# Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Mar 29, 2008)

does the 4e feel like d&d? or not
a long blogpost with interesting reply that shed light on the position of a lot of ex WotC employers (like Reynolds and Cook) that rightly would have liked to playtest 4ed.... but were denyed (a mistake IMO)

here
http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/43482.html?view=343770#t343770


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2008)

I think JD is way off base. He hasn't read enough of the information on 4e, it is clear - especially the description of the chase in Sembia. And, IMO, 3e was far, far more the thing he and SKR pillory than 4e is described as.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 29, 2008)

"my monk, Bannor, carried salt around to throw in the eyes of opponents"

Throwing salt in the eyes once = coolsville
Carrying it around and using it a lot = yawnsville

It's a tedious form of powergaming -
1. Keep going outside the rules. 
2. Wait until the DM makes a ruling that results in X being overpowered. 
3. Do X from now until the end of time.

Powergaming within a well designed rules set is a lot more interesting because the same action won't always be optimal.


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 29, 2008)

I am constantly amused by the notion that 1st edition was superior at opening up options for players by virtue of it not having rules for them.

I had a ton of fun playing 1st edition and OD&D back in the day, but in many ways we made do with the lack of rules for something, not because we thought it made things much easier and open, but because they weren't there and we had to house rule it.

If you're going to go this route of "no rules = makes game more fun" then why not throw all the rules out and just sit around a table doing some improv?

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Mar 29, 2008)

I read it. I thought JD worded his concerns very well, brought some good issues to light, and generally wasn't really raggin' too hard on 4e. However...

His blog is littered with "So fars," "Seems," and such, that it is immediately apparent that he hasn't seen any more of 4e than I have and, possibly, even less. He's a fantastic designer, but he's not a prognosticator. So, I'm not going to put any more weight on his comments than any other poster on any other random blog/board/what-have-you.

The big 3e names (Monte, SKR, JD, etc.) might have been beneficial to Wizards to bring in for playtests, but I'm not so sure about that. The number of players who are fanatic enough about D&D to hang out on the internet searching for clues about the new edition and who are only slightly negative enough about 4e that a positive word from those 3e names would sway them into the 4e fold has _got_ to be very, very small.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 29, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I am constantly amused by the notion that 1st edition was superior at opening up options for players by virtue of it not having rules for them.



The 1st Ed idea of the 1-minute round was supposed to incorporate the idea that PCs were doing all of these fancy options, but that in the end it was resolved by one good attack. However, I think that in practise, these options were merely forgotten.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 29, 2008)

> The distinction is subtle. Both 1st and 4th say "when the rules don't cover it, let the DM decide what happens." But the *emphasis* on minimizing DM adjudication--which was a philosophy that was present when I worked at Wizards, and seems to have taken root in the last six years--appears to have created an "anything other than these basic options is a suboptimal choice" mentality in the rules. If I decide to try throwing dust in my opponent's face to blind him (an old, old Hollywood fight gimmick), it's not as good a choice as using *lance of faith*. My *DM* might rule that it's more effective, but the *rules* make it pretty clear that it's not.




And the rules of OD&D, 1e, 2e, and 3e made throwing sand clearly more effective than magic missile?  :\  Because if not the comparison is useless. If having mechanical support for actions is not like D&D then goddamn I guess I don't want to play D&D after all.


----------



## Dwight (Mar 29, 2008)

JD said:
			
		

> But, again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules.



If he couldn't have stressed that strongly enough why not put it at the top of that post?   

But that aside, I understand what he getting at. Except what Doug said. That's how stuff like that tended to come out in my experience. You tried to find something that worked with the DM and then ran with that. You played the DM. With less holes in the rules, more options in the rules, you don't have to play the DM so much. Eventually you can go outside the rules the _need_ just isn't as strong to do so because there is a lot more room inside.

P.S.  Your character can still haul salt and pepper around in your pocket and throw it at people.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Mar 29, 2008)

I like having rules for some of the more common tactics, and I think both 3E and 4E are better (for my taste) than previous editions for covering more things with rules.  Where I think 4E may hopefully be an improvement over 3E is in having simpler rules for the more common tactics, with more focus on having the end result be a smooth and quick resolution at the game table.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2008)

Honestly, after 8 years of listening to EXACTLY the same words about 3e, whenever I hear this now, I just tune out.  "It's not D&D anymore" wasn't true for 3e and likely won't be for 4e.  Anymore than 1e wasn't really D&D because it changed OD&D, or BECMI D&D wasn't D&D anymore, despite being a very different game from 1e.  Or 2e wasn't D&D anymore.  

Sigh.  Could people actually take the time to come up with actual criticisms?


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Mar 29, 2008)

Well, to be fair, JD said 3E didn't feel like D&D to him, either.  And he's hoping for better with 4E.  And Ari seems to indicate that - yes, 4E *is* more like D&D.

We must remember that JD's apparent definition of "D&D" is being able to do whatever he wants as a character, without having a specific rule tied to it.

Seems like a decent blog and a valid concern.  One of the things that most appeals to me about 4E is that we're told the DM _will_ be empowered more than he was in 3E to adjudicate creativity.

Time will tell.

W.P.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> "my monk, Bannor, carried salt around to throw in the eyes of opponents"
> 
> Throwing salt in the eyes once = coolsville
> Carrying it around and using it a lot = yawnsville



4e solution- make throwing salt a per encounter ability.  Take it out of the character's allotted pool of per encounter abilities.

See if the player still wants to throw salt once it isn't free.

If he does, then any potential brokenness is mitigated by only getting to do it once per encounter.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Mar 29, 2008)

Doc_Klueless said:
			
		

> I read it. I thought JD worded his concerns very well, brought some good issues to light, and generally wasn't really raggin' too hard on 4e. However...
> 
> His blog is littered with "So fars," "Seems," and such, that it is immediately apparent that he hasn't seen any more of 4e than I have and, possibly, even less. He's a fantastic designer, but he's not a prognosticator. So, I'm not going to put any more weight on his comments than any other poster on any other random blog/board/what-have-you.



I sympathize with his concerns, but I don't really see where they come from.  Frankly, I'm mystified by his assertions that 3.x was somehow more flexible and _easier on the DM_ than what we've seen of 4e.   



> The big 3e names (Monte, SKR, JD, etc.) might have been beneficial to Wizards to bring in for playtests, but I'm not so sure about that. The number of players who are fanatic enough about D&D to hang out on the internet searching for clues about the new edition and who are only slightly negative enough about 4e that a positive word from those 3e names would sway them into the 4e fold has got to be very, very small.



I think it would have been more of a matter of common courtesy than a marketing tool.  I wonder if WotC's legal department was the reason why many of the 3e designers weren't brought in as playtesters.  After all, many of them would be considered to be 3rd party d20 publishers, and as such by the GSL rules they'd have to pay $5000 to get early access to the rules.


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 29, 2008)

I ran my first 4e game last night. My overall impression? It felt more or less like running other versions of D&D. Sure, how you determine which bonus to add to the roll might be a little different in cases, but it's more or less the same game from a DM's point of view. I should note that perhaps I was doing a lot more of the improv and on-the-spot rules decisions in 3e than some people were, and 4e seems designed to make that easier, but I honestly can't say that it's "not D&D."

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 29, 2008)

Dwight said:
			
		

> But that aside, I understand what he getting at. Except what Doug said. That's how stuff like that tended to come out in my experience. You tried to find something that worked with the DM and then ran with that. You played the DM. With less holes in the rules, more options in the rules, you don't have to play the DM so much. Eventually you can go outside the rules the _need_ just isn't as strong to do so because there is a lot more room inside.



See, I think there's a difference between going outside the rules, and going outside the _framework_ of the rules. As Mouseferatu mentioned in his comments on JD's blog (and elsewhere around here, I think), his character actions of sliding under a table and kicking it out from under a foe probably won't be explicitly covered even in the full blown 4E rules, but will still be easily within the framework.  The simple formula of roll X vs Y (where X and Y are a small list of BAB, Defense or Attribute scores) makes it easy for a DM to quickly and - more importantly, IMHO - consistently make a call on the fly and move on.

In 1E, these actions weren't covered by the rules, nor were they within the framework of the rules. The natural instinct was still to make a roll of X vs Y, but with little guidance from the DMG on how to do this. In ANY roleplaying game, 1E or 4E D&D included, you can _say_ you throw dirt in someone's eye. How the system actually lets you resolve that action is a completely different matter. In 1E, it typically ended up being something like: 

DM: "Dirt in the eyes? Um.  Okay. Make an attack roll."
Player: "Against AC 10? His armor doesn't count, right?"
DM: "Uh, I guess not. But since you're targeting his face, you've got a -4. So it's like you're attacking AC 6." [Yes, younger players: in 1E, a penalty for the attacker made the target's Armor Class go down, which was really up]
(Player rolls and cross-references result on chart)
Player:"I hit!"
DM:"You did? Oh. Uh. I guess I'll have him make a save vs. Petrification."
Player:"Petrification? Wouldn't it be more like Poison? Foreign substance in the body?" (The player knows the save vs. Poison is bad for this foe's class. Next time he pulls this stunt on a foe with a bad Petrification save, he'll argue for that.)
DM:"Okay, fine." (rolls) "He failed. He's blind for a round."
Player:"Only one? I'd think it'd be at least 1d4."​
Don't get me started on players who's only tactic against large monsters was "I shoot an arrow in his eye!"

So Dwight, you might have seen this more as "playing with the DM", and sometimes it was, but more often it like the players trying to find ways to throw metaphorical rules dirt in the DM's eyes, interrupting the game to argue for a better advantage than what the rules normally allowed. Players also often argued about how much they could actually do in a round (a minute), even when it obviously went beyond the rules of 1 move, 1 action per round. Add in magic, and games often ground to a halt as players gave physics dissertations on why it was perfectly logical for them to use a spell in a way which was obviously way beyond the intended scope and power of the spell.

JD's claim of 1E allowing players to do whatever they could imagine was missing the caveat:

If the DM doesn't disallow it because: 
he feels too pressured to come up with house rules on the spot
the tactic is better than most other combat options in the core rules, and likely to be repeated and abused by the players
the rules effect for handling the action make it more tactically sound than it would be in "real life"
he thinks the player's idea is ridiculous
no one can agree on how it was handled last time
any of a hundred other reasons because there's little framework for handling these ad hoc situations

To me, 4E sounds like it's actually going to let players do the crazy things like they tried to do in 1E, but this time around, the DM has a quicker, more logical structure to help him adjudicate things and keep the action going.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 29, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> If you're going to go this route of "no rules = makes game more fun" then why not throw all the rules out and just sit around a table doing some improv?
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." - Gary Gygax


----------



## JeffB (Mar 29, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> To me, 4E sounds like it's actually going to let players do the crazy things like they tried to do in 1E, but this time around, the DM has a quicker, more logical structure to help him adjudicate things and keep the action going.




Oh, you mean like Castles & Crusades!? 







 

Sorry couldn't help myself!  I'm no overzealous C&C Fanboy, but your statement describes the SIEGE engine pretty well


----------



## Vempyre (Mar 29, 2008)

As food for thoughts :

So, how would we rule a "I shoot the Tarrasque in the eye!" in 4e?


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 29, 2008)

JeffB said:
			
		

> Sorry couldn't help myself!  I'm no overzealous C&C Fanboy, but your statement describes the SIEGE engine pretty well




It describes hundreds of game systems very well, some going back decades. It's not a C&C innovation.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 29, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Honestly, after 8 years of listening to EXACTLY the same words about 3e, whenever I hear this now, I just tune out.  "It's not D&D anymore" wasn't true for 3e and likely won't be for 4e.  Anymore than 1e wasn't really D&D because it changed OD&D, or BECMI D&D wasn't D&D anymore, despite being a very different game from 1e.  Or 2e wasn't D&D anymore.
> 
> Sigh.  Could people actually take the time to come up with actual criticisms?



I sorta agree with you that it's not really a criticism.

However, as someone who studies media and the relationships between value concepts and formal systems, I find the complaint fascinating. For me, this seems to relate importantly to one of the key issues of RPGs. I'm just not sure exactly what.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 29, 2008)

Sir Brennen: Excellent point about the d20 rules providing a framework. Imo the two d20 systems - 3e and 4e - are better for 'going outside the rules' than 1e, with its plethora of subsystems. If a PC throws mud in someone's eye in 1e then as a DM I don't really know where to begin because everything works differently. All I know is I need to write a new table, with a bunch of modifiers. And at some point a d12 will have to be rolled.

One thing I really liked about 3e is the default assumption that every advantage or disadvantage gives a +2 or -2 on a d20, which makes on the fly rulings very easy. In fact I'd like to have seen that made universal in combat. Higher ground? +2. Opponent prone? +2. Cover? -2. Would have been so much easier to remember.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Mar 29, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> does the 4e feel like d&d? or not
> a long blogpost with interesting reply that shed light on the position of a lot of ex WotC employers (like Reynolds and Cook) that rightly would have liked to playtest 4ed.... but were denyed (a mistake IMO)
> 
> here
> http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/43482.html?view=343770#t343770




I'd take exception to the thought that ex employees inherently deserved a playtest slot.  While it might be a nice idea, I've never worked at a company that gave me beta releases of software to help test out on virtue of my being a previous employee.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 29, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> So, how would we rule a "I shoot the Tarrasque in the eye!" in 4e?



Striking a vital area is already covered by the critical hit rule. It's assumed combatants are always trying to hit an opponent somewhere vulnerable.


----------



## JohnBiles (Mar 29, 2008)

My experience of playing 1E for 5 years wasn't flexibility and freedom; it was that 1E was a crazy quilt of rules with no clear underlying guidelines on how to do anything at all outside them.  It pretty much encouraged you to stick to 'I hit it' or 'I cast a spell at it', rather than encouraging anything beyond that.

Plus, at this point, we really don't have enough of the 4E rules to make the kind of judgement this guy is trying to make.

Also, is there any actual evidence that these former WOTC staffers the OP talks about wanted to playtest but were denied?  Or is the OP just assuming that?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 29, 2008)

JohnBiles said:
			
		

> Also, is there any actual evidence that these former WOTC staffers the OP talks about wanted to playtest but were denied?  Or is the OP just assuming that?



Sean K Reynolds made several comments on the blog the OP linked to regarding this (which, although I think SKR is a good designer, I found the comments to sound both a bit  whiny and not terribly relevant.)


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 29, 2008)

See, there's a flip side to the "no rule to cover X", and that is "X can't be done". To whit.

There is no rule in D&D for striking at a spellcaster's throat to prevent him from speaking/casting (and possibly breathing). 

Option 1: 

The DM can devise a called-shot method of resolving this particular technique. The DM must weigh the benefits and hindrances of such a technique, so that is no so weak/difficult to be ineffective* or so good as to be matter of course.

Option 2: 

Since there is no rule for it, it cannot be done. Hp is abstract, so no blow can strike and silence a spellcasting foe. 

For every DM who would attempt to create option 1, there is another who will assume option 2. This puts the game in an odd place; do you cater to the "Make rules up as they come" DMs or the "No rule, no action" DMs? 1e/2e catered to the first crowd, 3e/4e caters to the latter. For DMs who grew up on Option 1, the complexity of feats, combat actions (bull rush, etc), and martial techniques seem unnecessary and stifling. To those in the latter, they are welcomed additions to the game by providing more official (and therefore easy to resolve) actions to the game.

* unless of course, the DM WANTS it to be ineffective, which is really no better than option 2. It just creates the illusion of PCs being able to do anything, not PCs who can actually DO anything.


----------



## Sora Justice (Mar 29, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> does the 4e feel like d&d? or not
> a long blogpost with interesting reply that shed light on the position of a lot of ex WotC employers (like Reynolds and Cook) that rightly would have liked to playtest 4ed.... but were denyed (a mistake IMO)
> 
> here
> http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/43482.html?view=343770#t343770




A blog post by ex-employees _edited out - if you can't post without using grandma-friendly language, don't post it - Plane Sailing_


----------



## Reaper Steve (Mar 29, 2008)

Wow, what a flawed argument.
JD is passing judgment that the entirety of 4E provides less choice than previous editions, basing that decree off of a single narrow intro. Of course the latter will provide less choice than the full system!

A better comparison would be 'what choices do a 1st-level 4E character have compared to a 1st-level character in previous editions?' And that question can't even be answered in an intro adventure with pre-gen characters.

What can be determined is: how does 'Scalegloom Hall' and 'Escape from Sembia' compare to similar intro experiences to any previous version of D&D? That can be answered. I have not had the fortune to play or read either of those two DDXP intros, but everything I've read regarding them is that they provide play experiences that are leaps beyond a 1st-level game in prior editions.


----------



## Bishmon (Mar 29, 2008)

In my opinion, the blogger was just looking for stuff to fit into his conclusion. In other words, he already had the answer, he was just looking for the questions. I can't see another explanation for why he'd hinge everything on how much control a DM does or does not have without, you know, actually having read the DMG.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 29, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> As food for thoughts :
> 
> So, how would we rule a "I shoot the Tarrasque in the eye!" in 4e?



I'd rule the Tarrasque eats the archer on his turn   

As Doug said, critical hit rules (which were not part of the core in earlier editions) simulate this to an extent. Of course, that doesn't cover the visual impairment which would also accompany such an attack.

I could also see the ability to blind an opponent (or at least impair their vision) with a melee or ranged attack a martial power.

Since Mike Mearls is with WotC now, it's entirely possible there might be a "stunt" style mechanic, like he introduced in both Iron Heroes and the Book of Iron Might. Essentially trading off giving the opponent some sort of general penalty to attack, defense, movement, etc (open to player descriptions of "I hit him in the eye!" or "I cut his hamstring!") for a penalty to the attacker's roll, or expenditure of an action point, or some mechanic as yet unrevealed.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> * unless of course, the DM WANTS it to be ineffective, which is really no better than option 2. It just creates the illusion of PCs being able to do anything, not PCs who can actually DO anything.



Hah! Yep... let the player roll the dice and try, but with such a hefty penalty that it's either mathematically impossible to succeed, or has such a high failure rate that they'll eventually give up trying to use the tactic. Again, common occurrence in the earlier editions to handle things outside the rules.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 29, 2008)

Don't get me wrong - I had *fun* under 1st edition but boy - these guys must have played some other 1st edition then I did. 
If there ever was a system that was disempowering of the DM, it was ADnD1. Very detailed rules for combat, moving through dungeons and equipment (to the point of distinguishing ten different kinds of pole-arms) combined with utter lack of guidance as to anything to be done outside the very narrow Gygaxian game model. 
Sure, we could improvise, but whenever we tried game was more of a hindrance then a help. 

Point of the rules in an RPG is to keep it from becoming a moderated "cops and robbers" improv, without putting the game into  a straightjacket. ADnD1 (which was great at the time) had a strong dichotomy: you are either in a straight-jacket or you are playing improv.
ADnD2 loosened the straightjacket somewhat (but at the cost of some initial blandness) but improv was still improv.
DnD3 felt as if it tightened straightjacket somewhat again (though not by much) but provided decent if not good guidance outside of it with d20 system for skills etc...
DnD4 looks as if it is tightening the jacket yet more - which is the part we know - but people promise us that the guidance outside is yet better then it was in DnD3. The way I see it, at worst it is back to 1st ed (except with mechanically better rules for the stuff there are rules for) and at best it may be the best incarnation of DnD yet.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 29, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I think JD is way off base. He hasn't read enough of the information on 4e, it is clear - especially the description of the chase in Sembia. And, IMO, 3e was far, far more the thing he and SKR pillory than 4e is described as.




Agreed. I think professionals in the RPG industry (or ex-professionals; whatever) should hold themselves to a higher standard when blogging about games. If they haven't seen the full, complete rules, they should refrain from making sensationalized statements like "Why 4E Doesn't Feel Like D&D". To be frank, it's simply foolish to post "It appears to be following a trend that favors the rules over empowering the DM to actually run the game" based only on excavated rules from a combat playtest, having never seen the DMG. 

Sure, the guy is welcome to his own opinions, it's a free country and he can say what he wants, etc. etc. I just think industry professionals should hold themselves to a higher standard. 

I mean, what is the point of making a public post titled "Why 4E Doesn't Feel Like D&D", only to end with this statement?



> Again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.
> 
> But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me.




To paraphrase: "I am completely ignorant about how DMs function in 4E, and based on my ignorance, I am declaring that the way DMs run games in 4E makes 4E not feel like D&D."

 :\


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 29, 2008)

When I read the review I'll be honest. What was going through my head was....

"What is this guy smoking?  "

If he's comparing 4e 1st level to 3e 1st level, I can't see how it thinks there's less to do. 1st of all, I can throw tons of different monsters at a 1st level 4e party, and in hugely varying numbers. I could theoretically use 20 minions or 1 solo. I can use kobolds of all shapes and sizes, spellcasting hobgoblins or sturdy hobgoblin soliders. The variety there is large.

2nd, while the individual aspect of 4e characters (at 1st level) may not be that much more than the 3e version, the teamwork aspect has been greatly enhanced. A quick example, my pregen party faced two hobgoblin soldiers (that receive +2 to AC when adjacent to each other). The fighter used tide of iron to knock one of the hobgoblins back, effectively giving the ranger a +2 to attack rolls!!

In 3e, you'd likely use bull rush to do this. You would take an AOO, have a large chance of failure, and do no damage. But you gave the archer an advantage right? Oh wait, your now in melee with the guy. Does a 1st level archer have precise shot? If he's not human he doesn't, well that's a -4 to your attack roll then.


And even if that was not enough, we don't even have all of the combat rules yet!! We know that you can grab as an action, and bull rush. There could be aid another, minor disarm and trip rules, etc.

I'm sure 4e has its flaws, but just looking at 1st level everything the man said in his review is just flat out wrong from my experience.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> A blog post by ex-employees who are butthurt that they're no longer with the program? Say it ain't so~~!




When I read the blog, I thought of _Grumpy Old Men_ for some reason...


----------



## Delta (Mar 29, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, JD said 3E didn't feel like D&D to him, either.  And he's hoping for better with 4E.  And Ari seems to indicate that - yes, 4E *is* more like D&D.




To be even more fair what he literally said was that *3.5* left him hungering for a 1st Ed. feel. He actually said that 1E, 2E, 3E, all allowed him to do the things he wanted. I actually share the opinion that 3.5 was a bigger fork to the rules than what had come before.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 29, 2008)

This...



> When I played 1st Edition AD&D, anything I wanted to try was either directly supported by the rules, or encouraged by the rules to let the DM adjudicate.




...is not fundamentally any different that this...



> --appears to have created an "anything other than these basic options is a suboptimal choice" mentality in the rules. If I decide to try throwing dust in my opponent's face to blind him (an old, old Hollywood fight gimmick), it's not as good a choice as using lance of faith. My DM might rule that it's more effective, but the rules make it pretty clear that it's not.




It is entirely up to the whim of the DM to make these two be different.  

If the DM does not happen to have strong positive vibes about these kinds of things the 3e/4e "straitjacket" provides immensely more freedom than the old ways, because at least we have some broad rules to fall back on that grants some options.


----------



## Verys Arkon (Mar 29, 2008)

> Again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.
> 
> But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me.




I can't believe someone who is/was in the industry would try and judge a 1000+ pages of rules on a 40 page, fan-compiled collection of preview material.  I say it in big red letters in post 1, plus in the preface: "DON'T JUDGE 4E UNTIL YOU GET THE RULES".  It is less than 0.05% of the pages!  What else would you pass judgment on having experienced so little of?


----------



## neceros (Mar 29, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> To paraphrase: "I am completely ignorant about how DMs function in 4E, and based on my ignorance, I am declaring that the way DMs run games in 4E makes 4E not feel like D&D."



Well said.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 29, 2008)

> BUT: What I've seen of the 4th Edition rules doesn't seem to support anything other than a few basic options, including moving, attacking, resting, and a handful of others.




