it a rest and stop trying to offend as many people as you can.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> I am just saying that WotC is basically dumbing down the rules of the game so that the action in the game is safer for the PC.  They are trying to remove the danger of adventuring so it won't be as _threatening_, but by doing so the are also removing the fun of the game. If you guys want to play it safe then more power to you but I find it far more satisfying and fun to actually be able to survive an adventure and getting the rewards without the need of the kidgloves being on.



You're doing it again.  'Dumbing down the game' and 'Removing the fun', both phrases trying to 'prove' that the way you want things is the only 'true' way to play.  You want that style of play, more power to you, but, again, it's not the ONLY way to play and constantly trying to say it is really isnt helping your position.  Neither is stating your opinion on the matter as if it were fact and borderline insultin those of who dont like your style of play.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 29, 2007)

I think a certain thread-crapper is due for a time-out.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think a certain thread-crapper is due for a time-out.




He/she is trying to do it on the WotC/D&D 4th edtion forum as well – to no avail, thank god.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...  I will take that as a compliment.



You'd be wrong, but I'd feel good about having phrased it politely.



> The main point is that player versus player can be fun and it was.



Is THAT what you're going on about with Scrabble and dumbing down and riskless adventuring and the rest of the wild gibberish you've been offering as fact in speculation threads? 'cause it seems like you want to stand on a corner and yell at people who like the sound of 4e, sight unseen, revealing flaws that somehow only you can see from the less-than-not-useful-at-all tidbits WotC has leaked to the community. If all we're talking about is PvP, could you link me to the PvP notes from Dev & Design? I missed that update and would like to peruse the changes that have you so up in arms.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> 3 hours to make a NPC?  The most I spend on a big bad NPC is about 30 minutes at the most.




On paper or with a tool?  If it's a tool, please share.  3 hours sounds more accurate IME.

I freakin' hate classed NPCs in 3E.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> On paper or with a tool?  If it's a tool, please share.  3 hours sounds more accurate IME.




And sometimes more…much more for very important NPCs (main antagonists etc).

Writing up an 18th level incarnate can take some doing.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Aug 29, 2007)

Aside from the mindless anger and screeching over the percieved pokemon-efication of D&D, what a great thread.

1.  A form of the condition track for D&D could be good

2.  Abilities tied to said track could also be good

3.  Changing beholders so they are not so save dependent could be good (I seem to remember a design article a few months back where they did just that.  Gave it an unlimited blasty-ray and modified its other stuff)

4.  Save or die effects are meh in my book.  They can really ruin the cinematic feel of a fight.  I will not re-state what Simia Saturnalia has already so aptly discussed.  I am very much in this camp of role-players.  

5.  Visceris is angry

6.  Don't be angry Visceris, not when there's so much darn love in the world

7.  There are a lot of very smart, funny folks on these boards

8.  They make Visceris angry.

I'm done.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 29, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> 4.  Save or die effects are meh in my book.  They can really ruin the cinematic feel of a fight.  I will not re-state what Simia Saturnalia has already so aptly discussed.  I am very much in this camp of role-players.



Arrooo?

Are you thinking of a different thread, or maybe a different poster? I've really just been kind of a snippy lil' so-and-so this thread. But hey, thanks anyhow.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

I think that DnD (both PnP and on the computer) have become a little too cinematic and bordering campy.  I think that the DnD movie rightly proves that cinematic DnD is something to avoid like the plague.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I think that DnD (both PnP and on the computer) have become a little too cinematic and bordering campy.




Are you serious?  I think just the opposite.  The fact that the wizard has to pull out his crossbow when he's out of spells and there are very few, if any, options for dynamic maneuvers tell me the games needs more cinematic options.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

What's wrong with pulling out the crossbow?  Its a decent weapon when you want to stay at range and have a low strength score.  Sure, a wizard may run out of spells but is good wizard conserves his spells tell a really big fight when he needs them.  You don't waste a magic missile on a kobold, you use hail of stones to catch and kill two to three kobolds.  

Though some of those spells are a bit over powered.  What we need is to give classes, may it be wizards, fighters, rogues, or whatever is more versitility but less uberness.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 29, 2007)

[IMaGel]http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2271/wyrmglyphkl2.gif[/IMaGel] 







			
				blargney the second said:
			
		

> I _really_ hope it isn't a hardwired death spiral.  I have a marked preference for D&D specifically because it doesn't have the death spiral.



And in my group there are some who hate that in D&D, beings have NO penalties from wounds until they are dropped.


----------



## Zurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> And -10 is a logical breaking point for being alive or dead?




No. But the poster I was quoting wanted to move the "can act" breakpoint to 10, which is just as illogical if not more so.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> If you want to see how DnD has become more and more sterile and bland just compare 1e _Tomb of Horrors_ to 3.5e's _Heart of Nightfang Spire_. 4e is going to be even worse.




Heart of _Nightfang Spire_ may have its flaws, but are you seriously contending that _Tomb of Horrors_ was anything other than a masturbatory joke?

There are more than a few 1e modules that showcase innovative design and engaging stories. _Tomb of Horrors _is NOT one of them.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> What's wrong with pulling out the crossbow?




Because it's not fun and not what the player playing the wizard wants to do.

Why not give the wizard an at-will 1d6 damage ranged touch attack energy blast?  Much more cinematic and flavorful but doesn't break the rules and always gives the wizard something to do.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Because it's not fun and not what the player playing the wizard wants to do.
> 
> Why not give the wizard an at-will 1d6 damage ranged touch attack energy blast?  Much more cinematic and flavorful but doesn't break the rules and always gives the wizard something to do.




Eh, what?!?!?!  Make them into a Warlock _and_ give them full range of arcane spell power!?!?!

And you don't think that is overpowering them?  Less cinematics, please.  I don't want to run a campaign that makes the DnD movie oscar winning material.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Dice shouldn't kill PCs. They are the hero(in)es. Fantasy would suck out loud if Frodo . . . died because a mook rolled high and they rolled low.



They aren't heroes until they succeed. Frodo and Sam explicitly realized this. "Folk in those tales had plenty of chances to turn back, but they didn't." If they had turned back, or been slain, perhaps no tales would be told about them. And being slain by a "mook" makes you no less a hero. It is risking the perils of adventure that makes one a hero. Being somehow immune to "mooks" because of some "heroic aura" would be the height of boring in both fiction and adventure gaming.

I'm biting my tongue on how much _better _fantasy would be if Drizzt had been slain by a mook.


----------



## Nine Hands (Aug 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Because it's not fun and not what the player playing the wizard wants to do.
> 
> Why not give the wizard an at-will 1d6 damage ranged touch attack energy blast?  Much more cinematic and flavorful but doesn't break the rules and always gives the wizard something to do.




Exactly.  This way you don't feel like a total loser when your spells run out.  Its probably the biggest reason I never played wizards, the fighter goes all day long and the wizard, while powerful up front just fizzles out at some point in the game and is reduced to a lame crossbow (which most "typical" wizards do not use).

Give me cool, low powered spells I can sling nearly all day long and I'd be happy to leave the crossbow for use by the dwarf.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Because it's not fun and not what the player playing the wizard wants to do.
> 
> Why not give the wizard an at-will 1d6 damage ranged touch attack energy blast?  Much more cinematic and flavorful but doesn't break the rules and always gives the wizard something to do.



I think if I see "not fun" one more time, I will scream . . .

Your assertion is premised on the wizard's role in adventuring to be one of combat prowess (via magic). I wholly disagree. Yes, the wizard has damaging spells, but that should never be the sole focus of his spell repertoire. There is much more utility in magic than "blasting foes." If a wizard expends all his magic resources in combat, then he should not be surprised that he is reduced to "pulling out a crossbow." In fact, this wizard ought to be multiclassed with Fighter since he seems to enjoy combat so very much.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

I can't believe what I am reading.  I am sorry but that sounds way to much like video game playing to me.  When I play a wizard the crossbow is my default attack.  I use defensive spells to keep my character alive while keeping distance behind the fighter shooting with my crossbow.  Most of the time I don't have him memorize any attack spells.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 29, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think a certain thread-crapper is due for a time-out.



yup - again...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 29, 2007)

If I was playing a wizard or sorcerer these days I'd probably take a reserve feat from Complete Mage, to give me the option of blasting away all day long. Using a crossbow seems both inappropriate to the character and just not as cool as using magic. It's a way of emphasising difference between the PCs. The rogue uses two hand crossbows, the fighter archer uses a composite bow, the wizard uses magic.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Yes, but there needs to be a limit to that power.  Unlimited power just seems wrong to me.  I mean, this is suppose to be a fantasy game, not four colored comics.  Oh well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Yes, but there needs to be a limit to that power.  Unlimited power just seems wrong to me.