Considering the information we have (PHB Lite, etc) comprises less than 5% of the total content/word-count/whatever of the final core books, this is a big "duh." If I read less than 5% of Lord of the Rings, I'd say it doesn't really have an epic adventure or a battle between good and evil, but rather it simply focuses on the activities surrounding hobbit birthdays... but I'd be wrong, because I'm jumping to massive conclusions based on a fundamental lack of knowledge.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



> Again--and I can't stress this strongly enough--I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.
> 
> But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me.




By this time in 3e's marketing, we hadn't seen anything on DM adjudication or anything about pages in the DMG being devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games and provide new options not supported by the rules and such.

It strikes me as entirely silly to jump to this conclusion (4e doesn't support DM adjudication) with so little knowledge (less than 5% of the total book content) before the books are released, especially when the previous edition had the same "problem," which actually turned out not to be a problem (according to him, since 3e apparently supports DM adjudication in ways that 3.5 doesn't).


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 29, 2008)

Verys Arkon said:
			
		

> I can't believe someone who is/was in the industry would try and judge a 1000+ pages of rules on a 40 page, fan-compiled collection of preview material.  I say it in big red letters in post 1, plus in the preface: "DON'T JUDGE 4E UNTIL YOU GET THE RULES".  It is less than 0.05% of the pages!  What else would you pass judgment on having experienced so little of?




How is this any different from people who have been exposed to the same amount of rules and yet declare that 4E is FRENCH FRIED AWESOME.

(Or at least really like the game based on that limited exposure?) 

His opinion is just as valid as the many people on this board who have played "4E" based on the materials from the DDXP and declared that the game plays great. It doesnt matter if he was in the industry or not. Right now, in this case he's a gamer just like us and he feels that what he's played so far doesn't feel like D&D to him.

You know I REALLY can't wait for the Non-disclosure thing to get lifted so that people who have been play testers and have actually played the game can give their honest opinions as to the benefits and flaws of 4E. Not just the mostly positive reviews that WOTC has allowed out recently.


----------



## Harshax (Mar 29, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Add in magic, and games often ground to a halt as players gave physics dissertations on why it was perfectly logical for them to use a spell in a way which was obviously way beyond the intended scope and power of the spell.




I misread this the first time, and had a flashback of the three of us in high school physically performing combat moves, and how they were totally plausible within the 1 minute round.  We'd argue for for hours. This was before UA, when two-weapon fighting was a tiny paragraph in the DMG. (Back then, the DMG was kinda like a bible for the irreligious. You kept coming back to those favorite yellowing pages, but huge tracks were pristine white from lack of sunlight or pizza stained fingers)

Sometimes I think we got together for the arguments, not the games.  :\ 

Good times. good times.

The rules have gotten a lot better, when it comes to adjudicating a situation that the rules don't handle specifically.  That said, however, players have gotten a lot more meta-gamey at the table because the guidelines for handling ad hoc situations is transparent through the DM Screen.  We've trade the situation where a DM would lean back in his chair and stair thoughtfully at the ceiling for a few minutes before making his call to players leaning back in the chair and extrapolating the logical skill or ability score to use for a given action, and sometimes openly discussing it as if it is a foregone conclusion how to DM should rule.  Neither is really an ideal scenario.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 29, 2008)

Harshax said:
			
		

> I misread this the first time, and had a flashback of the three of us in high school physically performing combat moves, and how they were totally plausible within the 1 minute round.  We'd argue for for hours.



Go back one sentence in my post from what you quoted and I was talking about this, too. Yep, I remember those players back in the day, flailing about the living room: 

"It's one minute, right? So I fire my crossbow, then leap over the pit like this, drop, tumble to the dagger, snatch it up, and ... oh, dude! Sorry about your lamp!

I'll pay for that. Seriously. But tell your mom the cat did it..."


----------



## Mephistopheles (Mar 29, 2008)

I think the signal to noise ratio on 4E is getting so bad that I feel it's becoming frustrating to follow it.


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 30, 2008)

I think they should have allowed JD to become a playtester. An NDA would work on him as well as anyone. He shouldn't have been given a spot automatically as a former employee, but it would have been wise to make him a playtester due to his influence in the community. But, hey, what's done is done.

At this point I think everyone is just waiting for the rules. WotC doesn't seem very interested in releasing information other than in the occasional blog post at this point. Once the rules are out we can look at them ourselves and not have to bang our head against the "what were they thinking!!!??!??!" wall anymore.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 30, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> How is this any different from people who have been exposed to the same amount of rules and yet declare that 4E is FRENCH FRIED AWESOME.
> 
> (Or at least really like the game based on that limited exposure?)
> 
> His opinion is just as valid as the many people on this board who have played "4E" based on the materials from the DDXP and declared that the game plays great. It doesnt matter if he was in the industry or not. Right now, in this case he's a gamer just like us and he feels that what he's played so far doesn't feel like D&D to him.




As he is making broad generalizations about the entirety of the rules, specifically what the rules say and do not say about things not in the rules, it is actually quite different than a personal opinion about how the 5% available to the public plays at his table.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 30, 2008)

Interestingly, 4e actually provides a framework for abilities like "throw salt in their eyes" in a manner that previous editions did not.

So your player wants to throw salt in an enemy's eyes, but you're afraid that if you allow it your game will turn into a 1e style salt-throwing fest after you permit it?

Make it a power.  Restrict it to per encounter or per day, and make the player take it as part of their regular power progression.

One of the problems with something like salt throwing in earlier editions is that if it was good enough to do at all, it was good enough to do ALL.  FREAKING.  DAY.  So you had to make it worse than regular attacking, ie, worse than you might want, so that your characters don't spend the rest of the game abusing it.

With limited use abilities, you can afford to make it worthwhile.  They can't spam it anymore, can they?

Throw Salt
_You suddenly draw and throw salt into your opponent's eyes, and lunge at them as they recoil._
Prerequisite: Trained in Theivery
Per Day, Melee, Must have one free hand, Must have salt or some other caustic substance, Opponent must have eyes.
Make a reflex attack opposed by your foe's fortitude.  On a success, your opponent grants combat advantage to you, and you may make an immediate follow up attack at 3[W]+Dex.  On a failure, you may make an immediate follow up attack at [W]+Dex.  Your opponent grants combat advantage until a save ends.  This save counts as being versus poison for the purposes of abilities like Cast Iron Stomache.

That's just something I tossed together, I'm sure lots of you could do better.  You could weaken it and make it a per encounter ability, you could do lots of different things.  And it will meet the basic criteria- make it a good ability to have, something players will want to do, and something that doesn't break your game or end up getting spammed every round.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Mar 30, 2008)

I dunno, salt/sand in the eyes seems to be in the same category as a sack of flour.  From  nearly my very first game, every character I've made has carried as part of the Standard Adventurer Supplies Set a small sack of flour or two.
The most common usage was to make invisible creatures visible (in one of my most amusing memories, a fellow player and I derailed an entire encounter arguing back and forth between an invisible creature being solid-but-invisible vs. energy and thus immune to this trick until the DM threw his hands in the air and screamed "FINE!  ENOUGH!  THERE IS NO INVISIBLE CREATURE!  THERE NEVER *WAS* AN INVISIBLE CREATURE!  MOVING ON!)  (We did it just to mess with him though, it was all friendly trouble-making).
Flour can aid in tracking checks (toss some flour for example to see where the wet footprints appear, etc).  It's not entirely similar in that it's not an attack in and of itself, but it's an age-old, tried and true (IME) adventurer technique.  I'd hate to see it gimped into a per encounter ability or something.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 30, 2008)

But even beyond using powers for such, the designers have continually emphasised a goal of easy on the fly DM adjudication. With just a little thought (and I reckon that article was a big pile of hoop, a real knee jerk reaction to seeing some combat rules but nothing else) you can see that on the fly rules are going to be easy in 4E. The d20 mechanic has been further standardized, with defences replacing saves and all of the variables increasing in a similar fashion so you can roll dex/int/theivery or whatever vs AC/fort/perception etc. That (along with the monster stat blocks and creation) is what DM's- and players- should really be looking forward to. As far as I can see it will be bloody easy as pie for impromptu rules for crazy actions, much, much better than 1E _et al_. 

Where on earth has he got the idea that knowing a few combat based powers and a few combat based rules means that the DMG will say 'It is best not to improvise, just use these powers and nothing else!' *edited out to remove rantage*

I promise if I am wrong I will resurrect this thread and say 4E is rubbish for impromptu rules and actively discourages the use of such in the DMG. My apologies for my stupidity will be effusive...will JDs?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 30, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> How is this any different from people who have been exposed to the same amount of rules and yet declare that 4E is FRENCH FRIED AWESOME.
> 
> (Or at least really like the game based on that limited exposure?)
> 
> ...



It's completely different. One person is saying "this rule that I have seen? I like" This guy's saying "those rules that I haven't seen? They suck!" or more accurately "Those rules that I haven't seen? Obviously they don't exist!" you can't see the difference there?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> It's completely different. One person is saying "this rule that I have seen? I like" This guy's saying "those rules that I haven't seen? They suck!" or more accurately "Those rules that I haven't seen? Obviously they don't exist!" you can't see the difference there?



Very true. I am a fan of 4E, but that means I like what I see so far. The combat is fast paced, the powers stuff great and the monster stats blessedly short. IMO impromptu rules will be easy, from how we have been told (by Ari for example) that they work. However I might loathe the rituals or some other unpublished facet. But I am not on this board or elsewhere arguing that 4E rituals are 12 kinds of awesome, I don't know that. JD is arguing that an unpublished book will not encourage on the fly play! Maybe he is a mind reader and has probed 'The Brains of The Rouse'!


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> JD is arguing that an unpublished book will not encourage on the fly play! Maybe he is a mind reader and has probed 'The Brains of The Rouse'!




His post doesn't say that at all. What it says is that what he's seen so far doesn't seem to encourage that. I really don't want people to put words in his mouth, but he hasn't said such.

_I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.

But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me._--JD Wiker.

I'm not saying you are, but several people seem bent on trying to pillory JD Wiker and his gaming group for their opinions on what they've seen, and I don't understand why.


----------



## Dwight (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Flour can aid in tracking checks (toss some flour for example to see where the wet footprints appear, etc).  It's not entirely similar in that it's not an attack in and of itself, but it's an age-old, tried and true (IME) adventurer technique.  I'd hate to see it gimped into a per encounter ability or something.



That use strikes me as a tool that would enchance your character's own abilities, meaning some sort of minimal bonus to the Skill roll?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Mar 30, 2008)

I think the only true, educated and honest opinion one can have with limited exposure is a "wait and see" . we don't know alot about 4e, so lets just wait and see. 

I realize this opinion doesn't work well in a discussion though, and isn't nearly as fun, so continue, please.  

call me crazy


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 30, 2008)

deleted, wrong button pushed


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 30, 2008)

deleted


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> _I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.
> 
> But I haven't seen that so far, and, thus, so far, 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me._--JD Wiker.
> 
> I'm not saying you are, but several people seem bent on trying to pillory JD Wiker and his gaming group for their opinions on what they've seen, and I don't understand why.




It's kind of a "well duh" statement.

Look, I remember when 3E came out and there literally was nothing for the DM in how to "run" a campaign since the 3E DMG came out after the PHB. Come on, Henry, surely you remember comments from rec.games.frp.dnd where most 3E detractors used to say the same thing.

When the character creator was released (when was that actually released again?) I distinctly remember people on r.g.f.d complaining that D&D was only focusing on combat.


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> It's kind of a "well duh" statement.
> 
> Look, I remember when 3E came out and there literally was nothing for the DM in how to "run" a campaign since the 3E DMG came out after the PHB. Come on, Henry, surely you remember comments from rec.games.frp.dnd where most 3E detractors used to say the same thing.
> 
> When the character creator was released (when was that actually released again?) I distinctly remember people on r.g.f.d complaining that D&D was only focusing on combat.




I agree, but none of them were being anywhere near as measured in their doubts as JD has been. I still have a rant from March of 2000 saved on my hard drive from r.g.f.d which sounds like a Turing machine with Coprolalia, that I keep for posterity, to remind me how hilarious some folks on the internet can be.  JD's remarks are nowhere near a lopsided damning of the game the way some of the stuff in 2000 on r.g.f.d. became.

He's got his doubts, and I respect that; but people acting like he's the worst game designer they're ever heard of because he doesn't like 4e so far? People saying in the previous thread that they have serious reservations about his ability as a designer because of a blog? People talking about how he's "condemning" the game? It's overexaggerating, in the same vein as people who say that 4e is "dumbing down" and "only for the kiddies."


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Flour can aid in tracking checks (toss some flour for example to see where the wet footprints appear, etc).  It's not entirely similar in that it's not an attack in and of itself, but it's an age-old, tried and true (IME) adventurer technique.  I'd hate to see it gimped into a per encounter ability or something.



Not gimped- improved.

Flour/salt/whatever can't be TOO good or else it displaces magical blinding spells and the like, and nerfs things like invisibility.  Unless you make using it into a power.  Then it can be equal in strength to whatever its displacing in the character's build.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> His post doesn't say that at all. What it says is that what he's seen so far doesn't seem to encourage that. I really don't want people to put words in his mouth, but he hasn't said such.
> 
> *I have not even read the actual 4th Edition rules. There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up.
> 
> ...



The problem I have is with things like this

_...the *emphasis* on minimizing DM adjudication--which was a philosophy that was present when I worked at Wizards, and seems to have taken root in the last six years--appears to have created an "anything other than these basic options is a suboptimal choice" mentality in the rules._

When a lot of the podcasts specifically said they were going in a different direction, of minimizing corner case scenarios _specifically to allow the things he's talking about_ to allow the rules to "get out of the DMs way" so that when the player wants to throw salt in someone's eye, the DM has good basic guidelines to figure that stuff out, without bogging the game down with having to look up specifics. (In fact we've seen Mouseferatu raving about that being a strength of the system every time it get brought up)

Which leaves the post looking like FUD, which shouldn't impact on people's opinion of him, since, well, people who follow ENWorld seems to have more information about 4e than a lot of other people out there, but at the same time, because of that, a lot of people here are getting quite tired of the repeated FUD wafting around the internet, and that's making people surly.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 30, 2008)

Thanks s-p-man, you have stated my reply to Henry much better than I could. 
See my deleted post- done so I didn't make a rear-end of myself trying to get my point across


----------



## hennebeck (Mar 30, 2008)

From JD:
"There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up."

I read that and immediately thought, 'Why can't someone ANYONE please just set this straight. Maybe I should ask Mouseferatu on the EN boards.'

And lo, later in the post here he comes to save the day...
"4E has reversed a lot of that. Without going into detail, the base task resolution system is so simple that... Well, I hesitate to say it covers any action you might want to try, because I'm sure someone can find an exception, and because I sound like advertising copy. But it certainly covers almost everything."

I'm still stoked. I thought he was pretty harsh, being a designer and not seeing the full rules.
And really, to me, he's just one more hater that I ignore.

PS. Thank you Mouseferatu.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 30, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I am constantly amused by the notion that 1st edition was superior at opening up options for players by virtue of it not having rules for them.




It's an interesting observation, but I believe that indeed a rule can open up an option as much as closing it.

A 3e example I always make. As soon as I read the Rapid Shot description in the 3.0 PHB in 2001 I suggested the players that they could pretend to be shooting 2 arrows at once (Legolas style) when using it, or otherwise just shoot them quickly ater each other.

Come 3.5 and Manyshot, which specifically makes you shoot 2 arrows at once. The rule itself doesn't prevent you to still allow pretending when using Rapid Shot, but the gamers' perception is that you cannot do it, unless you have Manyshot. As usual, the problem is in the players, but the rules do the problem a favor.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 30, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I think they should have allowed JD to become a playtester. An NDA would work on him as well as anyone. He shouldn't have been given a spot automatically as a former employee, but it would have been wise to make him a playtester due to his influence in the community. But, hey, what's done is done.
> 
> ....




Color me confused.... I thought I am fairly well versed in who-is-who of gaming but I first heard of this guy on this thread. Not a dig into him really - he may be awesome fellow (and I don't think his attack on DnD4 is particularly outrageous) but I just fail to see how he is an influential fellow in the DnD community. Monte Cook should have been a play-tester for sure, but JD Wiker... not sure about that.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Interestingly, 4e actually provides a framework for abilities like "throw salt in their eyes" in a manner that previous editions did not.
> 
> So your player wants to throw salt in an enemy's eyes, but you're afraid that if you allow it your game will turn into a 1e style salt-throwing fest after you permit it?
> 
> ...




Funny...3E allows just the same, except you don't have to limit it to "Once per Day".

_Throw Salt:_ You can try to throw a handful of salt into your opponent's eyes in an attempt to blind them temporarily. Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity. Make a ranged touch attack (Range Increment 5', max range 10') against the opponent, with a size modifier applied to its AC. Eyes are treated as 4 size categories smaller than the target creature. For example, the eyes of a medium-size creature would be of Fine size, causing a +8 size bonus to AC. If you hit, your opponent is Blinded for 1d3 rounds. If your opponent has no eyes, or any kind of protection that covers his eyes completely, this attack is useless.

Dunno what's so complicated about the whole problem.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 30, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Funny...3E allows just the same, except you don't have to limit it to "Once per Day".
> 
> _Throw Salt:_ You can try to throw a handful of salt into your opponent's eyes in an attempt to blind them temporarily. Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity. Make a ranged touch attack (Range Increment 5', max range 10') against the opponent, with a size modifier applied to its AC. Eyes are treated as 4 size categories smaller than the target creature. For example, the eyes of a medium-size creature would be of Fine size, causing a +8 size bonus to AC. If you hit, your opponent is Blinded for 1d3 rounds. If your opponent has no eyes, or any kind of protection that covers his eyes completely, this attack is useless.
> 
> Dunno what's so complicated about the whole problem.



Problems 
1) touch AC + 4 size categories? something that requires table look up is not "simple".
2) touch AC doesn't scale, size bonus or not, making this pathetically easy against most monsters at high levels.
3) the fact that different GMs would make you use a dex check, or give the creature a ref save, or make it an opposed check means not only the usefulness, how it works at all will completely vary from table to table.
4) is that balanced? probably not? who knows since there's no guidelines?

Again, none of this means you _can't do it_, but dex check vs defense is a unified mechanic, which specifically encourages easy on the fly decisions.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> ..... unified mechanic, which specifically encourages easy on the fly decisions.



Preach it brother! I know heaps of other games have used a unified mechanic, often poorly due to lack of depth of rules. DnD has always done great depth of rules and now it is great to see DnD use a unified mechanic.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Problems
> 1) touch AC + 4 size categories? something that requires table look up is not "simple".
> 2) touch AC doesn't scale, size bonus or not, making this pathetically easy against most monsters at high levels.
> 3) the fact that different GMs would make you use a dex check, or give the creature a ref save, or make it an opposed check means not only the usefulness, how it works at all will completely vary from table to table.
> ...




this, but you could at least add: if the attack of opportunity fails, the salt throwing attack automatically fails. Then a high Level monster won´t be blinded, because their AoOs usually hit. Then you could add a feat: salt thrower, to avoid that opportunity attack and get a +4 bonus. Then you can fight a high level Monster with no chance to retaliate. Maybe you should also disallow salt throwing against monsters which are 2 or more size categories bigger than you, because you can´t reach their eyes, except when you ready salt throwing against a bite attack.

Sounds compilcated and imbalanced? Yes, it is at higher levels. An attack vs a reflex save with a reasonable penalty for beeing untrained in such a maneuver should be more balanced...


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Mar 30, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Preach it brother! I know heaps of other games have used a unified mechanic, often poorly due to lack of depth of rules. DnD has always done great depth of rules and now it is great to see DnD use a unified mechanic.




Hi....I'm new : )

I remember one of the 4E designers (Scott Rouse I think) talking briefly about on-the-fly rules adjudication with the new unified mechanic in one of the Gamer Zero video blogs...

From what I can extrapolate from this information, and from my ideas on the situation) I believe that throwing sand would be handled thusly:

Assuming that the PC already has the sand readied, it would be a DEX attack (factoring in penalties from using an improvised weapon if 4E still uses this mechanic) vs. Target Reflex Defense. On a successful hit, the target is blinded (with all associated penalties) for 1d4 rounds or until it spends a full round action removing the sand from it's eyes.

On a miss the target smacks the PC around and makes them look silly for not resorting to a weapon attack instead ; p


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2008)

Gizmoduck5000 said:
			
		

> Hi....I'm new : )
> 
> I remember one of the 4E designers (Scott Rouse I think) talking briefly about on-the-fly rules adjudication with the new unified mechanic in one of the Gamer Zero video blogs...
> 
> ...




No 1d4 rounds for sure. Save ends!


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 30, 2008)

First Edition sucked...I don't understand all the nastalgia for a system that caused many a fight between the DMs and players.  1st Ed. games only worked if the most headstrong and bullheaded person at the table is the DM, otherwise you ended up with 30 minute arguments over how some idiotic cockeyed idea should be adjudicated.

1E:  Nothing in the rulebooks, DM has to make it all up as he goes along, and try to remember how he ruled the last time...and hope his players don't get pissed by his decisions.

3E:  Everything is in the rulebooks, to the point where it gets tedious to look up the effects of Frightened for the 18th time in that fight.  No fights over rules adjudication, but lots of time spent looking up rules.

4E:  This porridge is just right!  Eliminate the rules that are tedious, streamline the system, yet create the framework needed for the DM to adjudicate unusual situations.


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> Color me confused.... I thought I am fairly well versed in who-is-who of gaming but I first heard of this guy on this thread.




http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/J.D._Wiker

His main claim to fame at WotC was his work on the Star Wars RPG, but he's done some 3rd party work under his Game Mechanics imprint. (I've used his Swords of the Fathers material before there ever was a Weapons of Legacy, and I still use their freebie initiative cards to this day.)


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 30, 2008)

I'm the GM in a fake 4E combat, and my player wants to throw sand in the orc's face (I have never seen the rulebooks, this is based off what I know of 4E):

Player1:  I want to throw sand in the orc's face to blind him!!

Me(DM):  Cool.  That will take a standard action to grab some dirt and throw it.  Roll Dex vs. his Reflex...no wait, Fortitude, he is just going to tough it out.

Player1:  I rolled a 12, plus my Dex thats 14.

Me(DM):  The sand gets in his eyes and impairs his sight but doesn't blind him.  The orc grants combat advantage till the end of your next round.


WOW..thjat was tough.....  How does this adjudication example not feel like D&D...  Also, how was this handled in 3E....not nearly as well.


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> ...Which leaves the post looking like FUD, which shouldn't impact on people's opinion of him, since, well, people who follow ENWorld seems to have more information about 4e than a lot of other people out there, but at the same time, because of that, a lot of people here are getting quite tired of the repeated FUD wafting around the internet, and that's making people surly.





Which I can understand, but I still take umbrage whenever people take any disagreement, and assume it's an unreasoning rant. It's not really any more reasoned than the rants they are reacting against.

One thing I'm keeping in mind: He has first-hand knowledge of some things that we don't, and it's colored his opinion of the material he has seen so far. It could be that since 2002, the entire direction of the design staff has changed (as well it might, since two-thirds of them aren't the same people any more!) and the leanings he remembers has behind the scenes turned around completely. Or, come June we might have the rules and realize it's changed subtly from what the playtesters know! (I remember when on 2000, they released the XP table, with its much lower xp requirements, and Piratecat said something to the effect of, "wow, I don't remember it looking like that!" with a little bit of dismay.)

The blog post also underscores how the rules won't be good for everyone, and there will be a percentage that won't switch, and that percentage may be more than a tiny fraction.


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> WOW..thjat was tough.....  How does this adjudication example not feel like D&D...  Also, how was this handled in 3E....not nearly as well.