It's not unlimited power.

The point is that a wizard of sufficient power will be able to summon trivial magic at will. 

(Some would even say . . . magically.)

The big spells will be as limited as they have always been in fantasy literature.

(Well, at least since 1974 when some wargamers decided to rename cannon and artillery 'lightning bolt' and 'fireball'.)


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 29, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think a certain thread-crapper is due for a time-out.



It's now been dealt with.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> The point is that a wizard of sufficient power will be able to summon trivial magic at will.




I really don't consider magic that can cause damage trivial, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Your assertion is premised on the wizard's role in adventuring to be one of combat prowess (via magic). I wholly disagree. Yes, the wizard has damaging spells, but that should never be the sole focus of his spell repertoire. There is much more utility in magic than "blasting foes." If a wizard expends all his magic resources in combat, then he should not be surprised that he is reduced to "pulling out a crossbow." In fact, this wizard ought to be multiclassed with Fighter since he seems to enjoy combat so very much.




Everything in D&D is essentially boiled down to "combat prowess".  If you don't think it is, just look through the PHB.  90+% of the rules are for combat.  It's a game about combat, plain and simple.



> I can't believe what I am reading. I am sorry but that sounds way to much like video game playing to me. When I play a wizard the crossbow is my default attack. I use defensive spells to keep my character alive while keeping distance behind the fighter shooting with my crossbow. Most of the time I don't have him memorize any attack spells.




If you absolutely hate 4ed, that means it will have accomplished exactly what I hope it does.  Taking the crossbow out of the wizard's hands is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people that play wizards, especially at low levels, would say that having to pull out your crossbow is "not fun" when compared to having an at-will magic attack.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

So, having unlimited power is fun?  Then why play a wizard instead a god?  Since gods have unlimited and stronger power to use would that make them more "fun?"


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> So, having unlimited power is fun?  Then why play a wizard instead a god?  Since gods have unlimited and stronger power to use would that make them more "fun?"



 It depends. 

Which is more efficient at knocking down strawmen?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> So, having unlimited power is fun?  Then why play a wizard instead a god?  Since gods have unlimited and stronger power to use would that make them more "fun?"



The ability to do something cool all the time is fun.  Whether that ability is jumping over the heads of enemies and doing a surprise attack from behind or shooting a fireball from your fingertips doesn't matter that much and heavily depends on your own taste.

However, that's kind of the point.  If you are the type of person who likes the throw fireballs from your fingertips, chances are you didn't want to shoot crossbow bolts as your primary action in order to save spells or because you used all your spells.

People don't want "unlimited" power in terms of being able to wipe out all the people on the planet.  They want infinite power as in they can keep doing what is cool about their character as much as they want.

And I don't see anything wrong with the ability to shoot a 4d6 fireball whenever you want at 10th level as being anything BUT trivial.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't know but this whole argument is based on what is more fun and what isn't fun.  If fun is having unlimited magical power and not fun is using mundane weaponry then logic dictates that a being with unlimited power is more fun than a being with limited power, thusly it would be safe to assume that playing a god would be more fun playing a mortal wizard.  Since the majority of players looking forward to 4e are seeking more fun they are indeed looking for unlimited power which leads them wanting to play gods.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Everything in D&D is essentially boiled down to "combat prowess".  If you don't think it is, just look through the PHB.  90+% of the rules are for combat.  It's a game about combat, plain and simple.



I wholly disagree. Then why play it instead of DDM? 

Those combat rules are more extensive because those are the rules that handle the "action" parts of the role-playing game, the part of the game where the activity of the participants is wholly handled by game mechanics. 

The mental and social parts need far fewer overt rules for adjudication because the game itself is one that tests the mental and social faculties of the participants, but are just as important, if not more so.




> I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people that play wizards, especially at low levels, would say that having to pull out your crossbow is "not fun" when compared to having an at-will magic attack.



Then new D&D draws its inspiration from the pages of Marvel Comics with never ending at will eldritch bolt blasting characters then from fantasy fiction, sword & sorcery or otherwise.

As for me, it is totally fun to manage the magic resources of a low-level wizard. Being constrained in the spells I have and their total number of uses over a time period is part of the _challenge _of playing that class well. Mastering that challenge is where I derive my fun. 

I don't choose to play a wizard character if I desire to be in every combat the party faces. If I want that, I'll play a fighter.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> And I don't see anything wrong with the ability to shoot a 4d6 fireball whenever you want at 10th level as being anything BUT trivial.




I just have to wholeheartedly disagree.  When using magic becomes trivial it just cheapens the whole genre of fantasy.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It depends.
> 
> Which is more efficient at knocking down strawmen?



Not a strawman. He is taking the apparent argument to its logical conclusion. You'll need to correct the expression of assumptions if you disagree with the logical conclusion the apparent assumptions lead to.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I don't know but this whole argument is based on what is more fun and what isn't fun.  If fun is having unlimited magical power and not fun is using mundane weaponry then logic dictates that a being with unlimited power is more fun than a being with limited power, thusly it would be safe to assume that playing a god would be more fun playing a mortal wizard.  Since the majority of players looking forward to 4e are seeking more fun they are indeed looking for unlimited power which leads them wanting to play gods.




You are the Jack Bauer of logic torture.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> You are the Jack Bauer of logic torture.




Why, thank you.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I just have to wholeheartedly disagree.  When using magic becomes trivial it just cheapens the whole genre of fantasy.



I don't understand this.  Most of the fantasy I've read other than D&D, wizards are able to cast spells as much as they want with no limitation at all.  Since they know the spells they can do whatever they want with them whenever they want.  Sometimes, when it is convenient for the storyline, wizards will get tired and have to rest.

I was watching Conan the Destroyer on TV a short while ago and the mage in that movie must have cast 10 or 20 divination spells in an hour as they kept asking him "which way?"  And that's in a "low magic" world.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

I know that character.  How would Conan know that wizard actually casted a spell or was just faking it?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I don't understand this.  Most of the fantasy I've read other than D&D, wizards are able to cast spells as much as they want with no limitation at all.  Since they know the spells they can do whatever they want with them whenever they want.  Sometimes, when it is convenient for the storyline, wizards will get tired and have to rest.




I think the key is that they don't keep using "damage" spells all the time. I personally don't object to expanded magical resources for wizards, as long as they are not purely "damage" or combat spells.


> I was watching Conan the Destroyer on TV a short while ago and the mage in that movie must have cast 10 or 20 divination spells in an hour as they kept asking him "which way?"  And that's in a "low magic" world.



It was probably a single spell with a long duration. Even if it wasn't, note well that it wasn't a combat/damage spell that he was spaming. In fact, does he ever use a damage spell at all (in either film)?


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

oh never mind


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 29, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> And in my group there are some who hate that in D&D, beings have NO penalties from wounds until they are dropped.



I just explain to my players what hit points actually _are_, and that gets rid of those quibbles.
-blarg


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight:

Sorry for asking that, I'm probably just being paranoid, but are you Visceris?


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Um...  No.    

I'm Sun Knight, originally from the NWN2 forums at Bioware where I post under SunKnight1337.  That is where I heard about the whole 4e thing by a guy named Patch so I decided to check it out.  Did a google search and ENWorld popped up.

Speaking of NWN2 I am quite interested in how the DnD CRPGs are going to turn out with DnD4e.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Um...  No.
> 
> I'm Sun Knight, originally from the NWN2 forums at Bioware where I post under SunKnight1337.  That is where I heard about the whole 4e thing by a guy named Patch so I decided to check it out.  Did a google search and ENWorld popped up.
> 
> Speaking of NWN2 I am quite interested in how the DnD CRPGs are going to turn out with DnD4e.




Sorry for asking, thanks for answering.
Needed to be sure, that guy traumatized me on another post.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Sorry for asking, thanks for answering.
> Needed to be sure, that guy traumatized me on another post.




From what the posts I have read he does seem... aggressive.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Speaking of NWN2 I am quite interested in how the DnD CRPGs are going to turn out with DnD4e.




Too video gamey.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Well, I was originally going to make a WoW reference but I figure there has already been too many MMORPG comparisons to 4e as it is.


----------



## Lord Zack (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't like the save or die spells as is, but I do think that death should be a significant possiblilty. The chances of dieing from a single attack, whether spell or weapon ought to be astrinomical if you're at full hp, if not impossible. After a few hits, it makes sense a save or die spell-kind of spell would have abetter chance of succeeding.

I like the condition track. It makes sense as you take damage you get weaker.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

I think when hit with such power magics hit points should be irrelevant, but being able to withstand such a strike or being able to avoid it is not therefore Fortitude and Reflexes Defense should be key in protecting oneself from such dire castings. That if the Defenses fails instead of taking hit point damage the character takes ability damage or drain.  

Such as Disintergration could do 3d4 Constitution drain instead of hit point of damage, save for half or to negate (Fortitude for half, Reflexes to negate).


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Aug 29, 2007)

See, a few posts ago I think someone nailed this discussion on the head.  This discussion is largely about fun.

The reason that we have differing opinions is because people have differing opinions about fun.  Some people are this way: _Having unlimited resources is fun, because it means my character can always have something magical to do._  Other people are this way: _Having limited resources is fun, because I like the strategy and planning required._

I happen to be in the second category, which is why I don't think that I'll be moving to 4e.  I really like the way 3e organizes resources.  But, that doesn't make any other form of the game wrong.

Having said that, I fear that there are basic trends in humanity that will eventually play out.  Human beings have a tendency to be attracted to the new and then become immune to its newness.

For example, I remember when home computers were TRS-80s.  They were the bomb gaming machine, well, along with the Atari.  But now they are really lame, and it's only been less than 30 years since they reigned supreme!  I remember when the IBM 486 was the absolute bomb.  Same thing.  Now, I operate on a desktop that has a Celeron D 325.  It was a midgrade computer about 3 years ago and is now falling behind, especially in the gaming department.  The truth is that what once excited us now bores us.

The same is true with the entertainment industry.  Star Trek used to have cool special effects.  Star Wars used to have cool special effects.  Then came Matrix and the like.  Slowly, we are becoming desensitized to what is cool and a new level must be reached.

I see that really as a race to futility.  I don't want to participate in that race.  Let's say that your tyical mage has the ability to always fling magic missiles every round, even if they are a minima power level.  I have no doubt that in two years that ability will be like today's crossbow.  It'll be passe.  It'll be the basic model that everyone is now tired with.

The question is, at what point do you draw the line?  Everyone has a different point, and the differences don't make one wrong and another right.  To those people who look forward to a limited "always on" power, I do sincerely hope they can have fun and not get caught up in the "power spiral" that we also call power creep.  But I don't look forward to that.  For me, 3e power management is "right" for me.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Nicely put, Nonlethal Force.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 29, 2007)

As long as the "THIS is fun" "No, THIS is NO fun!" exchanges pipe down a bit again...it reads like the Stooges exchanging slaps, only without any Nyucks to be seen anywhere.  

I think expectations are a lot of what shape what one wants out of a wizard. I grew up with wizards and magical characters running out of magical power at some point, from my first RPG books (Grey Star the Wizard  ), to the Red Box Basic Set of D&D. I loved playing wizards from the start, and every one of them either had a staff or a dagger along at the very least.

At one point, my group had to fight a mad fighter with a 2H-sword that drove him crazy...and everybody else was down for the count, with that fighter and my wizard remaining with a handful of hit points, and me with no spells left. Initiative came up (AD&D 2e), we both rolled the same...and because I used a dagger, I went first...rolled for attack...hit...and managed to kill the guy before he could bisect me with the two-hander. Trust me, there was enough tension around the table to cut with a knife.

So no, I don't see anything inherently wrong about wizards using "mundane" weapons to fight with when their spells have run out. But as I said...I've grown up with that concept.. And there are enough wizards in "archetypical" fantasy that happily attacked with mundane weapons, to conserve spell energy or because they couldn't cast at that moment.

And yes, I do believe that the "ever-blasting" wizard is a page taken from video-games, anime and other modern pop culture references. I'm not saying it's bad, though. It simply is different, and most likely is not to everybody's tastes...you NEVER can please everybody. People like me, who grew up with the "old" concept, got used to it, learned to play with it, and actually LIKE it (because there are more than enough "old hands" out there that hate the way magic works in D&D for decades as well  ), will at best shake an amused head, at worst rattle the cages and proclaim that D&D is burning.

Just stop throwing "fun" and "no-fun" around...it's so useless, it's actually not even funny watching the cakes fly anymore.  Fun is such an individual and multi-dependant sensation that you can't simply pin a concept in an RPG down like it's done here.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 29, 2007)

Hmm...

See, I agree that _completely_ unlimited spells wouldn't be fun (for me). But I also dislike running out completely, or the "30 minutes of adventure followed by 23 hours of rest" scenario.

I rather liked the notion of a game in which the character's "big guns" still require resource management (since those are once/day), but they're still at a good 70-80% effectiveness without them. The characters still require some level of careful play, but aren't hosed after two big fights.

I thought it was a nice, solid compromise.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Aug 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, I agree that _completely_ unlimited spells wouldn't be fun (for me). But I also dislike running out completely,




I hear you.  I like the planning and the strategy myself, but different strokes.  I can definately see your point, though. 



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> or the "30 minutes of adventure followed by 23 hours of rest" scenario.




This I totally agree with.  Gaming groups with this tendency have a difficult time with making the typical dungeon crawl seem realistic.  Not saying it can't be done ... but that is the largest complaint I hear about dungeon crawls.  It just doesn't make sense for a party to be able to leave a dungeon and come back without the dungeon owner massively buffing the guards.  Or even worse, parties who suddenly sleep for 8 hours (or 23 hours) while the dungeon "waits" for them to continue.

I totally hear this complaint!


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 29, 2007)

There is a difference between "unlimited power" as in "my wizard can shoot a mildly damaging bolt of electricity as a touch attack all day long, so he can keep on wizardin' even after he's used up all of his actually good spells, and never has to pretend he's a particularly crappy rogue," and "unlimited power" as in "my wizard is a god amongst men capable of shattering planets with his mind!!!!!11!oneoneeleven!"

In fact, I think that the difference is so obvious that if you are stating that you cannot see it, you must be intentionally constructing and burning straw men.  I do not think you can fail to see the difference if you are looking at this matter in good faith.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I rather liked the notion of a game in which the character's "big guns" still require resource management (since those are once/day), but they're still at a good 70-80% effectiveness without them. The characters still require some level of careful play, but aren't hosed after two big fights.
> 
> I thought it was a nice, solid compromise.




Me, too.  You've got at will minor abilities, plus once/encounter and once/day stuff to use.  Doesn't sound like it's anything BUT in the middle.

Brad


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

I have never had the aproblem with the constant need to rest after my wizard cast his spells.  I simply reserved my spells for encounters that warrant them while the rest of the time I simply used mundane weapons to defend the character.  When I do have him cast his spells I make sure I use spells that have durations of at least an hour per caster level for those are the spells that will carry my character through the day, not the fire and forget magic missiles.

A wise wizard conserves his power and only uses it when needed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I have never had the aproblem with the constant need to rest after my wizard cast his spells.  I simply reserved my spells for encounters that warrant them while the rest of the time I simply used mundane weapons to defend the character.  When I do have him cast his spells I make sure I use spells that have durations of at least an hour per caster level for those are the spells that will carry my character through the day, not the fire and forget magic missiles.
> 
> A wise wizard conserves his power and only uses it when needed.




That's fine, but it's not the way a lot of people prefer to play wizards. Many people want to be able to contribute, magically, to every encounter. It doesn't mean they want to be able to _dominate_ the encounter, or to throw their biggest spells every time, but not being able to do _something_ magic defeats the purpose of playing a wizard, for them. Plus, wizards frankly aren't very effective with their crossbows, since they tend to be unable to hit the broad side of a barn.