Probably with an attack roll and a saving throw, same as it likely was since 1st edition, and it would result in either the orc being blinded, OR more reasonable the orc loses his action that round as he recovers. In 4e, it would probably involve a save each round until the orc recovered, like any other condition.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Problems
> 1) touch AC + 4 size categories? something that requires table look up is not "simple".



If you need a table to check (2^X, X=0 for first size category), there's a lot of other problems with D&D than throwing salt in somebody's face. This is NOT 1E with its emphasis on tables.



> 2) touch AC doesn't scale, size bonus or not, making this pathetically easy against most monsters at high levels.



Right, because every high-level character would risk an AoO from his melee +20 opponent to throw some salt in his face. Apart from the fact that you wouldn't reach the face of half of the monsters at that CR in the first place.



> 3) the fact that different GMs would make you use a dex check, or give the creature a ref save, or make it an opposed check means not only the usefulness, how it works at all will completely vary from table to table.



Huh? Why should different DMs come to that conclusion when somebody wants to THROW (thrown weapon) something into somebody's face? Do you ask for a Dex check when somebody throws a flask of acid, or holy water? Would you seriously expect some "different GM" ask for it? We ARE talking 3E still, right? Just to make sure.



> 4) is that balanced? probably not? who knows since there's no guidelines?



And where are the guidelines for "balance" for 4E that demand throwing salt being a 1/day ability? Didn't find any last time I checked. We're all just blowing smoke here, so trying to make yours nicer colored is not helping.



> Again, none of this means you _can't do it_, but dex check vs defense is a unified mechanic, which specifically encourages easy on the fly decisions.




You might be be surprised, but Attack Rolls are a pretty unified mechanic as well, even the ranged touch ones. I'm not sure I see your point. If you would like to enlighten me, point out the other different 3E mechanisms that exist for throwing something at somebody, or your reasoning why you expect DMs to rule hither and yon in 3E.

Edit: But to amend this a bit...you could also rule the handful of salt as an improvised throwing weapon (-4 to attack) and that after a certain size of eye, the blinding won't work anymore.


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Probably with an attack roll and a saving throw, same as it likely was since 1st edition, and it would result in either the orc being blinded, OR more reasonable the orc loses his action that round as he recovers. In 4e, it would probably involve a save each round until the orc recovered, like any other condition.




Is it a touch attack...  If so figure out the AC.  If not, whats the AC.  This can't be a normal touch attack because I'm not trying to touch any part of him, just the eyeballs....is their a size modifier....Whats a fricken AC I'm trying to hit...come on dude, we're waiting.

Whats the DC?  10?  15?  20?  25?  No high CR monster is ever gonna fail a DC 10 fort check vs. common salt.  Is this MAGIC salt?...Does magic salt have a higher DC?

How long is it blinded for?  Permanent, 1 round, 1d4 Rounds, 1d6 Rounds...is there a mechanic somewhere to tell me, or am I choosing arbitrarily....Whats the effects of Blinded again (Look up in back of DMG)?  Ok, It loses it's Dex bonus ands you guys get bonus to hit, wait...it has blind fight so no you don't.  Ok, so his new AC is lower, and I gotta roll all my 50% Miss chance a second time because of blind fighting...damn it has 5 attacks per round...  (Commence 5 minute monster die rolling round - the players all decide that this is a good time to take a leak and/or grab some chips and soda, or start talking about Heath Ledger as Joker..till you interrupt them with the damage that resulted from the 40 die rolls)

In the end, the DM still has a mechanic that requires arbitration that 4E doesn't require.  4E eliminates the DC and the duration, and just causes a straight Roll X vs. X Defense.  There is no more arbitrarily chosen DC - the only arbitrary arbitration is the choice of what you're rolling (Dex, Athletics, Thievery, etc vs. Reflex, AC, Fortitude, Will) but those exist already in 3E and seem very apparant when you roll a 4E test game.


----------



## Henry (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> Is it a touch attack...



Nope - why would it be? He could use his arm, his shield, a weapon, etc. to block the attack to his face, so regualr attack roll would suffice. DC would be probably a 15, which would be an entry-level DC, so any higher wouldn't make sense.



> In the end, the DM still has a mechanic that requires arbitration that 4E doesn't require.  4E eliminates the DC, and just causes a straight Roll X vs. X Defense.  There is no more arbitrarily chosen DC - the only arbitrary arbitration is the choice of what you're rolling (Dex, Athletics, Thievery, etc vs. Reflex, AC, Fortitude, Will) but those exist already in 3E and seem very apparant when you roll a 4E test game.




in 4e, you have the reflex defense, then the save per round for most effects, so I don't see it as any more or less difficult.


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Nope - why would it be? He could use his arm, his shield, a weapon, etc. to block the attack to his face, so regular attack roll would suffice. DC would be probably a 15, which would be an entry-level DC, so any higher wouldn't make sense.




Yeah, that Full Plate he is wearing is really gonna help against salt....right...Chain Mail...yeah, right....?

Why 15?  You're basically saying that salt to the eyes will never be effective against a monster with high enough level to get a high fortitude.  In 4E it can always be effective because the ratio of your attack will always be in line with an equal level monster's defense.  Salt doesn't really ever dimish in power just because of the level of the guy you're chucking it at, only the relative abilities of the two combatants should change, not the salt....also note that a Fighter with a high fort defense at low levels will have a high fort at high levels, all relative to same level opponents, so if a level 1 has to roll a 17, then a level 30 will also have to roll a 17 if they have the same base attributes.  Again, the salt doesn't change, only the abilities of the combatants.

4E does away with DCs.  DCs are terrible because they added an unnecessary component that was always an arbitrarily chosen number by the DM.  Your "DC" is your opponent's Defense and nothing more.



> in 4e, you have the reflex defense, then the save per round for most effects, so I don't see it as any more or less difficult.




It certainly isn't *more *difficult, and everyone [will] knows the mechanic going in.  You're gonna roll X vs. X, and you roll saves on your round to end effects.  Period.  That's the simplistic yet amazing beauty of the 4E system.....you can do a massive array of chosen actions with the easy X vs. X system that is always in perfect ratio for equal level monsters.  You wanna throw salt at level 1, roll Dex vs. Reflex (+2 vs. 12).  Level 10?  (+7 vs. 17).  Level 30? (+17 vs. 27).  Easy as pie, and beautifully crafted system.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 30, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> If you need a table to check (# size categories x 2), there's a lot of other problems with D&D than throwing salt in somebody's face. This is NOT 1E with its emphasis on tables.



As the Angry Alien says,
 Size Categories Do Not Work That Way
If you don't feel like clicking on the link, suffice to say, moving size down 4 sizes would be +8 for a medium creature, +5 for a large, and +4 for a Huge. I'd say that requires a table lookup.


			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Right, because every high-level character would risk an AoO from his melee +20 opponent to throw some salt in his face. Apart from the fact that you wouldn't reach the face of half of the monsters at that CR in the first place.



Because he can use his fourth attack and still hit easily? Because Blindness is really nasty? because after the first time he can do it without provoking? But none of that really matters, the point was that the difficulty doesn't scale in any appreciable way, and the OA is an annoying balancing factor which actively discourages cool and interesting combat moves.


			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Huh? Why should different DMs come to that conclusion when somebody wants to THROW (thrown weapon) something into somebody's face? Do you ask for a Dex check when somebody throws a flask of acid, or holy water? Would you seriously expect some "different GM" ask for it? We ARE talking 3E still, right? Just to make sure.
> 
> *I moved this bit to the end, look for the **
> 
> You might be be surprised, but Attack Rolls are a pretty unified mechanic as well, even the ranged touch ones. I'm not sure I see your point. If you would like to enlighten me, point out the other different 3E mechanisms that exist for throwing something at somebody, or your reasoning why you expect DMs to rule hither and yon in 3E.



The problem is, I can absolutely see my old GM ruling kicking sand in someone's face requiring a dex check and then a ref save or a will save, or saying it just gives a bonus on a feint check, yet it's essentially the same thing as throw salt in someone'S eyes. That's why it's not unified.

And touch attacks are a good example of a non-unified corner case, which only exists to screw over High level Fighters and low level Spellcasters, it's a great example of a clunky 3.x mechanic that nobody ever looked at and went "what exactly do we want this to do".


			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> ***And where are the guidelines for "balance" for 4E that demand throwing salt being a 1/day ability? Didn't find any last time I checked. We're all just blowing smoke here, so trying to make yours nicer colored is not helping.



Actually, I didn't say anything about it being once per day, I know it can be hard to respond the posters instead of what you see as "positions", I fall into that trap too, but I never mentioned anything about daily powers. I don't see why you couldn't make it an at will, or more likely something equivalent a bull rush which anyone can use. 

I'm talking about how defenses scale while touch ACs don't. I'm talking about how in 4e kicking sand in someones face, throwing salt in their face, throwing magic glitterdust in their face, and say, cutting their forehead so blood gets in their eyes _all use the same mechanics_. Which makes it much easier for GMs to decide how to simulate something when a character says they want to do it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Which I can understand, but I still take umbrage whenever people take any disagreement, and assume it's an unreasoning rant. It's not really any more reasoned than the rants they are reacting against.



I think the reasons that people think this is an unreasonable rant have been quite clearly explained in the thread. I don't think you should assume that others are assuming things. Most of the posts in this thread have been quite well-reasoned.


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 30, 2008)

Just to reiterate what someone else had already said:

There us a huge difference between enjoying what is known about 4E, vs. disliking what is unknown about 4E.

Disliking what is known is perfectly valid, yet I find entirely too much criticism of 4E is not in this category, but in the disliking what you don't know category.

Makes as much sense as this:

"I saw the Batman trailer and I think the new Joker looks cool, can't wait to see the havoc he causes"

vs.

"I saw the trailer and I think the plot sucks and the acting is terrible...Jack Nicholson is the only Joker I ever want to watch"


----------



## DeusExMachina (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> I'm the GM in a fake 4E combat, and my player wants to throw sand in the orc's face (I have never seen the rulebooks, this is based off what I know of 4E):
> 
> Player1:  I want to throw sand in the orc's face to blind him!!
> 
> ...





That's almost exactly how I would have handled it and in the 4e system I can see pretty much everything going something along these lines. I am sure I like it and that my players will probably like it too, because it is a sort of blanket rule for doing these kind of things and imo really opens up way more options for the players and the DM both.
The only thing you have to look out for is that certain actions don't become too strong and get used too often, but should that happen you can just change the rules aftera  few sessions for game balance sake...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> snipped for brevity




You know, apart from this thread not really being the correct place to discuss this, I have the impression we'll simply have to agree to disagree and let it go that way. I simply don't share your assumptions and conceptions, or problems in having to look up a table for size modifiers, and I feel we won't gain on either side by trying to pound that nail to death. You got your game that allows you to rule stuff on the fly, and I got mine, we can both be happy campers in the first place.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> There us a huge difference between enjoying what is known about 4E, vs. disliking what is unknown about 4E.




Agreed.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Probably with an attack roll and a saving throw, same as it likely was since 1st edition, and it would result in either the orc being blinded, OR more reasonable the orc loses his action that round as he recovers. In 4e, it would probably involve a save each round until the orc recovered, like any other condition.



The problem with this is that PCs just didn't do individual actions in 1st edition. You can say, "I throw sand in the orc's eyes," and it should be absorbed by the 1 minute combat round and adjudicated by the attack roll that represents that round.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> Just to reiterate what someone else had already said:
> 
> There us a huge difference between enjoying what is known about 4E, vs. disliking what is unknown about 4E.
> 
> ...




Personally I thik it's more akin to...

"I saw the Batman trailer and I think the new joker looks cool, can't wait to see the havoc he causes."

vs.

"I saw the trailer and it didn't really grab me.  The scenes I watched with the joker didn't seem to capture the dark humor Jack Nicholson did in the old movie.  I haven't paid $9 yet to see the whole movie, but I'm not liking the new Joker so far."

NOTE: These are not my true feelings about the movie in anyway

Now one could say, well you haven't seen the whole game yet...but that implies that I am willing to gamble over $100 to see if I like what hasn't been previewed.  Instead I view it as a company should be previewing a game to appeal to the widest fanbase as possible.  If they have all this cool stuff and believe it will draw people in, why not showcase it.  Instead it seems that I am expected to purchase on blind faith what might, hopefully be in the game.  If anything this seems like a failure on the part of WotC to showcase the features of their product.

I found nothing wrong with the blog since, in the end, it is an oppinion based on a person's experiences with the game (exactly what the point of a playtest is). JD goes through great lengths to stress this.


----------



## mmadsen (Mar 30, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> If you're going to go this route of "no rules = makes game more fun" then why not throw all the rules out and just sit around a table doing some improv?



Because the ideal number of rules is neither zero nor infinite -- just as the ideal number of laws is neither zero nor infinite.  In each case, we want the arbiter -- DM or judge -- to have strong guidelines for making decisions, but enough freedom to make the correct decision in the present context.


----------



## arscott (Mar 30, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I think they should have allowed JD to become a playtester. An NDA would work on him as well as anyone. He shouldn't have been given a spot automatically as a former employee, but it would have been wise to make him a playtester due to his influence in the community. But, hey, what's done is done.




I have a feeling that cutting the 3e designers out of the playtest was a good move from a design standpoint (though, obviously, not that great from a PR standpoint).

Why?  Because designers probably make terrible playtesters in general.

I've seen screenwriters and playwrights talk about test audience feedback.  Invariably, some of the least useful comments come from other writers.  They say things like "The villian's motivations are weak" or "The drowning scene would be more effective if it took place before the gunfight."  But what they're really looking for is "I liked the part with all the explosions" or "It wasn't funny enough".

They've already got a bunch of people to offer insightful criticism elsewhere it the process.  The point of the test screening is to see how the Hoi Polloi feel, and the writers aren't really giving that.

You give a game designer a playtest, and they're going to try to tinker with it--to redesign it.  Heck, a lot of playtesters who _aren't_ designers do just that.  And that's just not the sort of feedback that an open playtest is designed to collect.


----------



## malraux (Mar 30, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that cutting the 3e designers out of the playtest was a good move from a design standpoint (though, obviously, not that great from a PR standpoint).
> 
> Why?  Because designers probably make terrible playtesters in general.



There's that, plus the fact that many of the 3e designers are going to be wed to the idea of the 3e ways of doing things.  I'm not trying to imply that the the 3e designers would consciously attempt to sabotage the new edition during play testing, but that they are going to feel extra defensive of their own creations and resist change when someone else comes in and tells them it was "wrong".


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 30, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that cutting the 3e designers out of the playtest was a good move from a design standpoint (though, obviously, not that great from a PR standpoint).
> 
> Why?  Because designers probably make terrible playtesters in general.
> 
> ...




That may be true, but I think that they are just as likely to give some pretty detailed criticism that the game's designers may overlook themselves. We know already for a fact that the designers overlooked a few things that were straightened out during playtesting. Having another designer giving his input may have helped nail down other important points that they could have overlooked. 

And the PR factor can't be ignored, either. If the game is good then having some of the older WotC designers on your side when it comes time to allow playtesters to give their feedback would be great. As it stands now, it LOOKS like a snub, which is just cheap and petty. I'm not saying it is a snub, but it sure can be interpreted that way.


----------



## Gundark (Mar 30, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> One thing I'm keeping in mind: He has first-hand knowledge of some things that we don't, and it's colored his opinion of the material he has seen so far. It could be that since 2002, the entire direction of the design staff has changed (as well it might, since two-thirds of them aren't the same people any more!) and the leanings he remembers has behind the scenes turned around completely. .




Which is maybe why some former WotC employees weren't included in playtesting


----------



## BryonD (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> 3E:  Everything is in the rulebooks, to the point where it gets tedious to look up the effects of Frightened for the 18th time in that fight.  No fights over rules adjudication, but lots of time spent looking up rules.



Funny, I've been playing 3E since it came out and this doesn't remotely describe my experience.  I don't believe that people who had these kind of issues with 3E will be able to generate the kind of game experience I want with any system.  And if 4e is intended to cater to this position then that is strong reason to be concerned about the merits of 4e.



> 4E:  This porridge is just right!  Eliminate the rules that are tedious, streamline the system, yet create the framework needed for the DM to adjudicate unusual situations.



So we can't complain about Batman based on the trailer, but we can give it an Oscar based on the trailer.


----------



## Shadeydm (Mar 30, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So we can't complain about Batman based on the trailer, but we can give it an Oscar based on the trailer.



This my biggest issue with many 4E fan(atic)s they seem to think its perfectly acceptable to call 4E the greatest thing since apple pie based on the 2% of the rule set we've seen but at the same time tear apart anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with the game based on that same 2%. Kettle, meet pot...


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 30, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Funny, I've been playing 3E since it came out and this doesn't remotely describe my experience.  I don't believe that people who had these kind of issues with 3E will be able to generate the kind of game experience I want with any system.  And if 4e is intended to cater to this position then that is strong reason to be concerned about the merits of 4e.




Making a special monster outside of the box requires a retarded amount of time to create (To make the follow the exact specified monster HD rules in terms of skill points, feats etc).  Looking up the jumping rules, or the grapples rules.  Looking up every spell that isn't cast on a daily basis, looking up the bluff rules or special hiding rules or Turn Undead rules, or the special monster feats in the back of the MM, or the 50 special afflictions that can happen to characters (Dazed, Blinded, Fatigued, Exhausted, Frightened, Panicked, etc etc etc), or the special monster type properties (so can elementals be affected by mind influencing effects), etc.  Yes, as a DM I look up a lot of schtuff that I prefer to follow a more universal system, like exceptions-based monster creation, combat advantage (Rather than 10 independent minor debuffs lets have 1 standard one), etc.  And to wit, obviously I was exaggerating heavily about looking up the same rule 18 times, and if you played in my 3.5E game you'd have a blast - my games are spit and polished examples of fine gaming - so there's no need to try to mock the game experience that I am capable of putting forth.



> So we can't complain about Batman based on the trailer, but we can give it an Oscar based on the trailer.




The lengthy and abundantly available videos, blogs, and information out there describes vividly the goals of the 4E designers which is to streamline and simplify the rules without dumbing down the game.  Yes, I'm taking their words for it that they are driving in that direction (Just as I watch the Batman trailer and make assumptions about the content without making criticism about that which I have no knowledge aside from that provided to me).  (Watch the 4E unveiling video and it spells out their aims pretty unambiguously).  If 4E sucks I'll be the first to go back to 3.5E, but crapping on a system you haven't explored in its entirety because it "doesn't feel like D&D" seems like criticism gone wrong to me (plenty of hard info to crap on, why crap on the unknown).


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 30, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Funny...3E allows just the same, except you don't have to limit it to "Once per Day".



Right.  Exactly.  3e allows the same, except that once you do you've broken your game.  Now salt is a permanent part of every fighting character, because it rocks anyone with a low touch AC.  Instead of just the Monk throwing salt because he thought it was cool, your game is a salt throwing fest.

Even using your example, you're going to break the game.  The difference between the touch AC of a fighter is usually much more than 8 (+10 for plate and shield, plus magical enhancement), so salt throwing is more likely to hit than a regular melee attack.  And I shudder to think of what this rule would do to dragons (great wyrm touch AC, 6).

You end up in a trap.  If its good enough to be worth doing, its good enough to spam.  And if its not good enough to be worth doing, there was no point in the first place.  4e allows you to replace old, weak restrictions on what you can do (proficiency, mostly) with whether or not you have the relevant power.  This lets you power up the ability without screwing your game.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 30, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> The 1st Ed idea of the 1-minute round was supposed to incorporate the idea that PCs were doing all of these fancy options, but that in the end it was resolved by one good attack.



This works great in a game like My Life With Master, which is fundamentally narrativist, and so the only thing that matters is the outcome.  However, in D&D the whole point is the combat, and so that level of abstraction regarding fancy moves is something that is neither desirable nor likely to survive for more than five minutes of play.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 30, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> I think the signal to noise ratio on 4E is getting so bad that I feel it's becoming frustrating to follow it.



Yeah, I'm kinda there.

Personally, I'm backing off for a while. I've got two gaming groups chomping at the bit to play 4e, and I figure what I need is concrete information---not opinion. Lurk mode: Go!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 30, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> This my biggest issue with many 4E fan(atic)s they seem to think its perfectly acceptable to call 4E the greatest thing since apple pie based on the 2% of the rule set we've seen but at the same time tear apart anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with the game based on that same 2%. Kettle, meet pot...




Yes, because 4e fans are a monolithic bloc.

Is it possible that you are seeing some 4e fans of the OMGTHJIS ISTEH GREYTIST GAHME EVAR Veirety in the first part of your statement and then gettingn the second part from from the hopeful people close to the fence?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Because he can use his fourth attack and still hit easily? Because Blindness is really nasty? because after the first time he can do it without provoking? But none of that really matters, the point was that the difficulty doesn't scale in any appreciable way, and the OA is an annoying balancing factor which actively discourages cool and interesting combat moves.




But why _should_ something like throwing sand in the eyes actually scale in an appreciable way? That's one of the conceits of 4e that I don't get: that scaling in such a way is a good thing. Some tactics should scale down as the threats characters face scale upwards. Should throwing salt work against a dragon? I should think not at all. The creature's simply too tough to be bothered by a little grit in the eye.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Yes, because 4e fans are a monolithic bloc.
> 
> Is it possible that you are seeing some 4e fans of the OMGTHJIS ISTEH GREYTIST GAHME EVAR Veirety in the first part of your statement and then gettingn the second part from from the hopeful people close to the fence?



On the internet, there are only two possibilities: hater or fanboy. Everyone is one or the other. No exceptions.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> Making a special monster outside of the box requires a retarded amount of time to create



Again, maybe for you it did.
You aren't saying positive things about 3e.
3E was a hugely popular game.  
And yet any time someone who liked 3e expresses a complaint about 4e it is written off on the basis of perceived 3e faults being taken as gospel truth.

Clearly, for a lot of people posting here, 4e hung the moon and 3e sucked.  Great.  But you can't argue with someone else's conclusion based on the fundamental presumption that their limitations and preferences are the same as yours.  




> and to wit, obviously I was exaggerating heavily about looking up the same rule 18 times, and if you played in my 3.5E game you'd have a blast - my games are spit and polished examples of fine gaming - so there's no need to try to mock the game experience that I am capable of putting forth.



 I can only go by what you said.  I know that I can run a spit and polished game, pretty much on the fly.  My problems don't match your and you don't get to have ti both ways.



> The lengthy and abundantly available videos, blogs, and information out there describes vividly the goals of the 4E designers which is to streamline and simplify the rules without dumbing down the game.  Yes, I'm taking their words for it that they are driving in that direction (Just as I watch the Batman trailer and make assumptions about the content without making criticism about that which I have no knowledge aside from that provided to me).  (Watch the 4E unveiling video and it spells out their aims pretty unambiguously).  If 4E sucks I'll be the first to go back to 3.5E, but crapping on a system you haven't explored in its entirety because it "doesn't feel like D&D" seems like criticism gone wrong to me (plenty of hard info to crap on, why crap on the unknown).



Again with the having it both ways.  I agree completely that there is well sufficient data out there to make fairly solid conclusions.  You like what you see so far, then I am confident you will like 4e.  Just the same, I have plenty of information to be certain that I won't.  

But regardless it can't be "just" a trailer when that serves one side and vastly more than a trailer when that serves the same side.



Let's assume for the moment that I love 3e and it feels like the game I want to play.
Let's also assume that I love 4e but it feels all wrong for the game I want to play.
Which should I choose?


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And yet any time someone who liked 3e expresses a complaint about 4e it is written off on the basis of perceived 3e faults being taken as gospel truth.



This is a ridiculous assertion. Sure, there are some people who will say such things, but they are easily ignored since their arguments are not really arguments, having no substance. Your statement above is just as bad. It is very broad and generalized, and has no real content. Instead of focusing on the statements that lack content, why not concentrate on those that have something to say. Perhaps in some of the times you speak of, some 4E fans had a legitimate point about 3E, but you failed to see it because of your above conviction?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right.  Exactly.  3e allows the same, except that once you do you've broken your game.