Also, the style you're talking about only works in games where the PCs face a lot of smaller fights. For gamers who prefer fewer but much more dangerous fights (like I do, and most of the people in my group do), the party is _screwed_ if the wizard can't meaningfully contribute to each fight.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your chosen wizard playstyle. But the simple truth is, it's not what many people--indeed, in my own experience, _most_ peope--want from playing a spell-caster.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

The people who want to constantly use their power in an unlimited fashion as you suggest makes me believe that the Wizard class is not for them, and they would be happier playing a Warlock.  Wizards are refined casters that mold magic in specific shape and functions and more often than not don't flash it about.  Sorcerers, while flashier, take a more aristicratic approach to magic an dothers, and represent a balance point in arcane diversity and raw unbridle power.  The warlock is arcane power in its rawest form, and can use it at will but because of its near raw state it is not as refined and less diverse than the wizard or sorcerer.  Checks and balances, my vampiric mouse.  Checks and balances.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I have never had the aproblem with the constant need to rest after my wizard cast his spells.  I simply reserved my spells for encounters that warrant them while the rest of the time I simply used mundane weapons to defend the character.  When I do have him cast his spells I make sure I use spells that have durations of at least an hour per caster level for those are the spells that will carry my character through the day, not the fire and forget magic missiles.
> 
> A wise wizard conserves his power and only uses it when needed.



Using _Charm Person_ on dumb humanoids was also a way to have semi-permanent bodyguards for the M-U.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> The people who want to constantly use their power in an unlimited fashion as you suggest makes me believe that the Wizard class is not for them, and they would be happier playing a Warlock.




Which is probably why they're taking a page from the Warlock's better-liked abilities, and roll them into the new wizard design.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Which is unfortunate because wizards are not warlocks and vice versa.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> The people who want to constantly use their power in an unlimited fashion as you suggest makes me believe that the Wizard class is not for them, and they would be happier playing a Warlock.




See, you're drawing a wider distinction than I'm talking about.

I didn't say they want to be able to use their spells in "an unlimited fashion." I said they want to be able to contribute more than what you're talking about. _Fewer_ limitations, not _no_ limitations.

Hence, I believe compromise solutions--like Reserve Feats in 3E, and the combination of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities in 4E--is the way to go.

And keep in mind, these people have been gaming since well before warlocks existed, and have managed to enjoy playing wizards or sorcerers _most_ of the time, so it's not as though the class is completely abhorrent to them.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Checks and balances.




I believe very strongly in checks and balances.

I do _not_ believe checks and balances should ever render a character useless. And let's be honest, a wizard trying to pick off foes with a crossbow is, if not useless, then at least darn close to it.

Hence, again, a solid mix of limited (powerful) and unlimited (less powerful but still useful) abilities is the way to go.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Which is unfortunate because wizards are not warlocks and vice versa.




Says who?

I mean, seriously? Wizards are what every D&D edition tells us they are. D&D is its own genre, and it defines its own roles. Wizards are the "guys who do arcane magic and who know a lot about mysterious stuff" in the context of roles. How they do that is, in the end, up to the guys who write the current edition. I bet if Monte Cook had gotten a bit more free reign with 3E, the magic system would have looked much more like that of Arcana Unearthed already.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I believe very strongly in checks and balances.
> 
> I do _not_ believe checks and balances should ever render a character useless. And let's be honest, a wizard trying to pick off foes with a crossbow is, if not useless, then at least darn close to it.
> 
> Hence, again, a solid mix of limited (powerful) and unlimited (less powerful but still useful) abilities is the way to go.




Just out of curiosity...what's the BIG difference between a wizard using a light crossbow on opponents every round, and using a 1d4 damage once-per-round spell-like ability? Ranged touch attacks are not THAT much more a forte of a guy who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a crossbow either.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity...what's the BIG difference between a wizard using a light crossbow on opponents every round, and using a 1d4 damage once-per-round spell-like ability? Ranged touch attacks are not THAT much more a forte of a guy who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a crossbow either.




Well, three points:

1) I've actually found, in 3E, that the difference between a ranged attack and a ranged touch attack is often _huge_.

2) Even if it proves not much more useful, at least the wizard's player feels like he's contributing more in his "idiom."

3) I'm not necessarily talking about a 1d4 attack. "Lesser" abilities doesn't have to mean "wussy" abilities.  (Nor am I necessarily talking about direct attack spells. A wizard who casts a minor spell that imposes a -1 penalty on an enemy for a few rounds is probably going to feel--and prove--a lot more useful than one who does 2 points of damage.)


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Aug 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity...what's the BIG difference between a wizard using a light crossbow on opponents every round, and using a 1d4 damage once-per-round spell-like ability? Ranged touch attacks are not THAT much more a forte of a guy who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a crossbow either.




Off the top of my head: 

Mechanically, the fact that they're touch attacks means the wizard is at least somewhat more likely to succeed at them (assuming ranged touch attacks are how the hypothetical magical blasts will be adjudicated; it may be something completely different).
Non-mechanically, shooting magical blasts is more wizard-y than shooting a crossbow.
Semi-mechanically, it's also more wizard-y to spend character resources getting better at shooting magical blasts than  at shooting a crossbow.

Which is not to say that you couldn't make a crossbow-slinging wizard, if you wanted, but it just wouldn't be the standard.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 2) Even if it proves not much more useful, at least the wizard's player feels like he's contributing more in his "*idiom*."



"You kicked the bride in the stomach!"


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Aug 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I believe very strongly in checks and balances.
> 
> I do _not_ believe checks and balances should ever render a character useless. And let's be honest, a wizard trying to pick off foes with a crossbow is, if not useless, then at least darn close to it.



I'm not sure I understand this assertion.  The addition of the crossbow was new in 3E -- suddenly, the wizard could use a powerful weapon that did 1d8 damage (same as a longbow).  At 1d8 vs the fighter's 1d8+3 (for 4th-level, say), that's 60% of the fighter's damage.  The wizard likely has a pretty good Dex score, and the feats Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot are useful enough for ray spells that at least some wizards will have them.  For the first few levels, the BAB difference is quite small.  

At low levels, I don't think the wizard with the crossbow is *that* much behind in damage dealing.  Sure, he's way behind the two-handed raging barbarian, but who isn't?  At mid-levels and higher, Craft Wand comes into play, and the wizard probably should make himself a Wand of Acid Arrow or Ray of Enfeeblement or the like.


----------



## Someone (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't always know if playing a wizard is about the resource management (is a wizard a real time strategy game?) or the suck management. When he's not casting, he sucks big time, and he sucks at low levels anyway (he must pay for later non-suckage by being a real sucker first). When you play your wizard you must be very careful: you only have so many chances to pwn, so you have to use those chances wisely so the cancel the suck you have to suck before and/or later. You can also minimize the suck by casting all your spells and forcing the party to rest. However, if you manage to instakill the BBEG with a save or die in the first round of combat, you can transfer all the suck to everyone else!


----------



## ST (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?



Actually, even if it is exactly the same, if some people enjoy it more, then it'll increase enjoyment overall, right? 

And people who still want to use a crossbow will be able to, right?

It also adds some interesting bits in that being out of ammo or having your crossbow broken by an axe doesn't take you out of the fight.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?



Sounds fine by me.


----------



## Zimri (Aug 29, 2007)

Okay so 2 things I am confused about 

1) If it breaks down to the "at will" ability being exactly or nearly exactly the same damage as a crossbow except magical in nature what the big hullbaloo about ? The wizard contributes magically rather than mundanely. It just feels "more right"

2) It's perfectly acceptable for Raistlin to a) be able to use a crossbow, and  b) take feats to improve his crossbow use yet he should be unable to climb a tree to pick an apple without the aide of magic (yes I am bringing a point from the skills thread over here but it makes sense to include it in this example.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 3) I'm not necessarily talking about a 1d4 attack. "Lesser" abilities doesn't have to mean "wussy" abilities.  (Nor am I necessarily talking about direct attack spells. A wizard who casts a minor spell that imposes a -1 penalty on an enemy for a few rounds is probably going to feel--and prove--a lot more useful than one who does 2 points of damage.)




Just taking this point because I perfectly understand and (for a lot of players I know, not me personally) agree on the other points you and Jim after you made. It's a lot of difference in flavour, which can mean the world in a roleplaying game after all.  

But your last point...lets just say in that case, I'd prefer them to give the wizard a straight-out attack ability, and maybe some magical BAB advantage or something. Because otherwise, the wizard will go from being a second-best rogue to being a second-best BARD...and I clearly recall all the hate the bard got as a class concept around here.  