I doubt I would break my game with it.  I know my game, and it is pretty solid, and doesn't break under small stuff such as that.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Now salt is a permanent part of every fighting character, because it rocks anyone with a low touch AC.  Instead of just the Monk throwing salt because he thought it was cool, your game is a salt throwing fest.




Weird...so far, I didn't have acid-flask toting fighters, or monks with bandoliers of alchemist's fire. All ranged touch attack items, and not that expensive either. And instead of blinding someone, they cause continuous damage. Either salt is a tremendous substance compared to those...or it simply was a bit of hyperbole.  
By the way, the spiked-chain-wielding trip monkey is a creature of internet legend as far as I have seen D&D personally, too. 



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Even using your example, you're going to break the game.  The difference between the touch AC of a fighter is usually much more than 8 (+10 for plate and shield, plus magical enhancement), so salt throwing is more likely to hit than a regular melee attack.  And I shudder to think of what this rule would do to dragons (great wyrm touch AC, 6).




Depending on the dragon size, nothing. Max range 10'. And if you expect a handful of salt to do ANYthing to the medium-size eye of a Colossal great wyrm, you deserve the roasting you get.
By the way, it's funny to think players could be so unadaptive that one ranged touch attack against a fighter wouldn't make the player look around for some countermeasures. And not just with salt, either.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> You end up in a trap.  If its good enough to be worth doing, its good enough to spam.  And if its not good enough to be worth doing, there was no point in the first place.  4e allows you to replace old, weak restrictions on what you can do (proficiency, mostly) with whether or not you have the relevant power.  This lets you power up the ability without screwing your game.




Right, I forget...4E, the game that explains it with "you basically do it all the time, but only when YOU think it is important, your clouds of salt actually have an effect". Yep, lovely.  Obviously our tastes on how we'd like to limit the powers of the characters differ as much as our games differ in breakability. And 4E must suffer under a messiah complex by now worse than 3E ever did. I wonder how long it'll take the publishers and the community to sacrifice it on the altar of "faster better more cool fun" to 5E.


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 30, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Again, maybe for you it did.
> You aren't saying positive things about 3e.
> 3E was a hugely popular game.
> And yet any time someone who liked 3e expresses a complaint about 4e it is written off on the basis of perceived 3e faults being taken as gospel truth.
> ...




My own personal rule is that in conceptualizing each encounter, I can always add more depth, more description, and more intriguing elements to the fight.  I hardly ever use monsters straight out of the book, I always make changes, whether is be adding spellcasting or rogue capabilities, or tailoring their feats to match what I think they need to do, or adding terrain twists or cliffs, rope ladders, waterwheels, oxen grinding wheels, traps, etc etc.  My rule is that once an encounter feels complete, I have to add one more defining elements to make it even better - my players can recount many of the encounters I have crafted in detail (In fact I burned copies of the 500-page Adventure writeup of our first 3E adventure and gave everyone a copy).  I spend a significant amount of time statting monsters between sessions - time that I would prefer to use on further conceptualizing the fights and writing up truly vivid descriptions, and sometimes in 3E I just don't have the time because I spend so much of it statting monsters.

In 3E, to play "pretty much on the fly" you cannot incorporate too many complex elements into the game correctly and mechanically sound unless you stat out the monsters correctly ahead of time (Unplanned Dragon with prestige class - good luck doing that quickly and efficiently), which is just simply going to be fundamentally easier for the DM in 4E.  If you like out of the box monsters then 3E is not limited for you, but for the complexity that I enjoy in crafting encounters, I am greatly looking forward to 4E from the DM's side of the screen.  I'll happily disagree with you here though, as I know my game is going to remain vibrant and fun no matter what version I play, I just like the small, incomplete taste of the tools that 4E seems to be presenting for for toolbox that will enhance my ability to craft memorable and exciting encounters, and if the trend holds I think 4E will be a boon to my style of gaming.



> Again with the having it both ways.  I agree completely that there is well sufficient data out there to make fairly solid conclusions.  You like what you see so far, then I am confident you will like 4e.  Just the same, I have plenty of information to be certain that I won't.
> 
> But regardless it can't be "just" a trailer when that serves one side and vastly more than a trailer when that serves the same side.




Again, I have no problem with you or anybody crapping on elements of 4E that we have all seen and that they dislike, my beef is with the blogger's premise that 4E "doesn't feel like D&D", which I think is grossly uncalled for considering nobody here has seen the rulebooks concerning any of the portions of the rules he is basing the entirety of his criticism on.  If the complaint was a specific such as: "I hate the chosen classes in the PBH", or "The defenses system sucks because X", then I think those are valid criticisms based upon factual knowledge of the game, not mere conjecture that supports a premise - the guy was clearly fishing for details that supported his main premise, not the other way around.  Me personally, I hate the Dragonborn and Tiefling are being included and Gnomes being left out.  It irritates me that they are making those two races core...I don't want them in my classical fantasy game (Those are things I want my players to kill, not play).  See, I'm not all fanfare and confetti.



> Let's assume for the moment that I love 3e and it feels like the game I want to play.
> Let's also assume that I love 4e but it feels all wrong for the game I want to play.
> Which should I choose?




Play 3E, no worries and lots of love for you (I have played 3E since release and I also love it), but don't make a blog before you have even seen the books proclaiming that 4E doesn't feel like D&D, when inherently, you have no basis to make that determination yet (which heweven admits at the very end of his entry).  My criticism is aimed directly at the guy who wrote that blog, the basis for this entire thread.

I'm not picking arguments with people here, I'm trying to tone down rhetoric like "Doesn't feel like D&D" from people who have seen a couple character sheets and a 2 page need-to-know rules writeup...particularly when they have the clout like a 3E designer should have.  He, of all people, should know better than to crap on unknown portions of a new edition before it's even on the shelves - it's no wonder he doesn't work for them anymore.


----------



## malraux (Mar 30, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Weird...so far, I didn't have acid-flask toting fighters, or monks with bandoliers of alchemist's fire. All ranged touch attack items, and not that expensive either. And instead of blinding someone, they cause continuous damage.



Blinding is far worse than 1d6 a round.  Blinding with salt is roughly equivalent to Power Word: Blind, a 7th level spell, other than Power Word: Blind can't bypass spell resistance.  I'd say that's a bit worse than a flask of acid.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 4e allows you to replace old, weak restrictions on what you can do (proficiency, mostly) with whether or not you have the relevant power.  This lets you power up the ability without screwing your game.




Sure.

But it does so by sacrificing sense.

If a monk has a pouch full of sand, how does it make sense that he can only try to throw it in someone's eyes once a combat or once a day?

I would rather remove restrictions and risk unbalancing the game than resort to such heavyhanded, nonsensical rules.

Besides, if a monk in my group kept throwing salt or sand or whatever in the eyes of his opponents, I could easily come up with various ways to restrict or minimize this usage wihtout bending the rules of reality.


----------



## smetzger (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> Again, I have no problem with you or anybody crapping on elements of 4E that we have all seen and that they dislike, my beef is with the blogger's premise that 4E "doesn't feel like D&D", which I think is grossly uncalled for considering nobody here has seen the rulebooks concerning any of the portions of the rules he is basing the entirety of his criticism on.  If the complaint was a specific such as: "I hate the chosen classes in the PBH", or "The defenses system sucks because X", then I think those are valid criticisms based upon factual knowledge of the game, not mere conjecture that supports a premise - the guy was clearly fishing for details that supported his main premise, not the other way around.  Me personally, I hate the Dragonborn and Tiefling are being included and Gnomes being left out.  It irritates me that they are making those two races core...I don't want them in my classical fantasy game (Those are things I want my players to kill, not play).  See, I'm not all fanfare and confetti.




Some of the goals and the way the 4e designers implemented them 'do not feel like D&D to me'.

With 3.5 I have come to expect the following things of D&D...
1) Vancian Magic.  Wizards get a wide variety of spells to choose and you need to pick your daily spells wisely.
2) Monsters and PCs use the same rules
3) Rogue is a very flexible class
4) Skills are varied and I get to chose which ones I am good in, mediocre, or poor.
5) OGL.  I like making small contributions to the game and getting credit for it.
6) No non-traditional core races.

You may not like some of these things, but to me they contribute greatly to the 'feel' of D&D.  So, I may like 4e.  But so far it doesn't 'feel' like D&D to me.

If your saying that I can't say "It doesn't feel like D&D to me".  Then the converse is that you cannot say "It does feel like D&D to me".  The only thing you can say is "I like the rules so far revealed to us."


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Some of the goals and the way the 4e designers implemented them 'do not feel like D&D to me'.
> 
> With 3.5 I have come to expect the following things of D&D...
> 1) Vancian Magic.  Wizards get a wide variety of spells to choose and you need to pick your daily spells wisely.
> ...



This is exactly why "feel" arguments are so weak. Several of the above-noted points appeared for the first time in 3E (namely 2, 4 and 5). You could say it doesn't feel like 3E to you, but you then extend it to "D&D" in general, and there it gets muddled. What about someone who plays 1E? He doesn't expect 2, 4 or 5 (or arguably 3). So maybe he will find 4E to "feel" like D&D. And he's right, for him.

To me, "it doesn't _feel_ like D&D" is an extremely weak argument against 4E. "Feel" is a nebulous term, and no one is able to define it properly, in the sense that the definition is different for every player. While this means there is no way for me to argue with someone who makes that assertion, since it's up to the individual to make such a determination, it also means the term is so vague as to be useless.


----------



## smetzger (Mar 30, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This is exactly why "feel" arguments are so weak. Several of the above-noted points appeared for the first time in 3E (namely 2, 4 and 5). You could say it doesn't feel like 3E to you, but you then extend it to "D&D" in general, and there it gets muddled. What about someone who plays 1E? He doesn't expect 2, 4 or 5 (or arguably 3). So maybe he will find 4E to "feel" like D&D. And he's right, for him.




Re-read my original post I did say 'doesn't feel like TO ME'.

1e & 2e no longer 'feel' like D&D to me.  Actually they never did.  I always had a mountain of house rules and the rules as written did not 'feel' like D&D to me.

Notice I didn't say 1e & 2e are not D&D.  Nor did I say 1e and 2e do not feel like D&D.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Mar 30, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> I'm the GM in a fake 4E combat, and my player wants to throw sand in the orc's face (I have never seen the rulebooks, this is based off what I know of 4E):
> 
> Player1:  I want to throw sand in the orc's face to blind him!!
> 
> ...




I'm seeing this scenario repeated a lot and I think it may be giving 4E more credit for ease of improvising than it is due.

While a DM could very well do what you describe, if a warlock or wizard (or whichever class has a Blind type class power) pipes up and says something like "Hey, that's almost as good as (or as good as, or better than) my Blind encounter ability", then is it still so quick and easy? Or do we get to a point where the DM has to work within the space of options provided by the class power lists and consider what powers he might be stepping on when coming up with an ad hoc ruling in response to something a player wants to do? If so then the DM is effectively working within, or having to work around, the option space defined by the rules much like he would have been with 3E.

I think that is the issue JD was getting at with regards to why 3E didn't feel like D&D for him, and it is something he sees as a core design element of 4E and so he says 4E won't feel like D&D for him either. We may or may not agree with him but I don't think it's as absurd a concern as some people are making out.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Re-read my original post I did say 'doesn't feel like TO ME'.
> 
> 1e & 2e no longer 'feel' like D&D to me.  Actually they never did.  I always had a mountain of house rules and the rules as written did not 'feel' like D&D to me.
> 
> Notice I didn't say 1e & 2e are not D&D.  Nor did I say 1e and 2e do not feel like D&D.



I did read your post. Please note in my post that I stated everyone determines for themselves whether it feels like D&D to them.

If I'm reading you correctly, 1E and 2E once felt like D&D to you (you said they "no longer" do so). Presumably because 3E is now how you prefer D&D to feel. But if your preference in feel can change between editions, why is it bad that 4E does not feel the same as 3E?

Say you play 4E, decide you like the feel, and therefore that's what D&D's feel becomes for you. What then are we to make of the above argument? If the "feel" of D&D can change between editions, apparently for the better, what's the point of deriding a new edition for not feeling like the old?


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If a monk has a pouch full of sand, how does it make sense that he can only try to throw it in someone's eyes once a combat or once a day?
> 
> I would rather remove restrictions and risk unbalancing the game than resort to such heavyhanded, nonsensical rules.
> 
> Besides, if a monk in my group kept throwing salt or sand or whatever in the eyes of his opponents, I could easily come up with various ways to restrict or minimize this usage wihtout bending the rules of reality.



_Risk_ unbalancing the game?

You've already unbalanced the game.  Your monk is running around throwing sand in the eyes of everything, and the tactic is so successful now the rogue and fighter are doing it too.  (Blind your opponent on a ranged touch attack without a save?  Sign me up!)  To compensate, you now have to ensure the only things they fight are immune somehow.  So they exclusively fight undead, and constructs, and oozes, and guys with helmeted faceplates, and things with blindsight.  And sand mephits.

In short, you have to start unrealistically skewing the encounters so they're balanced, to avoid the unrealistic "the monk can only throw sand once per day".  Now the guy who came up with the "throw sand in their eyes" tactic is annoyed because he can't do it at all.  So you now have to go through your encounters and decide what percent of the opponents you're going to let the party have the "I win" button for.  And the players will quickly catch on that you're now designing "easy" and "normal" encounters, and play accordingly.

So you ban the thing outright.  And you're right back where you started--placing an artificial restriction on a character ability for game balance reasons.  Only now the monk has built his character around the tactic, and is angry because you nerfed him.

You're essentially saying "I would rather risk ruining my game with an arms race between the players trying to exploit rules and my trying to patch them, than say 'Only some classes can do this, and the opportunity only arises once a day.'"


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Besides, if a monk in my group kept throwing salt or sand or whatever in the eyes of his opponents, I could easily come up with various ways to restrict or minimize this usage wihtout bending the rules of reality.



Situations where I feel as though I have to modify encounters just to short-circuit a player's abusive tactic are already something that makes me unhappy in my D&D games.  I don't see why I would want to keep allowing things that "make sense" only to have to just keep shutting them down when they start interfering with everybody's fun.

(on preview: or what Catsclaw said.)

From my own perspective, no creature fighting you is going to let you take something out of a bag and then just throw it in their eyes.  It's like a character with a sword saying "well, I just cut their head off".

There has to be some sort of compromise, and it should fit in with the existing systems in place.  If there's some sort of "stunt" system in 4e that allows for moves like this without unbalancing the game, then that sounds great.  If there isn't then I think it would be fine to turn this into a power at a level of availability and use that's balanced with other powers.

That sort of thing, to me, seems like actually the least heavyhanded or nonsensical solution.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 30, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> You're essentially saying "I would rather risk ruining my game with an arms race between the players trying to exploit rules and my trying to patch them, than say 'Only some classes can do this, and the opportunity only arises once a day.'"




Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

The problems that you describe in your post with my approach would never happen in my game.

Listen to what you're saying, _really_.

Imagine that we are playing a game of Call of Cthulhu or d20 Modern or Spycraft or Top Secret or whatever.

Does every character in a modern RPG run around with mace spraying it in the eyes of his or her enemies?  No, even though it is probably widely available.  No, for some characters, that would go against concept.

Even if every character did, I still don't think it would ruin the game at all.  I'm sure there would be some adversaries that the character would run into that would not be affected by it, or the mace would realistically run out, or characters would be faced with long-range enemies that would make the mace tactic ineffective.

If you were running a modern game and one of the characters wanted a can of mace, would you try to restrict it to once a day or once an encounter usage in fear of game balance suddenly being broken?  How do you think your players would respond to such an artificial limitation?

In my opinion, it would be nonsensical to suddenly say that a can of mace only works once a day. 

Now let's step back into the world of D&D.  Why should a monk only be able to fling sand once a day?  If a character wants to use it, let him.  Why have unnatural and rather silly restrictions?

Game balance?  There are other ways to balance a game than a rule that flies in the face of reality, and none of them would be as heavy-handed as the examples that you give.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 30, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> There has to be some sort of compromise, and it should fit in with the existing systems in place.  If there's some sort of "stunt" system in 4e that allows for moves like this without unbalancing the game, then that sounds great.  If there isn't then I think it would be fine to turn this into a power at a level of availability and use that's balanced with other powers.
> 
> That sort of thing, to me, seems like actually the least heavyhanded or nonsensical solution.




Yes, there is.

For such "stunting" I use the rules from the Book of Iron Might in my D&D 3.5 games.

This book offers a wonderful system for judging a lot of combat maneuvers, like flinging sand and hamstringing, without artificial restrictions like "once a day" powers.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 30, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Situations where I feel as though I have to modify encounters just to short-circuit a player's abusive tactic are already something that makes me unhappy in my D&D games.  I don't see why I would want to keep allowing things that "make sense" only to have to just keep shutting them down when they start interfering with everybody's fun.




I do not modify encounters in my games to "short circuit" any of my player's abilities, unless it makes sense in the game.  For example, the party's monk kept jumping on the backs of large creatures in order to pummel them from a vantage point they couldn't reach--a logical tactic.  He used in several encounters against giants and evil treants and other enormous beasties.

One encounter left several enemies alive, which allowed them to report back to their overlord.  He heard of this tactic and made plans to counter it, covering his body with acid that would hopefully burn the hapless monk.

Of course, during that encounter, the monk decided NOT to jump on the BBEG.  Figures. 

In any case, I do not shut down anyone's fun.  I let my player's try anything they can imagine, although success is another thing completely.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2008)

what i thought about dailies and encounter powers:

once per day the player can chose to do it, all the other times it is the DM who can grant aditional uses:

imagine trip as daily fighter power: 

- once per day the fighter may say: i feel the situation is right to trip my enemy.

- a different time, when I roll a 1 on a charge attack: "He charges to you, but misses and nearly stumpled over his feet." Player: "I try to help him on his way down" Me:"You may use your trip daily power again." (or if the character is not a fighter: you may make a trip attack with -2 penalty)


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 30, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> You know, apart from this thread not really being the correct place to discuss this, I have the impression we'll simply have to agree to disagree and let it go that way. I simply don't share your assumptions and conceptions, or problems in having to look up a table for size modifiers, and I feel we won't gain on either side by trying to pound that nail to death. You got your game that allows you to rule stuff on the fly, and I got mine, we can both be happy campers in the first place.



Sounds good.


			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> But why _should_ something like throwing sand in the eyes actually scale in an appreciable way? That's one of the conceits of 4e that I don't get: that scaling in such a way is a good thing. Some tactics should scale down as the threats characters face scale upwards. Should throwing salt work against a dragon? I should think not at all. The creature's simply too tough to be bothered by a little grit in the eye.



As is obvious if you read my post or know how touch attacks work at high levels, I meant that it's really really easy at high levels, and 1d4 rounds of blindness, no save is a powerful ability, even at high levels.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> As is obvious if you read my post or know how touch attacks work at high levels, I meant that it's really really easy at high levels, and 1d4 rounds of blindness, no save is a powerful ability, even at high levels.



Yes. And as such a powerful ability, it only makes sense that intelligence monsters would use it as well at higher levels. So now we have everyone on the battlefield throwing salt and sand around, and most combatants spend several rounds each combat blinded. This eventually leads to a gentleman's agreement between the DM and players that the PCs won't use such a tactic as long as their opponents don't either.

Much better that such things are handled succinctly by the rules (4E seems like it will be able to handle it nicely) without having to go through the trouble of sorting it out.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Mar 30, 2008)

This whole "feels like D&D" is a tough one.  Each individual's opinion is going to be different.  I think 1E AD&D probably gives the most folks the most "D&D feel", but who knows?  There's no way to find out.  Each edition forward from that arbitrary starting point probably gets a little less of the "D&D feel" vibe.  Just my assumption.

Now - what does that mean?  Answer: Squat.

Who cares?  What matters is whether you like the game (whatever the version) or - in the case of 4E - whether you like what you've seen thus far.  (I'd argue that there seems to be a lot of zealous opinions about 4E considering we haven't seen much, but c'est la vie.)

3E was a great game. No game is perfect.  4E promises to address some of the warts.  PF, Monte, and perhaps Pramas also are trying/have tried to address some of the flaws.  Will these other systems deliver on their promise?  Again, who knows?

Was 3E more complicated then previous versions? I'd suggest 95% of folks would say yes.  Was it a better game?  I'd suggest the vast majority would say it was.  Was 3E _too_ complicated?  Again, the vast majority would likely say it was.  Sure, you have your savants on this thread and elsewhere who say the complexity never affected them, but I'm talking about your normal Joe gamers here, not the supra-geniuses among us.

In fact...I'm a little confused as to what's being argued here. And just as confused as to why I wasted 10 minutes typing if nothing is being argued.  Dammit.

W.P.

p.s. I _do_ have to give props to Fifth Element's airtight rebuttal of Senor Smetzger's "D&D feel" list.  Good stuff.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 30, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> 3E was a great game.




It still _is_ a great game.  The coming of 4e doesn't change that one bit, even if it may improve play in some areas.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Now let's step back into the world of D&D.  Why should a monk only be able to fling sand once a day?  If a character wants to use it, let him.  Why have unnatural and rather silly restrictions?



You've clearly never had the misfortune of gaming with a spiked chain wielding half-orc with Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip.

With 3.5, your choices are to make combat options really powerful and really unlikely to succeed (at which point someone will build a character to exploit the ability) _or_ make a combat option really weak (in which case no one will ever use it) _or_ make it powerful, easy to pull off, and then contrive so that battles frequently make the tactic impractical (which just frustrates the players).

4e avoids the whole problem.  Because you don't have to worry about people using their best attack every round, or every encounter, you can give people really powerful abilities that frequently work.  I find it hard to see that as anything but a positive thing.







			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Game balance?  There are other ways to balance a game than a rule that flies in the face of reality, and none of them would be as heavy-handed as the examples that you give.



I'd love to hear them.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> It still _is_ a great game.  The coming of 4e doesn't change that one bit, even if it may improve play in some areas.




Agreed.  Wasn't my intention to suggest otherwise.

W.P.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> p.s. I _do_ have to give props to Fifth Element's airtight rebuttal of Senor Smetzger's "D&D feel" list.  Good stuff.



Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Please tip your waiter.

It is difficult to say exactly what the argument is here. I guess a large part of the internet is broadcasting your personal opinion about everything. D&D is no different.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Now let's step back into the world of D&D.  Why should a monk only be able to fling sand once a day?  If a character wants to use it, let him.  Why have unnatural and rather silly restrictions?



Agreed.

Of course, the opponents can throw sand too...provided they have half a brain and a throwing appendage...

Lanefan


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 30, 2008)

> Now let's step back into the world of D&D. Why should a monk only be able to fling sand once a day? If a character wants to use it, let him. Why have unnatural and rather silly restrictions?




Why should a monk only be able to use Stunning Fist once a day? Or a fighter that wastes the feats to use it? Why don't higher-level spell slots break down so you can prepare more lower-level spells if you want? Why can a bard only sing his special song once per day?

Because D&D has been full of unnatural and silly restrictions for it's entire lifespan, because it has at least try to make the nod towards balance, even if the definition of balance is ever-changing.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 30, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> 4e avoids the whole problem.  Because you don't have to worry about people using their best attack every round, or every encounter, you can give people really powerful abilities that frequently work.



Why won't people use their best ability - whatever it is - as often as they can?

4e does not avoid the whole problem; it merely hasn't had time to encountere it yet.  Comparing the 3e (and 0e and 1e and 2e) versions of this issue with 4e, the *only* difference is that with 4e nobody's really figured out what the best abilities are; but give 'em time, and the cream will rise to the top as always.

Lanefan


----------



## Vempyre (Mar 31, 2008)

It's funny seeing ppl argue about throwing sand 1/day as if it was an actual 4e rule and then watch them try to defend it or shoot it down.