And this was "tongue in cheek".


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Aug 29, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Okay so 2 things I am confused about
> 
> 1) If it breaks down to the "at will" ability being exactly or nearly exactly the same damage as a crossbow except magical in nature what the big hullbaloo about ? The wizard contributes magically rather than mundanely. It just feels "more right"



The phrase "it just feels 'more right'" is what the big hullabaloo is all about.

I started playing D&D with the Basic Set.  The fundamental concept of a wizard was a human who had very powerful magic, but it was limited.  He couldn't use it all the time.  That was what "balanced" magic against combat skill.  And it enhanced drama.  Running low on spells in an under-pressure situation (where resting was not an option) made for great stories.  The wizard in desperation finishing off an opponent with his dagger made for great stories.

So my idea of what feels "more right" is a wizard who conserves his magic for when it's needed, and it's quite impressive when he does pull it out.  Other than that he throws daggers from a place of safety or just sits back and stays out of danger.  The class was designed for players who could enjoy that style of play, which isn't everybody.

3E went to more-frequent less-powerful magic (more spells per day, and easier crafting of scrolls and wands, but nerfing things like Sleep).  And they gave the wizard a more powerful backup weapon.  A wizard who can do low-level magic all day might be great for a generic fantasy RPG system, but with 20+ years of gaming -- nearly always actively choosing to play D&D with its Vancian spell system -- I can tell you it just won't feel to me like a D&D wizard.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?




Then the 'overpowered' argument goes away, and those who want to play a truly magical character win a small but important victory.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?



I'd PREFER if this wasn't the case.  It should be useful enough that it should be about the same as casting a spell about 3 levels below your max level spells.  So, when you are capable of casting 4th level spells, you should be able to do a blast for "free" that does about as much damage as magic missile would.

However, if I was stuck with only being able to do a 1d8 blast for "free" it would still be a step forward.  It just wouldn't make me feel useful.  Neither would a -1 to an enemy ability(unless a minus one means a lot more than it does in 3.5e)


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 29, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Then the 'overpowered' argument goes away, and those who want to play a truly magical character win a small but important victory.




However in game mechanics it is exactly the same as the crossbow but changes the fundamental nature how magic works which makes it inconsistant how magic worked before.  Given in the context of setting and story, such inconsistancies break immersion and definitely is not fun.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 29, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I started playing D&D with the Basic Set.  The fundamental concept of a wizard was a human who had very powerful magic, but it was limited.




I started playing D&D some time after that, and I *always* played Elven Fighter / Magic-Users specifically because the "Awesome in one fight, lame all the rest of the time" was annoying.

I also played a lot of D&D Gold Box games, and in those (but especially in Pool of Radiance) the Magic-User character was the one you hid in the back of the party and hoped to Torm didn't get hit with a fireball before he was cool enough to start throwing fireballs back.

... and you never memorized any 1st-level spells other than Sleep.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

If all you want is a "magical" attack that is the same effectiveness as firing a crossbow, the only problem becomes one of flavor, which is of course subject to the personal taste of the participants, and can be determined from group to group.

But what I mean by this is that the "minor magical blast" has exactly the same characteristics of employing a crossbow, same damage die, same requirement to make an attack roll, same limitation on the amount of "ammo" that is available, same potential liability of having the ability taken from you (such as when you are captured), same gp expense to obtain more "ammo," etc.

Is this what you are looking for? A purely flavor swap, or something more?


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> However in game mechanics it is exactly the same as the crossbow but changes the fundamental nature how magic works which makes it inconsistant how magic worked before.  Given in the context of setting and story, such inconsistancies break immersion and definitely is not fun.




The only conflict is in comparison to "how it's been done before".

That's not a compelling enough reason for me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 29, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> However in game mechanics it is exactly the same as the crossbow but changes the fundamental nature how magic works which makes it inconsistant how magic worked before.  Given in the context of setting and story, such inconsistancies break immersion and definitely is not fun.



Every edition has broken consistency with previous ones.  Spells have different effects than they had the edition before, spells in 3rd edition are prepared in advance instead of memorized and forgotten, in 2nd edition everyone used two weapons or a longsword and shield and in 3rd edition there are suddenly large amounts of barbarians with greatswords.

Each time a new book came out I'd retroactively change history in my campaign to allow the new classes to exist.  Never heard of a Warmage?  Sure you have...Greyhawk City has had a Warmage School for YEARS, you just happened to never come across one before.

I certainly don't have any problem saying "Mages have always had minor magics that they could cast all the time.  They didn't want to show off before.  Just like rogues could always leap over people's heads and attack them from behind like they can now."


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 29, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I started playing D&D some time after that, and I *always* played Elven Fighter / Magic-Users specifically because the "Awesome in one fight, lame all the rest of the time" was annoying.



If you limit the experience to pure combat, yes, a wizard will seem to be lame most of the time. There is more to D&D than combat, thankfully.


> I also played a lot of D&D Gold Box games, and in those (but especially in Pool of Radiance) the Magic-User character was the one you hid in the back of the party and hoped to Torm didn't get hit with a fireball before he was cool enough to start throwing fireballs back.
> 
> ... and you never memorized any 1st-level spells other than Sleep.



I would suggest that since you were playing a video game and not a full-fledged role-playing game, your options were restricted to mostly combat, and so the limitation of the M-U class was exaggerated. D&D, as a role-playing game, is not limited to combat encounters.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Is this what you are looking for? A purely flavor swap, or something more?




Something more.

I expect the at-will abilities to scale, progressing from a low-level 'ping' to powerful 'blasts' at higher levels.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> If you limit the experience to pure combat, yes, a wizard will seem to be lame most of the time. There is more to D&D than combat, thankfully.
> I would suggest that since you were playing a video game and not a full-fledged role-playing game, your options were restricted to mostly combat, and so the limitation of the M-U class was exaggerated. D&D, as a role-playing game, is not limited to combat encounters.



No, it isn't LIMITED to purely combat.  However, I believe I saw a post where someone from WOTC said that D&D games averaged about 80% of each session on combat.  Most of my sessions are about 90%.

It's still the vast majority of what people do when playing D&D.  We role play to get the reasons to enter combat, but then we can spend sometimes 10 sessions straight in the same dungeon doing nothing but combat.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 30, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> No, it isn't LIMITED to purely combat.  However, I believe I saw a post where someone from WOTC said that D&D games averaged about 80% of each session on combat.  Most of my sessions are about 90%.
> 
> It's still the vast majority of what people do when playing D&D.  We role play to get the reasons to enter combat, but then we can spend sometimes 10 sessions straight in the same dungeon doing nothing but combat.




This is so not how me and my group play...maybe that's why I've become more and more disillusioned with th game of D&D, especially since the game is being designed from the standpoint that this is 100% true, instead of the standpoint that combat isn't the end all and be all of fun.  Yeah, I know...go play another game.


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 30, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> If you limit the experience to pure combat, yes, a wizard will seem to be lame most of the time. There is more to D&D than combat, thankfully.
> 
> I would suggest that since you were playing a video game and not a full-fledged role-playing game, your options were restricted to mostly combat, and so the limitation of the M-U class was exaggerated. D&D, as a role-playing game, is not limited to combat encounters.




First off, many people play D&D differently. While there are some groups that never roll a dice in a session, there are also those that roll lots of dice. Having said that, I think the D&D system has always been a good vehicle for combat. If you want a role-playing intensive game, there are honestly other, better systems at it. D&D 3.0 has been more like "majority is still combat, but we'll give rules for non-combat encounters" which is where some of the skills come in. But honestly, when you look at a class in the PHB, most of the facts presented are concerned with combat: AC, hit points, base attack bonus, etc. In D&D, the norm is that combat is expected (again, your gaming group doesn't have to play D&D this way). And it's also been my experience that if I have a  six-hour session, most likely half that time will be spent in combat, even if it's really only one or two skirmishes/encounters. Roleplaying seems to take less time (in terms of encounters). I can have had ten RP encounters in three hours where those three hours could have only lasted two combat encounters.