(I am sure you guys know it isn't, but you are _acting_ as if it is and it's putting a smile on my lips)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 31, 2008)

When I read the 3.x rules i thought: hey, all those funny things you can do in combat.

When my players read that: "argh! thats complicated" or "argh! success chances are so low, better don´t try that."

The effect: 
once any player reads that section he decides not to do that again in combat.

To the topic:
I want the 2nd edition feel back. (This got me hooked!) 

When does 4th edition feel like D&D? when it creates a feeling thats similar to the edition you started with.
Maybe 1st edition would not feel like D&D to me. I know users who started with 3rd edition and don´t know what to do when their tighter rules and versimilitude are taken away. They may feel that those rules are D&D.

Hey, i like vancian magic. Is this D&D for me? (no, but wizards needing spellbooks!)

My perfect solution for 4th edition: Unified mechanics (d20 system), more freedom to apply rules, less freedom in powergaming. And fresh wind. So it should be a mix of 2nd edition and 3rd edition with a bit new flavour, and this is what i have seen so far in previews.

Have I seen enough? Definitely not. But what i have seen is great!


----------



## smetzger (Mar 31, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I did read your post. Please note in my post that I stated everyone determines for themselves whether it feels like D&D to them.
> 
> If I'm reading you correctly, 1E and 2E once felt like D&D to you (you said they "no longer" do so). Presumably because 3E is now how you prefer D&D to feel. But if your preference in feel can change between editions, why is it bad that 4E does not feel the same as 3E?
> 
> Say you play 4E, decide you like the feel, and therefore that's what D&D's feel becomes for you. What then are we to make of the above argument? If the "feel" of D&D can change between editions, apparently for the better, what's the point of deriding a new edition for not feeling like the old?




No 1e & 2e out of the box never felt right for me.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Why won't people use their best ability - whatever it is - as often as they can?



Two reasons.  First, because abilities in 4e are more varied than 3.5, and the tactical situations which call for them are more likely to come up.  For example, I'm playing a Warmage with a bonus to fire spells in a campaign right now.  My third level spell list, for all intents and purposes, might as well just be _Fireball_.  My second level spell list, likewise, could be _Scorching Ray_.  90% of the time, that's all I'm using--and 90% of the time all I'm interested in is doing the maximum damage as quickly as possible.  One of the design goals of 4e was to balance out the spells so they can achieve tactical objectives, and there's going to be more choosing between _Fireball_ and _Blink_, and less choosing between _Fireball_ and _Flame Arrow_.

Second, because your best ability is only usable once a day.  Your second best ability is only usable once an encounter.  Sure, you might open the first battle with your best attack, but then you've got to hope the thing you killed didn't have a mother waiting right around the corner.  The per day and per encounter abilities impose an opportunity cost--per encounter a small one, per day a large one--and that's going to force players to make a decision about to use them.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> No 1e & 2e out of the box never felt right for me.



Here's the issue. You use the term "feels like D&D" but you really only mean "feels like 3E". If you're arguing that 1E and 2E don't "feel like D&D" then you're going to get very little support.

The statement "4E doesn't feel like D&D" means (to someone reading it) that D&D as a whole, throughout its previous editions, has a certain feel and that 4E is not maintaining that feel. You actually appear to be saying that D&D does _not_ have a consistent feel throughout its editions, which is the opposite of how your statement will be read.

So ultimately you're arguing that 4E doesn't feel like 3E. Which is fine, but so what? Some people appear to feel that 3E doesn't "feel like D&D", and that 4E may actually get back closer to what D&D is "supposed" to feel like.

Edit: And my point about the "feel" changing between editions stands. You clearly believe the feel of D&D changed between 2E and 3E. And you prefer 3E's feel. There is therefore nothing inherently wrong with an edition not "feeling" the same as a previous edition.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Why should a monk only be able to use Stunning Fist once a day? Or a fighter that wastes the feats to use it?




Well, I always considered that it was because the monk (or fighter) didn't have enough chi to do it more than X times a day.  As a fan of Iron Fist, the Marvel comic martial artist whose powers work in a similar way, I never had a problem with this kind of limitation.



> Why don't higher-level spell slots break down so you can prepare more lower-level spells if you want?




Well, you do always have the option of using a higher level spell slot to prepare a lower level spell....


----------



## hong (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Well, I always considered that it was because the monk (or fighter) didn't have enough chi to do it more than X times a day.




Exactly.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Yes, there is.
> 
> For such "stunting" I use the rules from the Book of Iron Might in my D&D 3.5 games.
> 
> This book offers a wonderful system for judging a lot of combat maneuvers, like flinging sand and hamstringing, without artificial restrictions like "once a day" powers.




Y'know, I love that book, but it has its own artificial restrictions.

Personally I think the 4E approaches dovetails nicely with it.  

BoIM - Blinding Strike comes with penalties to success

4E - But Once a Day or so Random the Rogue can pull it off without any penalties whatsoever.

As long as you make certain BoIM is balanced against the basic math of the system it should be a perfectly all right combination.


----------



## Paradox (Mar 31, 2008)

I also recall a lot of arguing over the rules in 1st edition.

Looks to me there's a LOT of fighting over the 4e rules, and it isn't even out yet!

So, yep. Feels like D&D to me.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 31, 2008)

I know I've said this before and I guess I'll say it again since everyone ignores it

How can you determine the "feel" of D&D from 1st level pre-generated characters. 

Hell, in many editions, 1st level characters give such a BAD feel for what D&D is that I'm somewhat surprised that anyone would use that as a basis (the "one hit and you're dead" effect)

Honestly, after reading many posts on people's experience with 4E, I just wish people would say "Ok, if I did the same scenario in 1E/2E/3E, how would it play? Would I have more options/choices?"


----------



## bramadan (Mar 31, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/J.D._Wiker
> 
> His main claim to fame at WotC was his work on the Star Wars RPG, but he's done some 3rd party work under his Game Mechanics imprint. (I've used his Swords of the Fathers material before there ever was a Weapons of Legacy, and I still use their freebie initiative cards to this day.)




Thanks Henry - I did find him later. Seems an OK designer. Still not what I would call a gaming celebrity though


----------



## hong (Mar 31, 2008)

Hm. Does this mean J.D. Wiker is the one responsible for VP/WP?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 31, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Agreed. I think professionals in the RPG industry (or ex-professionals; whatever) should hold themselves to a higher standard when blogging about games. If they haven't seen the full, complete rules, they should refrain from making sensationalized statements like "Why 4E Doesn't Feel Like D&D". To be frank, it's simply foolish to post "It appears to be following a trend that favors the rules over empowering the DM to actually run the game" based only on excavated rules from a combat playtest, having never seen the DMG.




And yet, people don't have a problem when you praise a game before it comes out.  Why is the same not true?  Hypocracy I tell you!  Hypocracy!


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 31, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Some of the goals and the way the 4e designers implemented them 'do not feel like D&D to me'.
> 
> With 3.5 I have come to expect the following things of D&D...
> 1) Vancian Magic.  Wizards get a wide variety of spells to choose and you need to pick your daily spells wisely.
> ...




Of all your bullets points of what D&D feels like to you, only Vancian magic has managed to transition between all three current editions (and it has been disliked by the majority of players the entire time).  The legacy of D&D has been around for far longer than 3E, and it will survive well beyond the memories of 3E.  Rogues in 2E were terrible and their skill system was terrible.  Monsters in 1E and 2E NEVER used PC rules (They didn't have attributes for one thing).  Skills basically didn't exist in 1E and 2E, aside from Secondary skills which were a token measure with no reinforcing rules.  Non-traditional core races...well if you take a glance at the 3E boards, everyone and their little dog seems to be a Succubus Ninja, or a Elemental Barbarian/Assassin, etc, which irritates me as well.  I want Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, and that's it.  The OGL, I do not care about this whatsoever as 95% of the OGL books I see are horrendous pieces of garbage that just appeals to the powergaming crowd, and the OGL is a mechanism that was created only with 3E, and to me it feels about as anti-D&D as it gets, as I've been playing since 1E and I think third party publishers are a terrible blight upon the game.

Why does it feel like D&D to me?  Orcs.  Roleplaying.  Dragons.  Dungeons.  Elves.  Halflings.  Fireballs.  Magic Missiles.  Rogues hiding.  Clerics healing.  Roleplaying.  Paladins smiting.  Rangers arching.  Gods.  Planes.  Kobolds.  Roleplaying.  Chromatic Dragons.  D20.  Str.  Dex.  Con.  Int.  Cha.  Roleplaying.  Wis.  AC.  Axes.  Traps.  Spells.  Hit Points.  Mind Flayers.  Vampires.  Unconscious and Dying.  Critical Hits.  Magic Weapons.  Roleplaying.  Bag of Holding.  Belt of Giant Strength.  Level.  Class.  Race.  Adventuring.  Roleplaying.

FYI - The 4E rogue is far and away more flexible that the 3E one, and eons beyond the 2E and 1E rogues.


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 31, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> And yet, people don't have a problem when you praise a game before it comes out.  Why is the same not true?  Hypocracy I tell you!  Hypocracy!




Again, there is a difference between liking what you know about 4E, and hating what you don't know about 4E.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Besides, if a monk in my group kept throwing salt or sand or whatever in the eyes of his opponents, I could easily come up with various ways to restrict or minimize this usage wihtout bending the rules of reality.



This is known as "backpedaling," and I think most players will eventually pick up on it and point out the inconsistency.  If you have to fix a ruling because it turned out to be overpowered, it was a poor ruling.  I think the thing that 4E promises that's worth noticing is that you can make rulings off-the-cuff without having to worry that they'll be poor rulings that will force you to backpedal.  As long as you use the attack or check vs. defence system, you'll get something like a more-or-less balanced effect, because they designed the system to work if you do that.  Since the math underlying the new rules is actually designed, rather than thrown together, they can set up such a system.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 31, 2008)

re: Book of Iron Might

Er, wasn't that book designed and written by Mike Mearls himself? I would assume when it comes to combat and balancing manoeuvers/exploits for martial characters while making them fun and believable, there's nobody else in the industry that comes close.

Have faith in the Mearls


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> Again, I have no problem with you or anybody crapping on elements of 4E that we have all seen and that they dislike, my beef is with the blogger's premise that 4E "doesn't feel like D&D", which I think is grossly uncalled for considering nobody here has seen the rulebooks concerning any of the portions of the rules he is basing the entirety of his criticism on.




How the blue bloody blazes is a personal impression ever uncalled for? He's perfectly free to base his impression on any thing he feels like.


----------



## hong (Mar 31, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> How the blue bloody blazes is a personal impression ever uncalled for? He's perfectly free to base his impression on any thing he feels like.



 Yes. And others are perfectly free to call his impression misinformed. It's a beautiful symbiosis.


----------



## dirkformica (Mar 31, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Please tip your waiter.
> 
> It is difficult to say exactly what the argument is here. I guess a large part of the internet is broadcasting your personal opinion about everything. D&D is no different.




Well I've just been reading this thread straight through and as far as I can tell this thing sort of started out as "look, here's what some people think about what they've seen and experienced with 4th edition.  They happen to be game developers, some of whom have worked on Dungeons and Dragons in the past."

Then it was about how they apparently weren't allowed to have an opinion about 4E for some reason.  Mainly because they didn't have all of the resources available (although this was addressed in the blog that was linked by the writer himself.)   There was also some disdain for giving their opinions of "the feel" of DnD based on this incomplete sampling, which again seems odd to me since no one seems to have ever indicated that they were making blanket judgments against all of 4e, only their limited experience with the game and what they have heard/read/experienced surrounding its development.

Some also seemed to think that because some of those people writing on the blog were in the business they shouldn't be speaking out at all.  I don't personally follow this line of thinking especially since they didn't seem to posit their opinions as final judgments from professional game designers, merely as a group of friends playing DnD. 

Then there is the long, OCD debate about throwing sand/salt into an opponent's eyes (inexplicable to me, it seems to be ongoing.)

There was also some discussion about the value of how a game "feels," and how different people arrive at that opinion.  

There's also been a good amount of"4e can do everything," and "no it can't," and "well 3.x could do it like this..."  Sometimes this was an offshoot of the OCD/Autistic/Asperger's sand/salt thing.  

Along these lines, there have been some general statements about not being able to judge yet because, again, we haven't seen everything and analogies were made between 4e and movie trailers.  

There may be more, but those are the main points still fresh in my mind.  You have to kind of love/hate how internet "discussion" follows that line from William Butler Yeats' 'The Second Coming: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."

I'm curious to see what "rough beast ... slouches towards Bethlehem" next!


----------



## Kichwas (Mar 31, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The statement "4E doesn't feel like D&D" means (to someone reading it) that D&D as a whole, throughout its previous editions, has a certain feel and that 4E is not maintaining that feel.




For me... dropping half-orcs, gnomes, assassins and monks is pretty much a 'jumped the shark' moment for the game. Adding in several new races and classes that either don't have any history with D&D or debated fairly late into the 3E cycle just puts another shark under Fonzie in that jump...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 31, 2008)

arcady said:
			
		

> For me... dropping half-orcs, gnomes, assassins and monks is pretty much a 'jumped the shark' moment for the game. Adding in several new races and classes that either don't have any history with D&D or debated fairly late into the 3E cycle just puts another shark under Fonzie in that jump...




Just for the record, you know that of those four, only gnomes were in core 2E, right? The 2E PHB "dropped" half-orcs, assassins, and monks.


----------



## Scarbonac (Mar 31, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Just for the record, you know that of those four, only gnomes were in core 2E, right? The 2E PHB "dropped" half-orcs, assassins, and monks.






Bad idea then, bad idea now.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 31, 2008)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> Bad idea then, bad idea now.



You don't like it, that's fine, but they haven't been in all versions and they aren't universally regarded as "what makes it D&D". Removing them does not move the game significantly away from "what it is", which is what the original and appropriate interpretation of "jumping the shark" would be.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

People seem to be conflating "the rules are incomplete" with "the rules offer freedom".

One reason we HAVE rules is because "Let's pretend" tends to end in a lot of "Did not!" "Did too!" arguments.

From what I've seen of 4e, the possible set of *codified* actions is very small, smaller than in 3e. This means that if one looks down a list of "Possible combat options" for any character, there aren't that many, and of the ones which are there, it looks like there's always one overwhelmingly optimal choice.

"You can do anything!" is true of any GM-moderated game, so saying it's possible in 4e is like saying the game has dice. It's dim praise. Turning everything into a DM call is, pretty much, one step from playing Amber -- if it's "DM sets difficulty, DM describes results", then it comes down to "DM decides if he wants the players to succeed, then lets them pretend to roll." Without any kind of rules or guidelines for special actions beyond "Pick a difficulty", you really have nothing to go on, and if anyone things "The DM assigns a DC" is some kind of revolution in roleplaying game mechanics...well...you're wrong. Not much more to say than that.

No set of rules can, or should try to, cover all situations, but there should be enough rules that the DM can fill in the gaps based on similar rules. For example, in last nights game, we were facing very annoying creatures which had some kind of very high DR/bashing. we were ambushed sans cleric and with no bashing weapons, and we had one death (me), one would-have-died-but-for-DM-fiat, and one "knocked out and regenerating". (Ogre mage) IAE, once we deduced (via in-game experience, not metagaming) that we needed bashing weapons, I asked if I could smash down using the hilt of my sword, instead of swinging. The DM, experienced in the rules, figured that a:I'd take a non-proficiency penalty, since the weapon wasn't built for that, and, b:It would do less damage, treated as a weapon of one size smaller. Since rules for non-proficiency and 'scaling' were in the game, using them to make this judgement call was easy. Even more, if I'm with a different DM and have to do the same thing, I can point out those rules as the basis for a fair judgement -- or use them myself when it comes up in play.

From what I've seen of 4e, many of the options anyone can try in 3x -- disarm, trip, grapple, bull rush, overrun, sunder -- are either missing, restricted to feats/talents/powers, or neutered. You either use your 'buttons', as WOTC people have called them, or you rely on the tender mercies of the DM. Further, because fighter/rogue/etc attacks now come with a lot of flavor text, there is a *perception* of fewer options even though, mechanically, nothing has changed. In my games, a fighter might say, "I whirl my longsword overhead then slash downwards in a mighty chop!" or "I knock his shield arm out of the way and then go in for the kill!" -- even if all he's doing is rolling a standard attack. (Then, based on the dice roll, I can respond with "You smash down with a mighty blow, nearly cleaving his helm!" or "Sorry, he sidesteps easily and prepares to launch his counterstrike.") With 4e's "flavorful" exploits, it *feels* as if all you're doing is hitting a button labeled 'Careful Attack' over and over. I know that, mechanically, it's no different, but it FEELS more restrictive BECAUSE it's more detailed.

It's a phenomenon seen in many forms of art -- with abstractions, people fill in details, but if detail is given, they don't, even if they can/should, and you feel more distant from something 'realistic' than from something vague. (This is why 1e felt 'more free' than newer versions, despite having the most restrictive rules of all versions)

3x provided a lot of *mechanics* but very little *description* -- 4e seems to be going the other way, adding in a lot more 'fluff' in every area but giving fewer rules. For a lot of people, this is ideal; for me, it's making more work. I have to 'fight' the RAW every step of the way to strip out the fluff and get down to 'what kind of action are these rules modeling', and, further, I have to deal with a smaller set of 'data point actions'. The various things I listed above (disarm, etc) provide, if you will, points on a curve -- given a free-form player action, I have a lot of samples I can pick from that it's "sort of close to", and use them as guidelines. The variety of actions which provoke an AOO let me judge if a player action should, too. And so on. Now, maybe this depth is in the 4e DMs Guide, but from the oblique hints and wink-wink, nudge-nudge we've had from official WOTC sources, it seems it's more "How to set a DC" stuff without real crunch beyond that.

(As a side note, I think a lot of people use "First edition feel" to mean different things. To me, it means wild&wacky gonzo adventure -- the Arduin Grimoire is the ultimate "First Edition" book for me. While "Endless arguing over DM calls" was indeed a part of 1e play, it's not a part I want back. )


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Just for the record, you know that of those four, only gnomes were in core 2E, right? The 2E PHB "dropped" half-orcs, assassins, and monks.




And I dropped 2e.  Funny, that.


----------



## delericho (Mar 31, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Funny...3E allows just the same, except you don't have to limit it to "Once per Day".
> 
> <snip>




There's a much easier way: treat it as a feint.


----------



## hong (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> People seem to be conflating "the rules are incomplete" with "the rules offer freedom".




People seem to be conflating "the rules are incomplete" with "the rules are constricting".



> From what I've seen of 4e, the possible set of *codified* actions is very small, smaller than in 3e. This means that if one looks down a list of "Possible combat options" for any character, there aren't that many, and of the ones which are there, it looks like there's always one overwhelmingly optimal choice.




From what I've seen of 4E, the possible set of codified actions is perfectly sufficient for 99% of the things you'll do in the game. Unless, of course, actions taken as part of your class abilities now don't count as "codified". I guess they're spontaneous expressions of the creativity of players, which just happen to be written down in 9-point serif type.




> No set of rules can, or should try to, cover all situations, but there should be enough rules that the DM can fill in the gaps based on similar rules. For example, in last nights game, we were facing very annoying creatures which had some kind of very high DR/bashing. we were ambushed sans cleric and with no bashing weapons, and we had one death (me), one would-have-died-but-for-DM-fiat, and one "knocked out and regenerating". (Ogre mage) IAE, once we deduced (via in-game experience, not metagaming) that we needed bashing weapons, I asked if I could smash down using the hilt of my sword, instead of swinging. The DM, experienced in the rules, figured that a:I'd take a non-proficiency penalty, since the weapon wasn't built for that, and, b:It would do less damage, treated as a weapon of one size smaller. Since rules for non-proficiency and 'scaling' were in the game, using them to make this judgement call was easy. Even more, if I'm with a different DM and have to do the same thing, I can point out those rules as the basis for a fair judgement -- or use them myself when it comes up in play.




You can do this in 4E. Heck, you don't even need to worry about the nonproficiency penalty, because it's implicit in the lack of an attack bonus.



> From what I've seen of 4e, many of the options anyone can try in 3x -- disarm, trip, grapple, bull rush, overrun, sunder -- are either missing, restricted to feats/talents/powers, or neutered. You either use your 'buttons', as WOTC people have called them, or you rely on the tender mercies of the DM.




Ah, so improvising a decision on the spot in 3E is a "fair judgement", but doing it in 4E is "relying on tender mercies". It's good to know that distinction. And: Str/Dex/Int/skill/whatever vs  AC/Fort/Ref/Will. If you can't find a way to work it into that framework, give up now.



> Further, because fighter/rogue/etc attacks now come with a lot of flavor text, there is a *perception* of fewer options even though, mechanically, nothing has changed.




The wonderful thing about perceptions is that, being independent of reality, they can be changed by a simple act of will.



> I know that, mechanically, it's no different, but it FEELS more restrictive BECAUSE it's more detailed.




So feel different.



> It's a phenomenon seen in many forms of art -- with abstractions, people fill in details, but if detail is given, they don't, even if they can/should, and you feel more distant from something 'realistic' than from something vague. (This is why 1e felt 'more free' than newer versions, despite having the most restrictive rules of all versions)




The problem with 3E's profusion of options is that most of them are false. Disarming is pointless the vast majority of the time, for the vast majority of people. Tripping ditto, grappling ditto, bull rushing ditto. This makes it a bad ruleset if what you really want is options. Consider examining the game as it is played, rather than this platonic ideal you seem to have constructed in your copious free time.



> 3x provided a lot of *mechanics* but very little *description* -- 4e seems to be going the other way, adding in a lot more 'fluff' in every area but giving fewer rules. For a lot of people, this is ideal; for me, it's making more work.




And therefore this is your problem, not anybody else's.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 31, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Hm. Does this mean J.D. Wiker is the one responsible for VP/WP?



As far as I know they were invented by Roger Musson, in an early White Dwarf article called "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive".


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The problem with 3E's profusion of options is that most of them are false. Disarming is pointless the vast majority of the time, for the vast majority of people. Tripping ditto, grappling ditto, bull rushing ditto. This makes it a bad ruleset if what you really want is options. Consider examining the game as it is played, rather than this platonic ideal you seem to have constructed in your copious free time.




I am. These things are used often in games I play and run -- and not only by those munchkined to take advantage of them.



> And therefore this is your problem, not anybody else's.




If i'm the only customer who feels this way, true. If a lot of potential 4e customers feel this way, it's WOTC's problem.


----------



## hong (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I am. These things are used often in games I play and run -- and not only by those munchkined to take advantage of them.




Well, calling something munchkin is like a generic food metaphor. Sometimes chocolate is like anime, but sometimes peanut butter is kinda videogamey.



> If i'm the only customer who feels this way, true. If a lot of potential 4e customers feel this way, it's WOTC's problem.




You could start a petition, I guess.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> re: Book of Iron Might
> 
> Er, wasn't that book designed and written by Mike Mearls himself? I would assume when it comes to combat and balancing manoeuvers/exploits for martial characters while making them fun and believable, there's nobody else in the industry that comes close.
> 
> Have faith in the Mearls




I like the way he implimented combat maneuvers for 3rd edition.  They are fun and seem balanced to me in practice.

I don't like what I've seen of the way such maneuvers are implimented in 4th edition.  They seem artificially and illogically limited.

What's with the "Er"?


----------



## eleran (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I am. These things are used often in games I play and run -- and not only by those munchkined to take advantage of them.
> 
> 
> 
> If i'm the only customer who feels this way, true. If a lot of potential 4e customers feel this way, it's WOTC's problem.





And if a lot more of their customer's feel the opposite?  Then what?  How are they supposed to please 100% of the customer base?


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Y'know, I love that book, but it has its own artificial restrictions.
> 
> Personally I think the 4E approaches dovetails nicely with it.
> 
> ...




It makes more sense to me that a difficult maneuver like Blinding Strike would be more difficult to do--meaning that there are penalties to hit--than it does that a rogue would only be able to try the maneuver once a day.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 31, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This works great in a game like My Life With Master, which is fundamentally narrativist, and so the only thing that matters is the outcome.  However, in D&D the whole point is the combat, and so that level of abstraction regarding fancy moves is something that is neither desirable nor likely to survive for more than five minutes of play.



Sure, which is why D&D moved away from the 1st edition rules to a system that attempted to model more and more specifics (with the 2nd Ed Option books as the ultimate expression of this).

Now 4E has moved to a more story-based combat, where the action choice matters to the story and the game rules give players the ability to do pretty much any combat action.

I am stunned when some people say that 4E is restrictive.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2008)

arcady said:
			
		

> For me... dropping half-orcs, gnomes, assassins and monks is pretty much a 'jumped the shark' moment for the game. Adding in several new races and classes that either don't have any history with D&D or debated fairly late into the 3E cycle just puts another shark under Fonzie in that jump...



So 2E basically jumped the shark then, other than gnomes. Then 3E unjumped the shark, I guess. And I'm not sure about dragonborn, but tieflings have been in D&D for many years now.

What would the game be if we never added anything new anyway?


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 31, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> DM:"You did? Oh. Uh. I guess I'll have him make a save vs. Petrification."
> Player:"Petrification? Wouldn't it be more like Poison? Foreign substance in the body?" (The player knows the save vs. Poison is bad for this foe's class. Next time he pulls this stunt on a foe with a bad Petrification save, he'll argue for that.)
> DM:"Okay, fine." (rolls) "He failed. He's blind for a round."
> Player:"Only one? I'd think it'd be at least 1d4."




Oh, man, that made me laugh at first, and then it made me mad! Exactly the sort of argument i've heard before.  Well, not mad really, it just brought back memories of frustration with argumentative people.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> And if a lot more of their customer's feel the opposite?  Then what?  How are they supposed to please 100% of the customer base?




Ideally, they please enough old customers and attract enough new customers to equal or exceed the 3e playbase. Then the game is a success. If they don't, it isn't. Pretty simple, really.


----------



## eleran (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Ideally, they please enough old customers and attract enough new customers to equal or exceed the 3e playbase. Then the game is a success. If they don't, it isn't. Pretty simple, really.




I don't think it is quite so simplistic. 


But, as for me, I haven't bought a 3e product in about 4 years, except Dungeon Tiles.  So, they have succeeded in bringing me back to the fold.  I guess I cancel you out.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I like the way he implimented combat maneuvers for 3rd edition.  They are fun and seem balanced to me in practice.
> 
> I don't like what I've seen of the way such maneuvers are implimented in 4th edition.  They seem artificially and illogically limited.
> 
> What's with the "Er"?




If anyone "knows" how to balance combat manoeuvers in D&D, it would be Mearls. You yourself stated you liked how he did it in 3E but then you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what's he's doing now.

Personally, I do think it is somewhat a different paradigm that manoeuvers can be limited to once per day but for me, it's just thinking a different way (once per day is basically the "Hail Mary" pass that actually works. Or the roundhouse kick that while quite powerful never gets used)

I can see where people think a system which states "Powerful manoeuver has penalties/specific situations" might seem more attractive and realistic but if the end-point is said manoeuver only gets used once per day (or less), then to me, simply stating "powerful manoeuver = once per day" works for me.

I guess for me personally, "game balance" is a good enough reason.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 31, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> What would the game be if we never added anything new anyway?



The same.

Which is a lot better than if you add one good thing and one bad thing.


----------



## eleran (Mar 31, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The same.




Yeah, spelled S-T-A-L-E


----------



## Scarbonac (Mar 31, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> You don't like it, that's fine, but they haven't been in all versions and they aren't universally regarded as "what makes it D&D". Removing them does not move the game significantly away from "what it is", which is what the original and appropriate interpretation of "jumping the shark" would be.





I think you actually want to talk to arkady.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Mar 31, 2008)

4E supports on-the-fly adjudication much better than previous editions.  You want to throw salt in somebody's eyes?  Fine.  Roll Dexterity vs. Reflex.  If you succeed the opponent drops 1d6 numbers in the initiative order - or looses his minor action for the round or something.

Youi're going to mildly inconvenience sombody with this technique, but its hardly going to be a major determining factor for the fight.


----------



## Flynn (Mar 31, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I ran my first 4e game last night. My overall impression? It felt more or less like running other versions of D&D. Sure, how you determine which bonus to add to the roll might be a little different in cases, but it's more or less the same game from a DM's point of view. I should note that perhaps I was doing a lot more of the improv and on-the-spot rules decisions in 3e than some people were, and 4e seems designed to make that easier, but I honestly can't say that it's "not D&D."
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Cam:

I came away with the same feelings myself when I ran "Raiders of Oakhurst" yesterday afternoon. Yeah, the stats are little different, but all in all, it plays more or less like other versions of D&D, at least from the DM's perspective.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> 4E supports on-the-fly adjudication much better than previous editions.  You want to throw salt in somebody's eyes?  Fine.  Roll Dexterity vs. Reflex.  If you succeed the opponent drops 1d6 numbers in the initiative order - or looses his minor action for the round or something.
> 
> Youi're going to mildly inconvenience sombody with this technique, but its hardly going to be a major determining factor for the fight.




Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."

But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."
> 
> But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!





Amazing! That's a great idea. The best thing would be if the game rulebook would put a few guidelines for these effects, too, since DC 15 fort save doesn't scale well, and 1d4 blindness sounds a little too strong and stealing the shtick of casters with appropriate abilities... And how do you ensure that it's not used constantly?


----------



## eleran (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."
> 
> But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!




Thou art truly the greatest DM ever.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> If anyone "knows" how to balance combat manoeuvers in D&D, it would be Mearls. You yourself stated you liked how he did it in 3E but then you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what's he's doing now.




Oh, I'm quite sure he knows what he's doing.  I trust him in that regard completely.

It's just that, as you yourself said, it's a different paradigm with 4e.  I prefer the one present in 3rd edition for a number of reasons, although I'm sure that Mearls' ideas will work wonderfully in the reality of 4e.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."
> 
> But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!




Heh heh heh.

Thank you.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."
> 
> But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!




would be fine, if touch AC would scale with level and fortitude save would scale in a reasonable way... a DC 10 Fortitude check would be much more reasonable for this kind of attack... (should be lowerd than the blind spell DC)
i would rule it that way in 3rd edition, but however you set the numbers, it doesn´t scale well with your level. Either it is overpowered early, or underpowered in higher levels...


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Yeah, spelled S-T-A-L-E


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Amazing! That's a great idea. The best thing would be if the game rulebook would put a few guidelines for these effects, too, since DC 15 fort save doesn't scale well, and 1d4 blindness sounds a little too strong and stealing the shtick of casters with appropriate abilities... And how do you ensure that it's not used constantly?




(In actual play, I'd probably decide about how likely I wanted it to be, then assign a DC based on that. Alternatively, the usual 10+1/2 hit die+Dex bonus -- in this case, the more dextrous the attacker, the more accurate the throw and thus the harder the save. It's an odd mechanic, but it works.)

As for not being used constantly...well, many high-level monsters don't rely on sight, the save shouldn't be too hard, you need to make an attack AND he gets a save, and is "Blinded for 1d4 rounds" *usually* the best outcome for a given round of combat? At very low levels, perhaps, but at higher levels, there's almost always something better. (Lastly, if someone insists on carrying no weapon but a bag of salt, have him meet undead, golems, plants, slimes, and guys with goggles.  )

Point being, it's no harder making up rules in 3e than it looks like it will be in 4e, and people basing their belief in 4e's simplicity due to a handful of pre-release pages might be a bit shocked when the THUD of 600+ pages of rules comes down in June. A lot of stuff people are making up now, there probably WILL be rules for in the game...with just as many loopholes, exceptions, and broken edge cases as 3e had. "Attack vs. Reflex" is not "simpler" or "cleaner" than "Make a touch attack", and "moves down in the initiative order" is neither more nor less arbitrary than "blinded for X rounds".


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 31, 2008)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> Roll Dexterity vs. Reflex.  If you succeed the opponent drops 1d6 numbers in the initiative order - or loses his minor action for the round or something.




This (above) is a MUCH better rule the than this (below):



> Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds.




The 4e version is easy to apply and when it hits is not so uber that PCs will be doing this all the time. Its also 1 single die roll and scales reasonably well with level.

The 3e version is a touch attack, meaning unless the guy has Dex out the wazoo, its guaranteed to hit. Fort 15 is going to have a pretty high failure rate at low level, but a pretty low one at high levels. When it does take effect, the opponent is pretty much crippled for anywhere from 1 round to 4 rounds.

Not insignificant considering that being blind effectively gives everyone invisibility against you. With 3e's one monster vs. the party ideal, this monster is effectively taken out of the fight and will likely die before recovering. This tactic is sufficiently uber that I foresee the PCs carrying a bag of sand/salt around in order to use this tactic A LOT. And it also requires 3 different die rolls!

In both of these example cases, we have the equivalent of two "on-the-fly" rulings by DMs. One for 3e and one for 4e. It is clear that the 4e ruling is more intuitive. Requires only one die roll vs. three, and is not so uber that PCs will attempt something like this all the time.

On all counts, the 4e method is easier, faster, and just downright better, IMO.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 31, 2008)

Actually, Lizard's version is incredibly abusable.  At low levels, you've just turned thrown salt into an uber weapon, while making thrown salt worthless at high levels.  The monk who wants to throw salt risks being annoyed at low levels when everyone copies him, and angry when his cool trademark ability starts to suck as he advances.

The basic problem remains.  A martial ability in 3e generally has to be usable at will.  That means it can never be better than a standard attack.*  If its worse than a standard attack, it will get used almost never.  If its better than a standard attack, it will be spammed.  4e provides a framework in which you CAN create martial abilities that exceed the baseline power level and still retain balance.  And it fixes the scaling issue by making the strength of the attack more often dependent on the attacker.

*Technically you can make abilities which are better than regular attacks if they are situational or entail a cost, such as expensive ammunition.  Good luck with that.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that!



Yeah, I've got to say the argument that you can wing it easier in 4e than 3.5 is kind of weak.  I've never been at a loss for coming up with a random mechanic when I needed one.

The problem is that the mechanics which seem to make sense break down in strange ways--you can require a touch attack to hit, but then it ends up being overpowered at higher levels because touch AC doesn't scale the way normal AC does.  Automatic blindness for 1d4 rounds?  Way overpowered.  Change it to a saving throw?  Now it's overpowered at low levels and useless at high levels.

The natural "wing it" in 4e--attack against Reflex defense--actually does scale.  More powerful monsters have higher reflex defense than lower monsters, and your to hit scales roughly commensurate with that, so you always have roughly the same chance to succeed (with fast monsters being harder to hit and bulky monsters being easier).   The result of a hit would be "blind, save ends" so the effect lasts a round or two, not much shorter than 1d4, and monsters that are especially resilient (like Hobgoblins) can shrug it off early.  It all kind of fits together, whereas in 3.5 it all kind of doesn't.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> On all counts, the 4e method is easier, faster, and just downright better, IMO.




What about this rule?



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> Throw Debris
> Effect: Inflict Penalty (–3 to AC)
> Drawback: Full-Round Action
> Total attack roll penalty: –5
> ...


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> What about this rule?




Not bad. Better than the other version. I presume this is from the Book of Iron Might? Which is basically an early Mearlsification of 3.5, ultimately leading to 4e. 

I'm not saying 3.5 can't do what 4e can. I just feel that 4e can do it more intuitively and easier. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 31, 2008)

It needs a duration.  I can't tell whether its good or bad without a duration.

If its "one round" then it sucks.  Sorry, Mearls.  But it does.  It fails the basic test- does it do what you want it to do?  What you want is to recreate cinematic moments where someone grabs sand or something and throws it in his opponent's face, then attacks while his opponent can't see.  But this is a full round action, meaning that you can't attack again until next turn.  So you can never personally benefit from this ability.  Its works in helping your team, but it fails in recreating the movie moments I assume motivate the entire desire to throw sand or salt.

If it has a duration, I'd have to know how long it was.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 31, 2008)

Hehheh, and of course, to truly 3.5-ize it, you need to add one more thing.

Improved Throw Debris
Prereq: An ability score with an odd number.
Effect: Throwing debris is now a standard attack, meaning that it can be used as part of a full attack action, or during an attack of opportunity.  You no longer suffer the -5 penalty to your attack roll, and the armor class penalty inflicted by Throw Debris now lasts 1d3+Wisdom Modifier years.


----------



## Stormtalon (Mar 31, 2008)

I think I'd go with throwing sand/salt have an effect something like (cheesy name intented):

*True Grit*
_With a quick scoop from the ground, you throw dirt in an opponent's eyes._
Encounter, Martial, Range 1
Dex vs Ref.
*Hit:* You and all allies have combat advantage against your target & the target has a -2 to all attacks.  Save ends.
*Miss:* You and all allies have combat advantage against your target for 1 round.

Edit: that's how I'd stat it out as an actual power, if I were so inclined.  Still, that's how I'd rule it as an ad-hoc sorta thing, just written out for convenience.  In fact, I might end up making "power write-ups" for off-the cuff things my players pull, and have them handy for future reference.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 31, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> And yet, people don't have a problem when you praise a game before it comes out.  Why is the same not true?  Hypocracy I tell you!  Hypocracy!




I don't have a problem with someone praising or condemning the game after they've seen the full rules.

The playtesters have seen the full rules, and they've praised the game. This guy hasn't seen the full rules, and he's condemned the game. 

One of those things is not like the other, and I'm not talking about the praise/condemn axis. I'm talking about the ignorant rant/informed opinion axis.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Actually, Lizard's version is incredibly abusable.  At low levels, you've just turned thrown salt into an uber weapon, while making thrown salt worthless at high levels.  The monk who wants to throw salt risks being annoyed at low levels when everyone copies him, and angry when his cool trademark ability starts to suck as he advances.




Or I could say that an ability equally effective at all levels is bland and fails to distinguish high- and low- level play. Throwing debris is a street-level move; you don't do it to an elder wyrm. Perhaps my ad-hoc ruling is overpowered for low level play, but that's why it's ad-hoc...and we don't know how the alternative 4e ruling actually works in play because, well, no one's seen the full rules in context. 

I'd WANT the ability to be useless, or nearly so, at anything over mid level, hence my original low fixed Fort save.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'd WANT the ability to be useless, or nearly so, at anything over mid level, hence my original low fixed Fort save.



And I _hate_ when I can no longer do things I love to do because I've outleveled their usefulness.  You see this with sneak attack--it's _incredibly_ powerful at 1st level, and between undead and constructs and fortification it becomes less and less useful, until by about level 11 you're only rarely adding those extra dice.  It's like the game auto-nerfs you as you level.

You should be looking forward to leveling, either because you get a new toy or a better toy.  I've been able to watch characters as they slowly become more and more useless the higher they go.  Some builds just work at peak efficiency at particular levels.  If 4e can avoid that, I'll gladly take it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 31, 2008)

Well, I don't know that it's relevant, but from Ari's comments on the Livejournal, I know who his DM is, as should anyone else who's been following the various leaks and reviews. We've now heard the tale of "the rogue who kicked over a table with two guys standing on it" from both the perspective of the DM and the "game designer friend" who got him into the playtest.

I have nothing else to add, but when you've heard the story from both sides, it's pretty informative.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."
> 
> But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!




Yeah....except in 3.5 once you get to around 8th level or so, that touch attack is so easy to make its pathetic, and that DC 15 Fort is so easy few are likely to fail it. So that improvised move is simply telling the dm you want to fail that round.

In 4e, the dexterity attack scales on par with the reflex defense. Whether I'm 1st or 21st, that trick could work.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 31, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Or I could say that an ability equally effective at all levels is bland and fails to distinguish high- and low- level play. Throwing debris is a street-level move; you don't do it to an elder wyrm. Perhaps my ad-hoc ruling is overpowered for low level play, but that's why it's ad-hoc...and we don't know how the alternative 4e ruling actually works in play because, well, no one's seen the full rules in context.
> 
> I'd WANT the ability to be useless, or nearly so, at anything over mid level, hence my original low fixed Fort save.



What's the equivalent of throwing salt for higher levels? Throwing Silverdust? Dragonblood? Magma?


----------



## eleran (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

>





grrr to the double post gods.


----------



## eleran (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

>





This would be one of the pictures I would put in the dictionary next to the word stale.  But I have never been either a fan of chess or adept at it.  Although I respect the people that can play it at a high level quite a bit.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What's the equivalent of throwing salt for higher levels? Throwing Silverdust? Dragonblood? Magma?




Slashing your blade through the slits in the foe's helmet. 

Fact is, D&D handles any kind of explicitly targeted attack badly, because there's no hit location. Is it easier to blind a beholder than a kobold? How about a knight in a full helm vs. one in a partial helm? We could craft specific rules till the cows come home...

Here's a diferent take:

Distracting attack: As a standard (maybe full?) action, you try something surprising to confound your foe. This could be kicking mud into his face, drunkenly stumbling to duck under a blade, shouting "Hey! Your shoes are untied!", or whatever. You may choose to roll Bluff vs. Sense motive or opposed dexterity checks, depending on the nature of the action -- the DM may decide if it's inobvious. If you succeed, the opponent suffers a -2 to attack rolls and armor class for the next round; on a natural 20 (which is also a success), this lasts 1d4+1 rounds. If you fail, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent you targeted. Each successive attempt to do this (succeed or fail) in the same encounter gives all opponents a +2 on their saves, as they are now alert for your tricks. (Improved Distracting Attack eliminates any risk of AOO; Master Of Distraction removes the multiple use penalty on opponents OTHER than one you've already targeted.)

Even more alternatively, one could argue all such moves are basically Feints, even if they're not called that, and use Feint mechanics with some appropriate circumstance modifiers.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 31, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> It needs a duration.  I can't tell whether its good or bad without a duration.




Sorry, left that out.

It's one round plus one round per point of Dexterity bonus that the attacker possesses.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 31, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> picture of chess set[/QUOTE]
> 
> Other than being niche games, DnD and chess are too dissimilar to make that kind of comparison.
> 
> ...


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Amazing! That's a great idea. The best thing would be if the game rulebook would put a few guidelines for these effects, too, since DC 15 fort save doesn't scale well, and 1d4 blindness sounds a little too strong and stealing the shtick of casters with appropriate abilities... And how do you ensure that it's not used constantly?




My responses to this:

Digging out a handful of sand/salt is a lot like digging out a potion or some other item. Check the table for actions for "Retrieve a stored item". AoO is indicated. Surely that will go a long way toward making sure it's not used constantly.

Why _*should*_ it scale at all? Is the salt getting more irritating because the PC throwing it is a higher level? Besides, as the PC fights tougher opponents, the tactic becomes naturally less useful, another reason it surely won't be used constantly.

Compare to the 4e universal mechanic. If it's a Dex attack vs reflex (or fort), there's no AoO, and the saving throw to shrug off the effect is the standard 10+, the tactic always keeps the same effectiveness (possibly more than 1d4 rounds if the DM rolls the saves poorly). Why would everyone not use it constantly in 4e?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> The playtesters have seen the full rules, and they've praised the game. This guy hasn't seen the full rules, and he's condemned the game.




Not ALL of the playtesters have done so. I know of one group of playtesters who believe that the game actually got worse with every iteration of the rules they were given.

Nor is "not feeling like D&D" really condemning the game. There are plenty of successful games that don't feel like D&D. It's criticism to be sure, but I fail to see how it's a condemnation.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 31, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Compare to the 4e universal mechanic. If it's a Dex attack vs reflex (or fort), there's no AoO, and the saving throw to shrug off the effect is the standard 10+, the tactic always keeps the same effectiveness (possibly more than 1d4 rounds if the DM rolls the saves poorly). Why would everyone not use it constantly in 4e?




Because it would be an encounter power.  Or not; if it's a DM call, it could be at will or daily.

(Honestly, I think 4e mechanics would work better if everyone had a pool of 'stunt points', or whatever, and powers simply cost points. Use a low-point power in every round or blow your wad on one big one and limp along for the rest of the encounter. There'd be no pretense of an in-world explanation, it would be a purely metagaming construct, and better for it. I'm sure the "Math is hard!" crowd would object, though.)


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What's the equivalent of throwing salt for higher levels? Throwing Silverdust? Dragonblood? Magma?




Does it need an equivalent designed for higher levels? Why isn't it just appropriate to have substances with different save DCs based on their own inherent properties? Sand is a low DC, salt a little higher, ankheg acid substantially higher, and so on....

Why should sand or salt be equally effective against non-adventuring farmers for low level PCs as against great wyrms for high level PCs? The higher level PCs probably _should_ be looking for something well beyond basic sand and salt against a critter that tough.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 31, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Why _*should*_ it scale at all? Is the salt getting more irritating because the PC throwing it is a higher level? Besides, as the PC fights tougher opponents, the tactic becomes naturally less useful, another reason it surely won't be used constantly.



Because you throw it more accurately, and more salt goes straight into the dude's eye.


> Compare to the 4e universal mechanic. If it's a Dex attack vs reflex (or fort), there's no AoO, and the saving throw to shrug off the effect is the standard 10+, the tactic always keeps the same effectiveness (possibly more than 1d4 rounds if the DM rolls the saves poorly). Why would everyone not use it constantly in 4e?



Well, that would depend on how it were implemented.

My view would be to make it so that throwing salt is combat ineffective for the typical person (your opponent just ducks the slow moving spray of salt), but you can take it as a power.  If you take it as a power, it becomes part of a combination of techniques that make up a per encounter or per day power.  So you don't just throw the salt, hopefully gain a combat bonus, and then exploit it on later turns if its still around.  You throw the salt as you lunge to stab your enemy, gaining immediate advantage, even if the salt wears off quickly.  This is a long way of saying that the reason that people wouldn't spam this in 4e is because, in my design, it would be a per encounter or per day ability.  

And since I'd be custom designing it for a player, I'd ask him how awesome he wants his salt throwing to be.  Does he want to throw salt relatively often, for a small benefit?  If so, I'll probably make it per encounter.  Or does he want to throw salt as a surprise attack that permits him to absolutely rock his target?  If so, I'll probably make it a per day ability, and strengthen it accordingly.  I can write it differently if he wants to throw salt, gain a minor advantage and then lunge, versus if he wants to throw salt and gain a massive, longer term advantage.  I can even make multiple salt throwing powers, each which combine with different types of attacks.  Maybe rogues throw salt differently than monks, and monks throw salt differently than barbarians.  I've got a lot more space to play here.

If "you can't throw salt every round because its a per encounter ability and that's that" causes your brain to spasm, then 4e (and frankly D&D) may not be for you.  If you're ok rationalizing to yourself ("ok, it only works as a surprise, and once your enemies see it, they're ready for you to try it again"), then you can move on and just have fun throwing salt in people's eyes then punching their lungs out.

And for the record, the odds of a 4e "save ends" ability lasting more than 1d4 rounds is low.  The expected duration of 1d4 rounds is 2.5.  The expected duration of "save ends" with a 50/50 save is less than 2.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If "you can't throw salt every round because its a per encounter ability and that's that" causes your brain to spasm, then 4e (and frankly D&D) may not be for you.  If you're ok rationalizing to yourself ("ok, it only works as a surprise, and once your enemies see it, they're ready for you to try it again"), then you can move on and just have fun throwing salt in people's eyes then punching their lungs out.
> 
> And for the record, the odds of a 4e "save ends" ability lasting more than 1d4 rounds is low.  The expected duration of 1d4 rounds is 2.5.  The expected duration of "save ends" with a 50/50 save is less than 2.