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 30, 2007)

The spellcasting compromise actually isn't new. Look at Reserve Feats. Or Arcana Evolved before that (the 25th-level spellcaster still has a limited no. of 9th-level spell slots but has virtually unlimited uses of 1st and 2nd-level). We're not asking for a Fireball ability at will at 10th-level. At 10th-level, I'd gladly give the Wizard unlimited uses of say, Shocking Grasp.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Aug 30, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> The spellcasting compromise actually isn't new. Look at Reserve Feats. Or Arcana Evolved before that (the 25th-level spellcaster still has a limited no. of 9th-level spell slots but has virtually unlimited uses of 1st and 2nd-level). We're not asking for a Fireball ability at will at 10th-level. At 10th-level, I'd gladly give the Wizard unlimited uses of say, Shocking Grasp.



I'd imagine not just spell level but also the type of spell would factor into this.  Giving a wizard Shocking Grasp at will has a very different effect than giving him Charm Person, Alarm, or Detect Secret Doors at will.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 30, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> The spellcasting compromise actually isn't new. Look at Reserve Feats. Or Arcana Evolved before that (the 25th-level spellcaster still has a limited no. of 9th-level spell slots but has virtually unlimited uses of 1st and 2nd-level). We're not asking for a Fireball ability at will at 10th-level. At 10th-level, I'd gladly give the Wizard unlimited uses of say, Shocking Grasp.




The thing with Arcana Evolved the spells are a lot lower in terms of power compared to the baseline DnD.


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 30, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> The thing with Arcana Evolved the spells are a lot lower in terms of power compared to the baseline DnD.




And your point is? It's still "unlimited spells per day" to some extent and the spellcaster typically has something substantial to contribute to each encounter. At at the end of the day, 4th Ed isn't out yet so we can't really judge the power levels of the abilities at will. My main point is that unlimited spells per day is not equal to unlimited power and can be manageable depending on how it's handled.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 30, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> And your point is? It's still "unlimited spells per day" to some extent and the spellcaster typically has something substantial to contribute to each encounter. At at the end of the day, 4th Ed isn't out yet so we can't really judge the power levels of the abilities at will. My main point is that unlimited spells per day is not equal to unlimited power and can be manageable depending on how it's handled.




Also the magister that gains that ability is over 20th level, and we are talking about wizards right out of the chute.  Not exactly the same level of skill and power.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Aug 30, 2007)

Considering most wizards I've played with grabbed a wand of '1st level attack spell' as soon as they possibly could, I dont think the difference in play is going to be all that..well...different.

How is a wizard who can inherently cast a low powered attack spell per round that much different then a wizard who can, with a wand, cast a low powered attack spell per round?  Does the addition of a magic stick really mean that much?   Considering their stated goal of reducing the use of magic items, you can see this as an extension of that design aspect.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 30, 2007)

One the wand has limited charges and takes money or resources to make, buy, and/or find while just having the wizard to it would be for free.  See the difference?


----------



## qstor (Aug 30, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> There was nothing wrong with the mass damage rules.  For godsakes if you are going to take that much damage in one hit that is major trauma to the freaking body.  Pathetic.




I agree 100% Even a 17th level fighter can roll a 1 on a Fort save and fail a massive damage roll. I think that's an important game balance issue. They need to leave it in.

The more I hear about the changes in 4e, the more I think its WOTC marketing cramming another edition in for sales reasons.

Mike


----------



## Baumi (Aug 30, 2007)

Wasn't Massive Damage optional in 3E? So why should they care about it?


----------



## D.Shaffer (Aug 30, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> One the wand has limited charges and takes money or resources to make, buy, and/or find while just having the wizard to it would be for free.  See the difference?



The crossbow and the bolts it uses (the current other option) arent exactly free either.  It might not cost as much as that wand does, but at later levels that 750 GP is essentially pocket change.  There's little functional difference between all three options, so why not go with the ones that's more in the Wizard's schtick of casting magic spells?


----------



## grimslade (Aug 30, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> One the wand has limited charges and takes money or resources to make, buy, and/or find while just having the wizard to it would be for free.  See the difference?




So its a question of resources then. Swap out the familiar and a number of Vancian spells known to get a per round spell. There you go resources spent. A Magic User should use magic, not this mundane wood and steel.

I would like to see the per round abilities broken up by school specialty. Abjurers can get a shield per round that scales. Conjurers can get a 10ft Dim Door. Well, maybe not the Dim Door. There is an alternate class feature like that in the PHBII. It gives a little more flavor to the specialists. It would still be a choice of whether to use your per round flash in the pan, an exciting per encounter maneuver or one of the precious once per day Vancian spells. You only have so many actions a round, and a small magic effect once per round is not game or genre breaking.


----------



## Woas (Aug 30, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Imagine possibilities for monster design.
> 
> Crimson ooze: when reduced to half hit points it splits into 6 lesser oozes.
> 
> Magma Golem: when reduced to half HP, lava begins to flow through the cracks in golem's ceramic skin.




Not to be mean, but these are realities of monster design currently. I don't see how giving a character or creature that has lost 50% of their HP a special title is very helpful.


----------



## mmu1 (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm not optimistic about spellcasters being able to use their abilities and never run out for several reasons:

1. The per-encounter mechanics which it seems like 4E will use don't appeal to me. It's trite to say it, but it does remind me of videogames. (Where "special ability" buttons are a necessity because computers can't effectively - or efficiently - model the nuances of table-top play.)

2. The track record of that sort of approach in various RPGs - the great majority of the time, mages who are able to cast at will end up either absurdly powerful, or as limited and boring "blasters". There are always exceptions, but given the emphasis on simplifying the rules and speeding up play, I really don't think 4E is going to end up as one of them.

3. In the changes from 3E to 3.5, magic was adjusted and more rigidly codified in ways that emphasized spell use for combat purposes, which probably made it more balanced, but less fun. I see no reason to think it won't continue down that course. 

Of course, a similar thing was done in the 2E to 3E transition, and I'd argue it was badly needed then, but you can have too much of a good thing.


----------



## erf_beto (Aug 30, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> So its a question of resources then. Swap out the familiar and a number of Vancian spells known to get a per round spell. There you go resources spent. A Magic User should use magic, not this mundane wood and steel.
> 
> I would like to see the per round abilities broken up by school specialty. Abjurers can get a shield per round that scales. Conjurers can get a 10ft Dim Door. Well, maybe not the Dim Door. There is an alternate class feature like that in the PHBII. It gives a little more flavor to the specialists. It would still be a choice of whether to use your per round flash in the pan, an exciting per encounter maneuver or one of the precious once per day Vancian spells. You only have so many actions a round, and a small magic effect once per round is not game or genre breaking.



 Making things like the Reserve feats would also help: say you get at will 1d4 magic atack per highest level Evocation spell you have available, or AC +1 per highest level Abjuration spell. As long as you dont pull your big guns out, you can use these minor magic effects at will. 

another option is creating spells that lasts for one day to allow for these minor effects, say Minor Magic Attack I-IX. You can perform these rituals by morning and blast all day. They could even be gear oriented, using foci: the spell requires a wand (or any other ordinary, not magical, object), and lasts for as long as you have them with you - being disarmed or stolen breaks the effect. 

And why not feat-based options? or like the Archmage's class features ('burn' a slot, get a 'at will' ability)? 

I dont think we need to revamp every spellcasting class to acomodate these suggestions: each group (or player) can choose wich options to take into his/her play style. I mean, a warmage needs to be able to blast his enemies, but a pacifist wizard professor dont. If you like resource managing, go with RAW; if you don't, you should have options - they'll just cost you something else.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> 3. In the changes from 3E to 3.5, magic was adjusted and more rigidly codified in ways that emphasized spell use for combat purposes, which probably made it more balanced, but less fun. I see no reason to think it won't continue down that course.
> 
> Of course, a similar thing was done in the 2E to 3E transition, and I'd argue it was badly needed then, but you can have too much of a good thing.



Exactly. Spells like fly or invisibility are a good example.

Short duration are good for combat balance purpose, but they suck when in non combat situation.

 Makes me think : what about a "combat effect" upon spells ? If you give those spells a duration of c*oncentration (max 1h/lvl) OR 1round/lvl* , then you can have spells with long duration that are quicly exausted when combat begins.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Aug 30, 2007)

Dont like it.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 30, 2007)

Woas said:
			
		

> Not to be mean, but these are realities of monster design currently. I don't see how giving a character or creature that has lost 50% of their HP a special title is very helpful.




It can be helpful by standardizing the process.  This is important if lots of monsters are going to have abilities or defects which trigger at the 50% mark.

It also can be a DM aid in describing monsters current injury level in a way the players can actually understand.  That's something I've always struggled with.  I won't tell my players actual monster hit points, but when I say that a monster is bloodied but still fighting strong, what does that mean?  This gives them some idea, and might even give them specific things to look for to help them identify monsters who are injured and monsters who are not.


----------



## Naszir (Aug 30, 2007)

Couple of things here:

Vicerious was also causing a lot of headaches over at the Gleemax forums too.  I kind of get that he doesn't like the way things are heading for 4e but D&D is a flexible game, if you don't like the current edition of the rules, add house rules to turn it into the way you want to play the game.  It's that simple.  The thing is you need to make at least the base rules accessible to beginners.  Grab their interest and imagination and then they can take it to wherever they want to go.  However, if it is too complex to begin with or characters are too easy to kill to start then it can be a turn off.

Now onto Wizards/Mages/Sorcerers/Warlocks etc. and how it might be interesting to have at will powers:

How about instead of at will blasting that mimicks a crossbow bolt why not be more creative and have at will "spells" that don't do damage but still help out the party?  For example, Daze may be a good spell to have at will.  I'm sure there are other wizardly type spells that would be great in combat or non-combat situations (ie. light, resistance, or dancing lights) and thus would have the wizard still feeling all wizard-like without being a lazer gun.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Aug 30, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> A Magic User should use magic, not this mundane wood and steel.




I can understand your point, of course.  Reserve feats have grown on me, and when Complete Mage came out I couldn't stand them.  Perhaps 4e's solution may grow on me as well.

However, the other side has a legitimate arguement that should be dismissed so easily.  Many people grew up on tales of "magic users" who didn't have limited resources.  Merlin, for example, is one I grew up on.  I grew up on the real stories of merlin - the combination of chemist, metalurgist, druid, etc.  To me, it makes sense for magic users to occasionally have to rely on things of this world, not just power from within.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, of course!  I am saying that not all people assume that magic users should get a free pass to having to occasionally resort to things of this world.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 30, 2007)

I think this is one of those discussions we have to put in a 4e context.

There may no longer be a massive damage save, and save or dies may have decayed, but perhaps resurrection magic has been weakened as well. Heroes are harder to kill, but death is more permanent.

After combat healing may be stronger (unlimited healing like dragon shaman's aura?) but incombat healing may be weaker, making death from hp loss more of a threat.

Bloodied may be a condition, but perhaps like Saga you can take a round or 2 and recover, so its not so much of a death spiral.

Player may be able to spend "action points" to do more insta lethal effects to monsters.

We just don't know, remember this is a new edition, and I hope it is VERY new. I want the mechanics completely rehashed, else what's the point?


All of that said, I think the idea of the bloodied condition is great, provided 2 things:

1) It is the only condition like it, or at most 2. Its not too hard to keep track of 50%, or perhaps when you are at like 10 hitpoints or something. But if they throw in a lot of conditions, it will complicate things.

I like SAGA's condition track, but I don't think it models dnd as well. A single condition bloodied sounds good.

2) In the MM, they put in the monsters half hp number (the bloodied target number). It a small convenience, but if a dm is expected to run more monsters than in 3e, then every convenience is important.


As for save or dies, what they may do is save or die....eventually. For instance, finger of death doesn't kill you instantly, it applies a -5 penalty to all rolls per round for 3 rounds until your dead (unless your healed or something big and powerful). It provides an immediate effect, but the actual death happens later. That way combats can still have some length and epicness to them, but the save or die still has an effect.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 30, 2007)

One thing I can say after taking a longer look at the Reserve feats is that I like nearly all of them. They are nice in that they require you to use up a feat slot to gain the ability, and to keep a spell back in your head to be able to profit from them. With these two requirements, they are nicely balanced as well as fit into the general scheme of "Vancian Magic" while offering an extended effect of that scheme.

A handful are a bit on the powerful side..._Clap of Thunder_ makes me wonder why anybody would want to use _Shout_ instead of simply doing 4d6 damage and 1 round of stunning every time, but that's one out of 20+  

Since they are going to alter the general scheme of how magic works in 4E, I doubt it will look exactly the same, but I can at least say that this mechanism for "magic at will" does find my approval.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 30, 2007)

Allowing wizards to do unlimited magic at will like this will at 1st level definitely make them way to powerful.  That is my opinion on the subject and that will never change.  I do hope that 4e steers away from this sort of "munchkin" gaming.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 30, 2007)

Sun Knight- if the unlimited magic is designed so that its power level starts out matching the crossbow backup that the wizard is carrying in 3.5, and then scales to match reasonably close to, say, the Warlock, then your objection is pretty much objectively moot.  Even if you choose it as your hill to die upon.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 30, 2007)

The problem here is that it is not scaled to the Warlock because the Warlock is severely limited in its diversity of what it can do magically while the wizard is not.  The warlock can use his magical ability unlimited fashion but it is limited in what he can do.  The Wizard has the ability to be diverse in his casting and adaptability but is limited in how much magic he can cast in a day's time.

Checks and balances, my friend.  If you give a person both the wizard's adaptability and diversity in magic with the Warlock's unlimited use of power do you not see how that is way too overpowered?


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 30, 2007)

For the obvious reason, "my friend," that its stupid to claim that a 4.0 class you haven't seen and which is being heavily revised (80% power after using up its per day spells suggests that most of its power is not highly versatile per day spell slots) is equal in versatility to a class you have seen in 3.5.

There are perfectly good ways to balance a wizard who gets unlimited magical power.  Reserve feats essentially do this already (you have to keep a spell slot open, and they trail slightly behind warlocks).  So does the Archmage class.  I find it very unlikely that a system in which a wizard gets an at will magical blast is intrinsically unbalanceable.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 30, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Checks and balances, my friend.  If you give a person both the wizard's adaptability and diversity in magic with the Warlock's unlimited use of power do you not see how that is way too overpowered?



Overpowered compared to what? To the 3rd.ed. classes? Sure! But don't know what the other 4th.ed. classes will be able to do


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 31, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Allowing wizards to do unlimited magic at will like this will at 1st level definitely make them way to powerful. That is my opinion on the subject and that will never change. I do hope that 4e steers away from this sort of "munchkin" gaming.




Don't you think allowing fighters to attack with their weapons all day long without getting tired is also munchkin gaming? And at least for THAT we have a real world parameter to compare. We know fighters can't fight for too long without getting tired. We don't have the same parameters for spellcasters. We can't say "a wizard should only be able to cast a few spells per day", or "a wizard should get tired after too much spellcasting" or "a wise mage only uses magic when needed." Where is all that stated? Lord of the rings? Fantasy novels? Movies? D&D is independet, it's a game on itself, it's not bound by parameters or measures. It creates its own in every edition.

Wizards and Warlocks have no real paramater, you can't say "that's a wizard" and "that's a warlock". "The first is supposed to do this, and the former supposed to do that". It's not a valid argument to say the coming rules are wrong. It's completelly subjective. Your ideas are biased maybe by any fictional novels you like, personal taste or even in D&D3.5, but 4E is a new game. You can't apply your personal tastes and beliefs about what you think a wizard should or should not be able to do to say the rules are wrong or overpowered .
Effectivey you are just saying: "I think the new rules are wrong because I don't like them", but with other words.

It's all relative. Anyone can say 3.5 is totally munchkin game compared to 2E. Sorcerers are so broken, near 2E wizards.

If a fighter can swing a sword all day long, (and we know that's hardly possible) I can't understand why couldn't a wizards cast a spell all day long. 



> Allowing wizards to do unlimited magic at will like this will at 1st level definitely make them way to powerful.



 -based on what???


----------



## WarlockLord (Aug 31, 2007)

Why are we all arguing over whether classes we haven't seen yet are overpowered?  We have virtually no idea what will come out in May, and here we are, debating, before we know anything, whether OUR IDEA of the wizard class will be overpowered.  

Not to be a threadcrapper, but we don't know jack.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 31, 2007)

Hell, munchkin's not even the technically valid term. "Power bloat" might be acceptable, but only if you've got it in your head that D&D is a continuous course from brown box to 4e, rather than a series of games written by different "design teams" (the term is often used rather loosely) with different design goals. Munchkinism, as a power-gaming phenomenon, is as simple as violating the first law of optimization ("Thou shalt respect thy DM and his campaign"); it's trying to be bigger and badder than the whole damn campaign setting. Munchkinism *cannot* be written into a rule set unless the DM in question scales down dramatically from the core books (something D&D has been terrible at since inception).