Personally, that design paradigm is one of the major reasons my skepticism of 4e has grown in proportion to what I know about it.

And I know about the odds quite well, well enough to know that the expected value is what you'll tend to see over a large number of trials. But I also know, probabilities being what they are, that you will see encounters where the target of the power is inexplicably unable to shake off that effect.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 31, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Not ALL of the playtesters have done so. I know of one group of playtesters who believe that the game actually got worse with every iteration of the rules they were given.




Well, then those testers should hold their tongues as well. All I'm saying is that folks--either pro- or anti-4e--would do well to withhold final judgment until they see the rules. That goes double for industry pros. Saying "I will not play 4E" or "I will definitely switch to 4e" is fine for fans, but industry professionals should know better. 



> Nor is "not feeling like D&D" really condemning the game. There are plenty of successful games that don't feel like D&D. It's criticism to be sure, but I fail to see how it's a condemnation.




Let me explain: 4th Edition D&D is, well, D&D. You can tell from the letters after "4th Edition." If one declares that 4th Edition D&D does not feel like D&D, then one is declaring that the game has fundamentally failed. It's a blanket condemnation. In fact, I'd say there's no greater condemnation.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 31, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Let me explain: 4th Edition D&D is, well, D&D. You can tell from the letters after "4th Edition." If one declares that 4th Edition D&D does not feel like D&D, then one is declaring that the game has fundamentally failed. It's a blanket condemnation. In fact, I'd say there's no greater condemnation.




I think it comes down to the old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."

As designers, one would hope they would want the new edition to succeed. While they may feel its too soon, etc, the fact is 4e is here, and the future of dnd goes with it. Its been awhile, but its important to remind people that until 3e came around, dnd as a business was dead. 3e resurrected it because it made profit. But dnd can just as easily die again if it does not continue to make profit. 

So with that in mind, I think its important to be positive, to get people excited. If you see something in 4e you like, then say so. If you don't like it, then wait to see the full picture and see if it changes your mind.

Is that a biased view? Absolutely. But I would much rather be optimistic about the future of the game I love than to shoot down its future before we even see what that full future will entail. And for designers, people who make a living off of this game, I would say that goes double for them.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Well, then those testers should hold their tongues as well. All I'm saying is that folks--either pro- or anti-4e--would do well to withhold final judgment until they see the rules.




But isn't it fair to make a judgement on what you _have_ seen? Clearly, a lot of people are doing so. How about expressing concerns or misgivings?

Sure, everyone doing so is working from an incomplete picture, but why isn't an incomplete picture enough if that portion of the picture pushes the right decision-driving buttons?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 31, 2008)

I think one of the advantages of 4E is that it's easier to compare powers and special maneuvers, since there is a more or less clearer scale.
We have: 
- Basic Attacks. Nothing fancy. Attack, deal damage, no special effects.
- At Will Powers: Attack with or plus minor special effect (pushing, higher bonus, small rider buff)
- Per Encounter Powers: More damage + minor effect, or normal damage and better effect
- Per Day Powers: More Damage, plus strong effect.

If you want to rule a unusual maneuver, you can use this as a base-line: 
- Throw Salt is easy to do if you stack up on salt. So, it deals no damage and grants a minor benefit. Making it on par with basic attacks, maybe at-will powers.
- Turn Tables to trip multiple foes: Requires the presence of a table, so it should compare to a per encounter power.

It's a bit more difficult to compare this in 3E, but I think Mikes Iron Might rules might provide good enough guidelines for that. 
The only problem: You stack up on a lot of penalties. -4 (or -5) for "unproficient" use, attack of opportunity. 

And here is the 4E "secret" at work - it's opportunity cost. Sure you can throw salt every round, but you could also use your at-will power every round, and that one is pretty decent, too. 3E is not totally free of this - at higher levels, anything that negated your full attack as a fighter was probably inferior. But the more or less standard maneuvers (trip, disarm, sunder) did only require an attack (or was it different for sunder?). And you could negate all other penalties. And some (read: Trip) could be used very effectively with the right feats and not-to-large monsters, without having to sacrifice a potential damage dealing attack (at high level, whose last attack has a chance to hit anyway? Better trip the enemy and set him up for a 4 point power attack, or give the Non-Full-BAB classes a better chance to hit.)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 31, 2008)

the easiest fix to encounter powers is allowing reuses, but with drastically reduced chances (-5), because you won´t let someone throw salt at you more than once. You can also apply circumstance bonuses/penalties to the salt throwing, if the enemy knows your trick, has seen the salt in your hand.

But the most important thing: you don´t use it regularly, because it is not imbalanced... it seems to perfectly scale in level in respect to the attack bonus (which it should, because everything does so in D&D, and after all its a certain fighting technique), but doesn´t scale at all in its effect (because salt is salt) maybe you could do a followup vs constitution to prevent using acid in such a cheap way... with salt having an inherent +15 bonus or such...


----------



## Zeborah (Mar 31, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think one of the advantages of 4E is that it's easier to compare powers and special maneuvers, since there is a more or less clearer scale.
> We have:
> - Basic Attacks. Nothing fancy. Attack, deal damage, no special effects.
> - At Will Powers: Attack with or plus minor special effect (pushing, higher bonus, small rider buff)
> ...




That makes sense. Based simply on the action description, I'd make it a +(Dex Modifier) vs. (Reflex Defense) roll, inflicting the Blinded condition if it succeeds. I had a fairly similar situation come up when I tried out the rules, and it worked.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 31, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> This would be one of the pictures I would put in the dictionary next to the word stale.  But I have never been either a fan of chess or adept at it.  Although I respect the people that can play it at a high level quite a bit.



I'd put it in the dictionary next to the word stale_mate_ 

On a more serious note, I've enjoyed playing chess quite a lot for a couple of years. The thing is, after a certain point you really have to start memorizing matches to get any better. At that point I decided it was more tedium than fun and stopped playing it.

I also firmly believe that chess belongs to the category of games where the player who makes the first move cannot lose unless making a mistake. I.e. it's in the same category as tic-tac-toe, reversi (engl.?), and checkers. It just hasn't been proved yet because the number of possible moves is so large - but it's only a matter of time until someone does.

Back on topic:
The comparison of chess and D&D fails on more accounts than I could possibly list. So, I'll limit myself to one point I consider crucial:

Part of the enjoyment in D&D comes from new toys to play with: new monsters, new items, new feats, new classes, etc. It never gets boring because it keeps changing and evolving. While this can be accomplished by a creative DM without any need for additional supplements, it also requires a lot of time which many DMs do not have, so obviously, it's an excellent way for a company to make more money than from just selling the rules.

This still doesn't account for the need of releasing a new version of the rules from time to time. However, I think it's important to keep the game alive. No rpg system is perfect (or at least I don't know of one ). Over time you'll notice more and more tidbits you don't like about the game. You can make do with house-rules but eventually you'll reach a point where the minor nitpicks become numerous enough that you no longer enjoy the game the way you used to.
Rule-Mastery is another problem: While not everyone is a min-maxer, given enough time everyone will notice that some things work better than others and start using the winning strategies, eliminating variety.
Btw.: Incidentally, this effect is usually amplified by the rules-bloat caused by supplements, so they're a really a mixed blessing.

That's when you need the rejuvenating effect of a new ruleset:
It will get rid of (most) of the problems you've grown to hate and refresh your enthusiasm. They'll also reset the metagame: You need time to figure out the new winning strategies and can have fun again exploring different options. The sense of wonder is renewed.

Then, after a couple of years (sometimes more, sometimes less) the cycle repeats: The new ruleset will have new tidbits you're starting to dislike, you get frustrated because of things that don't work as well as you once thought, etc., etc.


----------



## hong (Apr 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."
> 
> But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!




Unfortunately, when 4E comes, it will no longer have the philosophy that if your head is in an oven and your legs are in a bucket of water, then on average you're just right. Actually, come to think of it, neither did 3E.


----------



## Kichwas (Apr 1, 2008)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> Bad idea then, bad idea now.



Word.

I skipped 2E for a reason.

When 3E came out, it grabbed back a lot of people who had drifted away because it advertised a recapture of all the old gems of 1E, but with a modern gaming engine.

D&D without half-Orcs and Monks just isn't D&D...

I don't care how silly it is to have Monks in western style fantasy. It's even sillier that they -don't- have guns, which arrived in Europe before 1000 A.D, and they they -do- let peasants be armed and walking around, when 90% of them in Europe were de-facto slaves/serfs.

And I don't care that some people's half-Orcs come from violent births, that's neither here nor there - they, like the wandering harlot table, are what make D&D, D&D.

Well, I don't need the Harlot table, but if you don't know what it is, you have no business speaking about what D&D should be - though I suspect everyone here does recognize it.   

My point is that well, if you take out several of the very core aspects of what has defined 'D&Dism' over the years, just because you personally don't use them in your games, or even if many people don't use them, and you then go changing so many of the core conceptual elements (not rules, rules can come and go - I can play a game truer to D&D using Champions rules than some people can with D&D rules) - like what an elf is for example, and then go adding in a whole stack of new races and classes that have either A, no history with the game, or B, very thin history...

Well, you're not just Jumping a shark, you're Evol Knievel   and you're riding that motorcycle over a whole canyon of sharks.


I may not be a big fan of D&D, but when I sit down to D&D I want a D&D experience.

4e, from the previews, is approaching the point where other games will have managed to copy the D&D experience better than D&D itself has. Even games that have completely alien-to-D&D rules.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 1, 2008)

Zeborah said:
			
		

> That makes sense. Based simply on the action description, I'd make it a +(Dex Modifier) vs. (Reflex Defense) roll, inflicting the Blinded condition if it succeeds. I had a fairly similar situation come up when I tried out the rules, and it worked.




Well, Zeborah, I don't know if you ARE AintitCoolNews's Massawyrm, but if not, so did he.

For those who missed the review, Massawyrm commented that during his first 4E playtest, one of his players, who he labeled as his "game designer buddy who got us into the playtest," tried a particular stunt: his rogue ran forward and attempted to kick over a table that two of the bad guys were standing on (sound familiar?) Then said player/designer (let's call him "A.M.") turned to Massawyrm and said "so...how will you handle THAT, DM?" Massawyrm's response: "Hmm, Strength Check vs. their Reflex Defenses." At that, A.M. smiled, because that is, of course, exactly how the game suggests doing it.

For something like the salt in the eyes trick, it sounds to me like a "dirty trick" move. To me, that's more "Wisdom Check vs. their Reflex Defense," since Wisdom seems to me like the relevant attribute for attacks that rely more on cunning and treachery than anything else (like throwing stuff in your opponent's face). But since it's a thrown object, I can see the argument that it ought to be based on Dex. But the point is that there is clearly a default, always on system, for how to resolve attacks of any kind. Mike Mearls certainly hinted as much in the thread about the Bugbear Strangler, and between Massawyrm and Mouseferatu, it's been totally confirmed that said system is in the DMG, even to the point of suggesting roughly how it works mechanically. That's cool.

I imagine that helping DMs decide which attribute to use is discussed at greater length in the DMG. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 1, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The same.
> 
> Which is a lot better than if you add one good thing and one bad thing.



That's the great thing about a game with a human DM. You can take in the good and house-rule the bad, leaving you with a net improvement.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 1, 2008)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> I think you actually want to talk to arkady.



Yes, apparently I do.


----------



## Zeborah (Apr 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, Zeborah, I don't know if you ARE AintitCoolNews's Massawyrm, but if not, so did he.




No, not me.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 2, 2008)

Ok, I see everyone keeps ignoring my point so I'll repeat it again. It seems like unless you insult people, your point gets ignored.

How can you get a feel for D&D at 1st level? Especially given that historically, D&D at levels 1-3 has never felt LIKE D&D AND that these were pre-generated characters.

Seriously, am I the only one that said "ok, so that's what I can do at 1st level in 4E, how does it feel in comparison to 1st level in pre-4E" and which experience is closer to the feel of D&D?

For example, a 1st level halfling paladin has Smite Evil once per day and 1 feat to his name. Really, in a typical adventure, he's basically just swinging his sword and the same goes for the fighter. He only gets 2 feats at all.

The 4E paladin actually gets to do stuff at 1st level whereas if the 3E paladin had used the same feat as the 4E paladin, you would be reduced to "Smite Evil once per the adventure".

Does anyone actually think this would've been fun to play?

Or how about the Ranger? 1st level Ranger really when compared gets "wild empathy", "track" and "favoured enemy". People here and elsewhere have complained that the characters seem too limited and I'm looking at the characters and comparing them to 1st level characters in the past and I'm wondering, what ARE they talking about.

I stand by my belief that at least at 1st level, 4E is MUCH closer to the feel of D&D than 1E/3E ever was. You can actually use tactics, you actually get to use your class abilities, you actually are different from each other. These usually happen in a pre-4E D&D game about 3rd-4th level and I actually am impressed that WOTC has made it happen right from the start.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 2, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I stand by my belief that at least at 1st level, 4E is MUCH closer to the feel of D&D than 1E/3E ever was. You can actually use tactics, you actually get to use your class abilities, you actually are different from each other. These usually happen in a pre-4E D&D game about 3rd-4th level and I actually am impressed that WOTC has made it happen right from the start.




Considering the 4e characters at 1st level have been ramped up to be approximately the power of a 3-4th level 3E character, this isn't exactly surprising. I've seen plenty of games (including Dark Sun) that started characters at a higher level to provide the same level of options. So I fail to really see how it's a particular strength of 4E.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 2, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Considering the 4e characters at 1st level have been ramped up to be approximately the power of a 3-4th level 3E character, this isn't exactly surprising. I've seen plenty of games (including Dark Sun) that started characters at a higher level to provide the same level of options. So I fail to really see how it's a particular strength of 4E.



If true, it would make most people's first experiance of D&D actually play like D&D's supposed to play. How can this not be a Good Thing?


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Considering the 4e characters at 1st level have been ramped up to be approximately the power of a 3-4th level 3E character, this isn't exactly surprising. I've seen plenty of games (including Dark Sun) that started characters at a higher level to provide the same level of options. So I fail to really see how it's a particular strength of 4E.




By this argument, it can also be claimed that a lot of 3E games never got past 15th level, and so 4E extending the "sweet spot" beyond that is not a strength either. Which is getting into generic food metaphor territory.


----------



## lexoanvil (Apr 2, 2008)

;/ i would just handle salt as dex vs  reflex and the effect gives then -2 to attack rolls untill they save. 1d4 rounds of blindness is just silly. i might consider letting them use it as a minor action provided it wouldn't be more powerful then there current minor actions.

i would be quite tempted to make this a material feat or something mainly that from my limited play testing(not real play tests mind you just the black dragon thing from ddxp) i feel like too many at will powers be a bad thing just for table management, i don't know if its different at higher lvs but i never cared for high lv spell casters in 3ED just because my players take  20 min just to decide the spell they might use and spend 10 more reading its effects.


with my current understanding of the rules i would use this

sand toss (material feat)
req:+1 attack bonus
minor action at will
to use you must have sand,salt, ash, exe and a free hand to perform a buckler will impose a -1 penalty to the roll. the target must also have eyes and they must not be covered.
dex vs reflex
success:  the target will have -2 to there attack rolls
fail: negates effect
lasts untill target makes a saving throw or spends a standard action to negate the effect.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 2, 2008)

Throwing salt, tripping and disarming were daily powers in AD&D and you needed to be a rogue 10+ and select a skill.

If you use the same trick more than once per adventure, enemies get +2 on their saving throw.

If you used the same trick in 3 adventures, you can select the skill to make it an encounter power.

funny


----------



## med stud (Apr 2, 2008)

I think throwing salt in someone's eyes fall under "Feint" in 3e. You do a trick to catch someone off guard. I wouldn't bother with coming up with saving throws and defenitly not blindness for salt- throwing.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, Zeborah, I don't know if you ARE AintitCoolNews's Massawyrm, but if not, so did he.
> 
> For those who missed the review, Massawyrm commented that during his first 4E playtest, one of his players, who he labeled as his "game designer buddy who got us into the playtest," tried a particular stunt: his rogue ran forward and attempted to kick over a table that two of the bad guys were standing on (sound familiar?) Then said player/designer (let's call him "A.M.") turned to Massawyrm and said "so...how will you handle THAT, DM?" Massawyrm's response: "Hmm, Strength Check vs. their Reflex Defenses." At that, A.M. smiled, because that is, of course, exactly how the game suggests doing it.
> 
> ...



As most of the time, I think you're dead on.


----------



## neceros (Apr 2, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I think throwing salt in someone's eyes fall under "Feint" in 3e. You do a trick to catch someone off guard. I wouldn't bother with coming up with saving throws and defenitly not blindness for salt- throwing.



Good guess, but I feel feint would be used if you were to pretend to throw salt into your opponents face.


----------



## med stud (Apr 2, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Good guess, but I feel feint would be used if you were to pretend to throw salt into your opponents face.



The throwing of salt _is_ the feint from a mechanical perspective. A feint is a move- action that, if successful, removes your opponents Dex-based AC.

Throwing salt in someones face will make that person incapable of mounting an effective defense while at the same time it won't negate that persons armour. I think the mechanical effect of the feint is a close simulation of salt throwing.


----------



## Tuft (Apr 2, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, Zeborah, I don't know if you ARE AintitCoolNews's Massawyrm, but if not, so did he.
> 
> For those who missed the review, Massawyrm commented that during his first 4E playtest, one of his players, who he labeled as his "game designer buddy who got us into the playtest," tried a particular stunt: his rogue ran forward and attempted to kick over a table that two of the bad guys were standing on (sound familiar?) Then said player/designer (let's call him "A.M.") turned to Massawyrm and said "so...how will you handle THAT, DM?" Massawyrm's response: "Hmm, Strength Check vs. their Reflex Defenses." At that, A.M. smiled, because that is, of course, exactly how the game suggests doing it.




The big question with such freeform stunts have always been: What happens when they get close to the _defined_ stunts, who may be restricted in some way: require purchase, have limits on usage, etc. Do you suddenly prohibit that particular freeform stunt because it duplicates something you otherwise have to pay for? In the above example, the table kick is awfully close to doing a Trip, which you (A) have to buy as a power, and (B) is limited to once per encounter. 

And what happens when new splatbooks come out with new Powers? Will those further restrict the freeform stunts availabe to you?


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 2, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> The throwing of salt _is_ the feint from a mechanical perspective. A feint is a move- action that, if successful, removes your opponents Dex-based AC.
> 
> Throwing salt in someones face will make that person incapable of mounting an effective defense while at the same time it won't negate that persons armour. I think the mechanical effect of the feint is a close simulation of salt throwing.




I've always ruled it as such.

Under 4e, I would, if the mechanic does not already exist, make it based on a Thievery Check vs Reflex, and then have combat advantage attached to it. Potentially, I would rule it against the perception defense, instead... but probably not.  I also think that it is too powerful if you play it as the 3.5 feint.. which is why the 3.5 feint was so damnable hard to pull off, unless you were a bluff monkey, in which case, there was no defense, unless you were a sense motive monkey.

I prefer to make it more open to everybody, while reducing the power that caused it to be heavily restrictive in the first place.

By the same token, I'd rule most disarm/trip tactics to be the same. An action on the aggressors part that lowers the defense capabilities of the creature at the time.

However, I play with a lot of DM Fiat, especially in terms of miscellanous bonuses. I expect descriptions of feints, and the like, from my players. They've mostly learnt that a reasonable and logical attempt will get a bonus. Poorly thought out or described gets a penalty.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 2, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> The big question with such freeform stunts have always been: What happens when they get close to the _defined_ stunts, who may be restricted in some way: require purchase, have limits on usage, etc. Do you suddenly prohibit that particular freeform stunt because it duplicates something you otherwise have to pay for? In the above example, the table kick is awfully close to doing a Trip, which you (A) have to buy as a power, and (B) is limited to once per encounter.
> 
> And what happens when new splatbooks come out with new Powers? Will those further restrict the freeform stunts availabe to you?





I would disagree that it is close to the defined stunt.

It has a similiar mechanical affect, this is true.. But it is heavily situational, required emplacement of creatures in a certain way, and depends on the presence of the table.
And, to be honest, I would have this as mini skill-challenge.. 2 successes, 1 failure.
I'm not sure how carrying capacity would play out, but only a very strong person could kick a table *up* with two other characters on it, hard enough to dislodge them.
I'd have what I call a strength *burst* check, and then then an attack agaist reflex for the the people on the table to stay upright.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 2, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> The big question with such freeform stunts have always been: What happens when they get close to the _defined_ stunts, who may be restricted in some way: require purchase, have limits on usage, etc. Do you suddenly prohibit that particular freeform stunt because it duplicates something you otherwise have to pay for? In the above example, the table kick is awfully close to doing a Trip, which you (A) have to buy as a power, and (B) is limited to once per encounter.
> 
> And what happens when new splatbooks come out with new Powers? Will those further restrict the freeform stunts availabe to you?



It was definitely something that 3E seemed to be in risk off. I am not sure if 4E will be better in that regard. But here is my "guess":
Powers will always have a significant advantage over improvised maneuvers. They either deal damage plus the maneuver effect, or they take only a minor action or something like that.
At the same time, while powers are still "superior" for the most part, you don't suffer any penalties on your checks and rolls for your maneuver, and you don't provoke Opportunity Attacks (at least generally. I guess "throwing salt" might be a ranged attack, and might do it for that reason alone, but not just because you're performing a "stunt"). This means in those situations where the maneuver looks like a good idea since it's effect is useful, you have at least a fair probability of pulling it off.

So, if the Martial Sourcebook will contain a "throw salt into face"-power, it will only require a minor action and blind the foe until the beginning of your next turn, and usable once per encounter. After your minor attack, you can still run away or strike your opponent while he can't see, and on his turn, he has great trouble striking you since he's still fighting off the salt in his eyes.
If you want to do the same without the power, you take an attack action and get the same benefit. Since it's an attack, it considerably lacks its effectiveness, and instead of using it to beat your opponent up while he's blinded, you probably just run away and hide behind your friendly neighborhood defender...

3E didn't really have the mechanical "granularity" to pull this off, at least not until Swift Action where introduced, and Bo9S offered "encounter"-based powers. Touch Attacks, AC and Saves also didn't scale proportionally, making it harder to create a fair, unifying mechanic (or guideline) for improved maneuvers or stunts. The BOIM might tried its best in that regard, but the attack penalty and attack of opportunity parts often make it feel to risky (I get attacked and have a low chance of actually succeeding? I guess full attack it is, then...)


----------



## billd91 (Apr 2, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> If true, it would make most people's first experiance of D&D actually play like D&D's supposed to play. How can this not be a Good Thing?




This leads to the question of whether that actually is how D&D is _supposed_ to play.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 2, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This leads to the question of whether that actually is how D&D is _supposed_ to play.



I suppose so. You have all the tid-bits. Per day, per encounter, at will powers, hit points and buffs. Fundamentally, the rules don't change that much, though Rituals remain a unknown factor.
The surroundings will change. You won't keep fighting hordes of Kobolds and a single Black Dragon for long.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 2, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> If true, it would make most people's first experiance of D&D actually play like D&D's supposed to play. How can this not be a Good Thing?




Why not give players and DMs the option of starting characters out at a lower level if they want a more gritty experience or starting characters out at 3rd or 4th level if they want something more powerful?

How can providing options not be a Good Thing?


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 2, 2008)

Because it's implied that WotC's marketing research says that most players want more heroic 1st level PCs. Therefore, they engineer the game to make the minority playstyle the one that takes house-ruling, rather than forcing hypothetical new game buyers to manipulate rules they don't yet understand to get an experience they haven't yet had.

Besides, those who know they want a gritty game can halve their hit points, nix daily powers, cut encounter powers in half, call it "0th level", double XP required for advancement, and have a gritty game. It's much easier for a grognard to do this than a new player to make a 3rd level PC.