C'mon, folks. If you're going to grognard at least get your terms right.


----------



## Sun Knight (Aug 31, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Overpowered compared to what? To the 3rd.ed. classes? Sure! But don't know what the other 4th.ed. classes will be able to do




That is one of my worries about 4e.  That it is going to be a powerfest game that makes Dragonball Z look tame.


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

There are gradations in the power scale beyond just "low/average/TOO HIGH", you know.


----------



## Gargoyle (Aug 31, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> That is one of my worries about 4e.  That it is going to be a powerfest game that makes Dragonball Z look tame.





Rather than classes being overpowered against each other, it seems like your main concern is the overall power level of the game....that is, its feel.  I can understand that concern.

From the 4E news page: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e



> On the suggestion of magic/anime feel to fighter powers, WotC Logan confirms that the majority will be non-magical: "...at high levels, the fighter does push beyond the limits of human (or elf or dwarf) ability. Also, if someone wanted to make their fighter more magical-feeling, they could muck about with the flavor of the powers to make them less mundane."




Sounds like a far cry from Dragonball Z, so I wouldn't worry much about it.

Edit:  Oh and if your concern is truly class balance...you're way ahead of yourself.  The classes haven't even been announced, and even if you had the finished rules in front of you it still is impossible to determine if something is balanced or not without playtesting.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 31, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> From the 4E news page: http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
> 
> Sounds like a far cry from Dragonball Z, so I wouldn't worry much about it.




I've also had this confirmed to me as well from a friend who spoke with Mearls at GenCon. He asked Mike directly whether 4e would have a wuxia feel like Bo9S, and the answer was NO.


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I've also had this confirmed to me as well from a friend who spoke with Mearls at GenCon. He asked Mike directly whether 4e would have a wuxia feel like Bo9S, and the answer was NO.



 I no longer love Mearls with all of my body, including my pee-pee.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 31, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> That is one of my worries about 4e.  That it is going to be a powerfest game that makes Dragonball Z look tame.



Read this 4e playtest, Tomb Under the Tor. It describes a battle between 1st level PCs and a few goblins and worgs. It's the first fight of the adventure and two of the PCs nearly die. How is that like Dragonball-Z? How is it overpowered?


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I no longer love Mearls with all of my body, including my pee-pee.




Why?  Because the core feel of 4ed won't be anime/wuxia-inspired?  It _shouldn't _be.  THe biggest gripe I had about the Bo9S was that the mechanics were really cool but they were impossible to separate from the wuxia feel.  I couldn't use the rules in a more traditional setting.

This is what I asked Mike point-blank.  I have no problem with more cinematic options (for all the classes) but I don't want the implied setting to feel like Crouching TIger.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 3, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I like SAGA's condition track, but I don't think it models dnd as well. A single condition bloodied sounds good.




A number of people have mentioned that, and I wonder why some people don't think that the condition track would work in D&D.

After all, the condition track is so abstract it isn't tied to any particular setting... and having one thing to consider rather than shaken/feared/nauseated/ fatigued/panicked/exhausted/ dazed/stunned/poisoned/ diseased/maimed/etc to keep track of seems golden to me.

It additionally gives a nice opportunity for integrating charisma based skills into combat, and gives people reasons for ducking back and taking a quick breather to eliminate some of the conditions they are facing (for instance).

Why would it work in star wars but not in D&D?

Cheers


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

I much prefer to have the game less cinematic.  3.5e game mechanics pushed the limit on my tastes in cinematic gaming.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I much prefer to have the game less cinematic.  3.5e game mechanics pushed the limit on my tastes in cinematic gaming.




Examples?


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

The Warlock is a good example.  Unlimited power constantly blasting away foes with a care in the world, being all actiony without thought of tactics or strategy.  Just constant blasting.  Get two dueling high level warlocks going and you have the magical equivelent of a John Woo gun battle.


----------



## Elphilm (Sep 3, 2007)

I think that if someone uses the Warlock for constant blasting he's doing the class a bit of a disservice. There's a lot more to the Warlock than just the attack spells.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

True, but that was just one example.  Another is the Monk class.  That is way too overpowered and if you ever see him in action it is very over the edge cinematics.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 3, 2007)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> Death at -10 has always annoyed me.  When they got rid of negative AC, they should have gotten rid of negative HP.  Give player characters 10 bonus HP and make them go unconscious at 10 hp and die at zero.




I'm annoyed at -10 too but for different reasons.

A 1st level mage shouldn't have the same buffer which is generally more than twice his maximum hit points than a 20th level fighter.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

That is why I like the Monte Cook method of it being based on your Constitution ability.  If you have a 8 Con you are dead at -8.  If you have a 16 Con, you are dead at -16.


----------



## Grog (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> True, but that was just one example.  Another is the Monk class.  That is way too overpowered and if you ever see him in action it is very over the edge cinematics.




???

In my experience around these forums, and in play, 3.X monks are generally regarded as a little on the weak side.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> In my experience around these forums, and in play, 3.X monks are generally regarded as a little on the weak side.



Weak?

Best saves all around, uber class abilities, up to 5 attacks a round that do 2d10, that is a total of 10 to 100 points of damage a round before any mods or added feat abilities.  Take any character, pull a Slave Lords act on them and only the monk is ready to rumble.


----------



## sukael (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Weak?
> 
> Best saves all around, uber class abilities, up to 5 attacks a round that do 2d10, that is a total of 10 to 100 points of damage a round before any mods or added feat abilities.  Take any character, pull a Slave Lords act on them and only the monk is ready to rumble.




A level 20 raging barbarian with base STR 20 and a nonmagical greataxe could pretty easily pour out the same straight-up damage than a level 20 monk, even with 1 less attack.

1d12+13 = 25 maximum damage, x4 = 100 damage.

That's before counting how a barbarian will have a much easier time getting a magic weapon, or how they only have to focus on Str and Con in general instead of Str/Dex/Con/Wis, or how a barbarian's full BAB means hitting more often...


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

Um...  Great Axe multiplier is x3.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Sep 3, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Um...  Great Axe multiplier is x3.




He was saying x4 for 4 attacks.  If the Barbarian hits on each of his four attacks, he'll do approximately 100, just like the monk who hits all all five of his.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 3, 2007)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> He was saying x4 for 4 attacks.  If the Barbarian hits on each of his four attacks, he'll do approximately 100, just like the monk who hits all all five of his.
> 
> Thaumaturge.




Okay, yeah...  Silly me.


----------



## Grog (Sep 3, 2007)

sukael said:
			
		

> A level 20 raging barbarian with base STR 20 and a nonmagical greataxe could pretty easily pour out the same straight-up damage than a level 20 monk, even with 1 less attack.
> 
> 1d12+13 = 25 maximum damage, x4 = 100 damage.
> 
> That's before counting how a barbarian will have a much easier time getting a magic weapon, or how they only have to focus on Str and Con in general instead of Str/Dex/Con/Wis, or how a barbarian's full BAB means hitting more often...




Exactly. No 20th level barbarian would have a damage output that low. With a 34 STR (when raging) and a +5 greataxe, he's doing 1d12+23 per hit, and that's just bare bones - not even a little bit optimized for damage. Add in weapon enchants (holy, etc.), inherent bonuses to STR, Power Attack, etc., he can easily do double the damage of a monk, if not much more.

Granted, the monk has other abilities to compensate, but these are mainly defensive abilities which protect the monk himself and don't contribute much to the party as a whole. If I was in this party and had to choose who to bring along, I'd much rather have the barbarian.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2007)

Yes, the Monk has really proven to become a Paper Tiger in the experience of my D&D group.
His abilities look nice and powerful, but all the cool special abilities turn out to be near useless in combat. In a low-magic campaign, they might probably be pretty impressive, but that's not standard D&D. The medium BAB weakens them considerably, and the AC bonus isn't that impressive, either. The combination of great speed and many attacks doesn't work out that great, either, because you can't use the first if you use the last, and vice versa.

I would strongly recommend against comparing the abilities between editions in terms of power - Versatility, options available, might be okay. But the only important thing in regarding to power is power within an edition.


----------