----------



## Crosswind (Apr 2, 2008)

Wolf - You, and to a greater extent, Lizard, have espoused the following viewpoint in a lot of threads.  Correct me if I get it wrong:

"The more options the rules explicitly enumerate for me, the player, the better.  I always have the choice to ignore subsets of the rules and not employ them, but if I want to use them, they are there."

I, too, as a player, like options.  But it is a bit short-sighted to think that there is no drawback to having extra options.  The truth is, the more options you include, the less balanced your system will be, because each option adds margin for error.

Given this, you can take one of two philosophies:  You can attempt to build a system that has explicit rules for all eventualities (3.5), and is broken on many of them.  Or you can create a system that is fundamentally sound/unbroken on a limited set of actions, and then provide a DM with tools to adjudicate other actions (4.0).  The idea with the latter is that a player can't make the "BUT THE RULES SAY I CAN DO THIS!" argument on any action that is truly imbalanced.

Is there any compelling evidence that the game design for 3.5 ("Rules for everything!") is more "classic D&D" than the game design for 4.0 ("Rules for what we think is important")?

-Cross


----------



## HyrumOWC (Apr 2, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think it comes down to the old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."
> 
> As designers, one would hope they would want the new edition to succeed. While they may feel its too soon, etc, the fact is 4e is here, and the future of dnd goes with it. Its been awhile, but its important to remind people that until 3e came around, dnd as a business was dead. 3e resurrected it because it made profit. But dnd can just as easily die again if it does not continue to make profit.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree with this more. I'm interested in playing a good RPG, not singing the praises of D&D. If I like it, I'll say so, if I don't, I won't. Just because I make money from the game and the industry doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.

Hyrum.


----------



## seankreynolds (Apr 2, 2008)

Folks,

I'm not here to address salt in the eyes, or whether 3e is better than 4e, or whether we didn't have enough information to make an appropriate judgement on the limited 4e rules, or whether I'm qualified to make that judgement, or any of the other side topics that have popped up in this thread. And I'm just speaking for me, not JD or anyone else in our group.

I am here to comment on the "do they deserve to see the rules because they used to work for the company?" topic.

FYI, I asked to get on the playtest list in September.
JD asked around that time, too.
In November or December, they asked me if I would be interested in working on a 4e project. I don't them I didn't have time in my schedule but they should talk to JD, as he might.
It's now April, and neither of us has seen any playtest documents. We haven't seen anything that isn't already public info (like stuff from DDE).
Neither of us is on a blacklist; they asked me to write some 4e stuff, and JD is currently designing Star Wars stuff for them. Yet despite both of us asking to get an NDA so we can see the playtest materials and build an informed opinion (which, mind you, the NDA would keep us from expressing, good or bad), and being offered or actually doing work for the company, neither of us have actually seen the docs.

It's not a question of "deserving" to see the rules. Or sour grapes. Or an unreasonable preset bias against the new edition. I WANT to see 4E. I WANT to be able to play it and see how it all fits together. But yet again, just like with the extremely-delayed GSL for Early Adopter publishers, Wizards has dropped the ball somewhere, and because of that I am left with the same scant information that everyone else has. I could be gushing about the game right now, but instead I (and other 3E designer grognards) have, at best, a "meh" attitude toward it because they haven't given me enough information.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 2, 2008)

Crosswind said:
			
		

> Wolf - You, and to a greater extent, Lizard, have espoused the following viewpoint in a lot of threads.  Correct me if I get it wrong:
> 
> "The more options the rules explicitly enumerate for me, the player, the better.  I always have the choice to ignore subsets of the rules and not employ them, but if I want to use them, they are there."




Pretty accurate. I find it easier to ignore rules than to add them, and I like games with 'dials' or 'settings' so that a single ruleset can emulate more genres/styles of play.



> Given this, you can take one of two philosophies:  You can attempt to build a system that has explicit rules for all eventualities (3.5), and is broken on many of them.  Or you can create a system that is fundamentally sound/unbroken on a limited set of actions, and then provide a DM with tools to adjudicate other actions (4.0).  The idea with the latter is that a player can't make the "BUT THE RULES SAY I CAN DO THIS!" argument on any action that is truly imbalanced.




Or you have a system which breaks in actual play because the interactions of multiple systems produce more edge cases than the 'simple' rules accomodate. You also have the problem of "You can't do that, there's no rules for it!", which is a common response. (You also also have the problem, as some have noted, of having some actions be 'easier' because there's no explicit rules, even when they should be harder. If 'trip' is a per-encounter exploit available only to trained fighters, then "swinging on the chandelier and kicking the thug into the fireplace while yelling 'What ho!'" ought to be a high level daily power, at best -- but the 4e rules paradigm seems to make it an at-will 'roll vs reflex defense' which any shlub can attempt, simply because there's no explicit rule FOR it, if you follow me.)

In other words, complex stunts not covered by the rules become EASIER than simple actions which ARE covered -- and which are balanced properly. 



> Is there any compelling evidence that the game design for 3.5 ("Rules for everything!") is more "classic D&D" than the game design for 4.0 ("Rules for what we think is important")?
> 
> -Cross




Depends on what you mean by 'classic'. If you mean, in terms of rule structure, no. But I never liked the actual D&D *rules* until third edition. I liked the *feel* of D&D -- a huge world of ancient magic, countless races, characters who rose from being pathetic losers to god-slaying heroes, and a sense of scale and scope no other system really had. (I mean, come on -- the abyss had 666 *infinite* layers! There was a para-elemental plane of Ooze!)

Fourth edition feels bland, constrained, and mechanistic to me. It looks and feels like something designed by committee and controlled by marketing. To that extent, it reminds me of 2e -- a watered down, flavorless, version of the prior edition, stripping out mechanics, options, and soul. There are some good ideas here and there, but the thing as a whole grabs me not.


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 2, 2008)

I'm sorta baffled by the assertion that 3.x was "rules for everything" and 4E is not. "Exception-based design" means precisely "everything is its own rule".

-The Gneech


----------



## Crosswind (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You also have the problem of "You can't do that, there's no rules for it!", which is a common response.




That's sort of the counterpart to "I have to be able to do it, there's a rule for it!", isn't it?  The sentence you quoted leaves the power in the hands of the DM.  The sentence I quoted leaves the power in the hands of the player.  

The reason I, personally, prefer the latter system is because, in my experience, good DMs are those who like to say "Yes." to their players, and let them try things.  And there are a -lot- of players who like to try to find odd rules and exploit them - 3E supports this.  For a lot of DMs, it's tough to say "No.  The rule says you can have it, but in my game, you can't.".  This leads to arguments, ill-will, etc.  Making sure that all rules in the game are balanced, and letting DMs fiat the other ones helps solve this problem.

But the difference between "You can't do that, it's not in the rules!" and "I have to be able to do this, it's in the rules!" ...well, those are the bad sides of 4E, and 3E, respectively.  There's certainly room for people who prefer each.

I tend to agree with you on what the flavor of D&D is, but I've never really taken anything but mechanics from the PHB.  So I wouldn't say that 4E is going to deprive my campaign of any flavor.  Your objections are, however, perfectly reasonable.

-Cross


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 2, 2008)

I made a pretty nasty comment in another thread on this guy based on a simlar blogpost...and I really should not do it again...but has he _played_ 1st or 3rd edition!!?!

Ok, I'll stop there. 



			
				Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I ran my first 4e game last night. My overall impression? It felt more or less like running other versions of D&D. Sure, how you determine which bonus to add to the roll might be a little different in cases, but it's more or less the same game from a DM's point of view. I should note that perhaps I was doing a lot more of the improv and on-the-spot rules decisions in 3e than some people were, and 4e seems designed to make that easier, but I honestly can't say that it's "not D&D."
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




You should start another thread. People want to know.


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 2, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> You should start another thread. People want to know.




I probably should, yeah. I think I'll wait until session #2, however, because I want to shake it out a little more before I expand on my initial impression.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 2, 2008)

Like Sean, I'd just like to set a few things straight.

First, the post many of you are quoting is actually the third in a series of posts. The first  was made while I was playing the "Raiders of Oakherst" scenario, and concluded with "The final verdict? None of us are convinced that we want to play 4th Edition D&D; we need to see more before we can decide. But it's late, and I need to sleep on this before I can emphatically say I liked it or not."

I posted again  the next day, saying the jury was still out. A week later, it finally dawned on me what was bugging me, which prompted the "It doesn't feel like D&D" post . Now, although I think I've clarified over and over on my own blog, it doesn't feel like D&D *to me*. If it feels like D&D to you, great. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be happy to find out I'm wrong. As a freelancer, it's in my best interests to play a lot of 4th Edition D&D; I'd like to enjoy the experience. But, with the minimal information I have on the game so far, it doesn't look like I will. You might, and that's cool. Why? Because it really is a good game? Not necessarily. More likely, you might enjoy it more than I do because we're different people, with different likes and different expectations and goals.

Do I think that you shouldn't commit to playing 4th Edition D&D? Well, yes, but not because I think the game sucks (which I don't), but because I think that everyone should make an informed decision before making a purchase of over $100. And if I have a problem with Wizards of the Coast over 4th Edition, it's that they are not giving us enough information to make informed decisions. We're getting *opinions* of people who have seen just a slice of the game (at the D&D Experience, at best, or, like me, from the fan-written "Raiders of Oakherst" and 4E PHB Lite). Most people who have seen it think it's a great game, but that doesn't make it true. If my opinion can be wrong, so can theirs. I don't think I owe anyone an apology for having a dissenting opinion, but, if it turns out that I enjoy 4th Edition more than 3.5, then I'll happily admit that I was wrong.

Really, though, I think that Wizards could do themselves a world of good by releasing more information, officially, on their own website, that explains, in detail, how more (not all) of the game works. Right now, they're just showcasing the stuff which addresses concerns that people had with 3.X (and, by extension, previous editions), but that really only serves to convert the people who weren't happy with 3.X. To sell 4E in the face of alternate efforts like the Pathfinder RPG (which may not appeal to you, but may appeal to people who want to play D&D without tossing out their previous $100-plus investments), then Wizards should be doing more to speak to the people who *don't* have a problem with 3.X. (For the record, I have plenty of problems with 3.5, and there are things in 4E that I think fix them elegantly. But I think they can also be fixed within the context of the 3.5 rules.)

And by "doing more," I don't mean hiding snippets of the rules on the Internet, or giving them out only to specific interviewers, or giving each member of the design team one thing they can reveal about the game. That kind of marketing may appeal to some people--but others, like me, find it annoying. I didn't go out of my way to pursue clues about _Lost_, _Heroes_, or _Cloverfield_, because, while I find such bits clever, I'm not looking for a mystery metagame; I'm looking for confirmed facts. (Which is why I read ENWorld's 4th Edition news more than I read Wizards' own web page on 4E; Wizards gives hints, ENWorld finds corroboration.)

As for the throwing salt thing, that was just an example; I'm not trying to replicate that in 4th Edition. In fact, I haven't tried to replicate it since 1st Edition. I don't even recall how my DM adjudicated it back in 1982, except that I made an attack roll, and sometimes my opponent was blinded, losing his action for a round. And I didn't use the salt trick all the time because salt in the eyes wasn't going to kill an orc; all it did was buy me a round when the orc didn't get to attack me. None of the other players bothered with it, because they were more effective than my character (a 1st Edition monk, remember) was at fighting. In fact, I started using that trick--and several others, when appropriate--because monks were so weak under those rules. Do I want to play 1st Edition rules again? I have the rulebooks still, but I don't like the rules. What I liked was the sense of discovering new things, and using my imagination to deal with them. Playing a monk probably forced me to think more "outside the box" than others in my own group--and I had an excellent DM, who was able to make good rulings on the fly and remember them later ... and retcon the rules if he later decided they didn't work a well as he wanted.

I'll be the first to agree that, while I'm entitled to an opinion, I shouldn't go out of my way to condemn 4th Edition--especially based on a fan-written adventure--which is why I went to such lengths to remind everyone that not only were these only opinions, but that I *want* to see more of the rules before I make a final determination. I'm not condemning 4th Edition, and I think you have to try pretty hard to come to the conclusion that I am. I'm just saying that I don't yet see what makes 4E indisputably superior to 3.5. Feel free to prove to me that it *is* superior to 3.5, but, remember, opinions are not arguments, so, really, the only way to prove it to me is to show me the 4E rules--which, by the same token, is the only way I can prove to you that 4E is inferior to 3.5. That is to say: Neither of us can prove *at this time* that our respective perceptions are accurate.

Have I covered it all? No--two last things. One, I consider myself a hack RPG designer. I'm not a design genius. If you like my ideas, fine. If you don't, that's fine, too. At best, I can say about any given ruleset "I wouldn't have done it that way." But I do find it interesting that at least one of the things I proposed back in 1999 (which Jonathan Tweet rejected) found its way into 4E, in one form or another. (I suggested that turning undead should only work on one undead creature at a time, and that it should deal some kind of damage--fairly close to the 4E version on the Erais character sheet.)

And as for vitality points in _Star Wars_? Not my idea. Andy Collins came up with that, and, though we brainstormed some ideas for how they should work, the original idea was Andy's.

Finally, let me just state for the record: I *want* to like 4th Edition. And there *are* things about it I like. But I can't make a final decision until I see the whole thing--and I want Wizards to do a bit more to convince me (and the rest of the audience) that we *need* a new game, when the old one, despite its faults, runs fine.

JD Wiker
Feel free to come argue with me at jediwiker.livejournal.com


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> (You also also have the problem, as some have noted, of having some actions be 'easier' because there's no explicit rules, even when they should be harder. If 'trip' is a per-encounter exploit available only to trained fighters, then "swinging on the chandelier and kicking the thug into the fireplace while yelling 'What ho!'" ought to be a high level daily power, at best -- but the 4e rules paradigm seems to make it an at-will 'roll vs reflex defense' which any shlub can attempt, simply because there's no explicit rule FOR it, if you follow me.)




How many times per day do your games tend to feature a chandelier, fireplace, and thug positioned just so?



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> In other words, complex stunts not covered by the rules become EASIER than simple actions which ARE covered -- and which are balanced properly.




Seems doubtful, for a couple of reasons: complex stunts use the exact same mechanics (X attack vs. Y defense) as simple ones, but they're _complex_. They're generally only possible if the situation's been set up to make them possible anyway - in other words, the DM put that thug, chandelier, and fireplace there _specifically so that shoving his sorry butt in the oven was a possibility_.

Meanwhile _simple_ actions not covered by the rules are likely to be strictly worse than their counterpart powers. Speculation: The trip power you refer to earlier is likely to deal damage as well as knocking someone prone, just as Tide of Iron inflicts damage as well as pushing someone back. Your basic, untrained, knock-someone-on-his-ass attempt could be pretty easily resolved as a Str-vs-Ref or Str-vs-Fort, and it still won't be as good as the per-encounter, trained-only power. (You still have the possibility that it's too good because knocking someone prone is too good - I hope that they give us some good guidelines on the relative potency of various status effects and roughly how to penalize attempts to inflict them).



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Depends on what you mean by 'classic'. If you mean, in terms of rule structure, no. But I never liked the actual D&D *rules* until third edition. I liked the *feel* of D&D -- a huge world of ancient magic, countless races, characters who rose from being pathetic losers to god-slaying heroes, and a sense of scale and scope no other system really had. (I mean, come on -- the abyss had 666 *infinite* layers! There was a para-elemental plane of Ooze!)
> 
> Fourth edition feels bland, constrained, and mechanistic to me. It looks and feels like something designed by committee and controlled by marketing. To that extent, it reminds me of 2e -- a watered down, flavorless, version of the prior edition, stripping out mechanics, options, and soul. There are some good ideas here and there, but the thing as a whole grabs me not.




I'm not seeing the constraints. I'm not seeing designed by committee or controlled by marketing (well, the _flow of information_ definitely seems to be controlled by marketing, but that's at least part of what marketing is _about_). I'm not even seeing the stripping out of mechanics.

The thing as a whole is precisely what grabs me, though I confess I'm filling in a lot of the blanks myself at this point.

I know some people will look at that last sentence and say that I shouldn't be praising what I haven't seen of the rules. They're wrong. It's precisely because so many of the blanks are so easy to fill in that I can be reasonably certain of having a fun game even if the game designers decide not to do that work for me in every case (or even if they get it wrong in some cases).


----------



## Lizard (Apr 2, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> How many times per day do your games tend to feature a chandelier, fireplace, and thug positioned just so?




As often as the players ask if there is one and I think it's a good idea. 



> Meanwhile _simple_ actions not covered by the rules are likely to be strictly worse than their counterpart powers. Speculation: The trip power you refer to earlier is likely to deal damage as well as knocking someone prone, just as Tide of Iron inflicts damage as well as pushing someone back. Your basic, untrained, knock-someone-on-his-ass attempt could be pretty easily resolved as a Str-vs-Ref or Str-vs-Fort, and it still won't be as good as the per-encounter, trained-only power. (You still have the possibility that it's too good because knocking someone prone is too good - I hope that they give us some good guidelines on the relative potency of various status effects and roughly how to penalize attempts to inflict them).




And these 'guidelines' differ from 'rules' how, other than by being vague?

Personally, I think "Let players do things with a simple check provided what they do is less effective than anything for which there are actual rules for" to be REALLY bad design, and I strongly doubt that's how the game will actually be written. 

I just see a lot of confusion. Either "non rules actions" are always inferior to "rules actions", in which case, hardly anyone will use them, or they're a badly exploitable loophole ("Why waste a pick on 'Trip' when I can just make an attack vs. reflex?")

I keep telling myself we've seen only a dozen or so pages of rules out of 600+. There's got to be a lot more real crunch in those books than we're seeing.


----------



## Zeborah (Apr 2, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> The big question with such freeform stunts have always been: What happens when they get close to the _defined_ stunts, who may be restricted in some way: require purchase, have limits on usage, etc. *Do you suddenly prohibit that particular freeform stunt because it duplicates something you otherwise have to pay for?* In the above example, the table kick is awfully close to doing a Trip, which you (A) have to buy as a power, and (B) is limited to once per encounter.
> 
> And what happens when new splatbooks come out with new Powers? Will those further restrict the freeform stunts availabe to you?




My answer is almost always no. A situation-specific freeform stunt can always be attempted, regardless of whether something similar is covered elsewhere in the rules. When you're playing in a rules-heavy system, everything's going to be covered somewhere eventually.

Now, if a player wants to invent a new, recurring schtick for their character? I'm in favor of that, so I like to give it mechanical support. In D&D 3.5, the usual solution was a new feat or magic item. In 4e, it looks like it may well be a custom power.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 2, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Really, though, I think that Wizards could do themselves a world of good by releasing more information, officially, on their own website, that explains, in detail, how more (not all) of the game works.




QFTMT


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Personally, I think "Let players do things with a simple check provided what they do is less effective than anything for which there are actual rules for" to be REALLY bad design, and I strongly doubt that's how the game will actually be written.




Sure. They just need to not be strictly better than attacking, and conditions which are more debilitating than others should be comparably more difficult to inflict. Using salt in the eyes to inflict the blinded condition is a lot more potent than having it just grant combat advantage.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I just see a lot of confusion. Either "non rules actions" are always inferior to "rules actions", in which case, hardly anyone will use them, or they're a badly exploitable loophole ("Why waste a pick on 'Trip' when I can just make an attack vs. reflex?")




I'm not sure why you think this is an intractible problem.

You can take a power that's better than the default attack vs. reflex (because it deals damage as well as inflicing X upon your enemy), or you can take a different power, that does a different thing and fall back on the attack vs. reflex when the specific situation makes knocking something prone particularly effective (like getting to knock two guys prone with one action because they're both standing on the same table that you're kicking over, or when you're trying to demonstrate your superiority over a character that you vastly outmatch without necessarily hurting them).

The "non rules action" only has to compete with the powers your character actually knows; it can be situationally useful even if it's strictly less good than the "rules action" that requires you to have picked power X and have it available.

Likewise, tripping/bullrushing/grappling is sometimes a good idea in 3E even if you don't have the Improved Whatever feat. In fact, a damaging trip power is quite comparable to the Improved Trip feat (which gives you a free attack against a now-prone opponent if you successfully trip). In either case, you're only going to use one with significant frequency if you spent some character-building currency on making yourself good at it.

The currency seems to have changed, the subsystems unified, and the status effects rebalanced, but there's no reason that all the same _concepts_ can't be kept.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I keep telling myself we've seen only a dozen or so pages of rules out of 600+. There's got to be a lot more real crunch in those books than we're seeing.




Exactly.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 2, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> In other words, complex stunts not covered by the rules become EASIER than simple actions which ARE covered -- and which are balanced properly.




Wow.  This is a really good point.  Hmmm.


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Why not give players and DMs the option of starting characters out at a lower level if they want a more gritty experience or starting characters out at 3rd or 4th level if they want something more powerful?




You can always start with half hit points if you want to nerf yourself. This is exactly the same as starting at 3rd level in 3E if you want to buff yourself. The only thing that has changed is the baseline, and the baseline is important for people new to the game.



> How can providing options not be a Good Thing?




Is this a trick question?


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Pretty accurate. I find it easier to ignore rules than to add them,




This preoccupation with paying for rules that you don't use, it is a strange thing. Perhaps it is a commentary on modern capitalist service economies.



> and I like games with 'dials' or 'settings' so that a single ruleset can emulate more genres/styles of play.




The HEROization of D&D is dead.




> Or you have a system which breaks in actual play because the interactions of multiple systems produce more edge cases than the 'simple' rules accomodate. You also have the problem of "You can't do that, there's no rules for it!", which is a common response.




This is only a common response when 1) the underlying framework is too complicated to handle easy improvisation; 2) the zeitgeist is such that a rule is expected for everything. 1) is changeable; 2) is under your control.



> (You also also have the problem, as some have noted, of having some actions be 'easier' because there's no explicit rules, even when they should be harder. If 'trip' is a per-encounter exploit available only to trained fighters, then "swinging on the chandelier and kicking the thug into the fireplace while yelling 'What ho!'" ought to be a high level daily power, at best




Prove it.



> Depends on what you mean by 'classic'. If you mean, in terms of rule structure, no. But I never liked the actual D&D *rules* until third edition.




Oh well.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The HEROization of D&D is dead.




  And despite my respect for the HERO System, I'm not upset, because 3E never got two of the factors that I think make HERO work--the transparency in mechanics (HERO shows you how to build everything and how much it 'costs', whereas 3E never got more specific or accurate than guesstimating spell levels and Challenge Ratings) and the modularity of most character elements (in HERO, you could swap out a design element without having to recalculate too many dependent factors. Add or subtract a Hit Die or level, or change a stat in D&D, and the effects start cascading rapidly).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 3, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Why not give players and DMs the option of starting characters out at a lower level if they want a more gritty experience or starting characters out at 3rd or 4th level if they want something more powerful?
> 
> How can providing options not be a Good Thing?



Providing options that are bad for you isn't a "Good Thing". 
It is a "Rules Mastery" thing that they tried in 3E.
Some feats are intentionally bad. Why take (3.0) Skill Focus for Spot or Listen if you could have Alertness? Why take Alertness, if you could have Improved Initiative or Power Attack, or Weapon Focus, or Empower Spell?
Some classes are very hard to play effective (and maybe can't be played effectively at all). Bard, Monk. Some of them even look very different on paper then they do in play. (from "Monks are overpowered!" to "Flurry of Misses") 

1st Level play is not very similar to high level play. I can see that changing the game experience can be positive, but giving you a experience that has a good chance of disappointing you when you haven't got any "Rules Mastery" is a bad idea.


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

Providing options also runs into the issues of 1) production time and 2) page count. More options ---> more manhours ---> higher production costs ---> higher price for the consumer. That one is minor, though, compare to page count.

Since the page count affects the price of the product, you could have a 500 page PHB filled with options but it would be expensive, maybe not worth the extra price.

Another reason why more options can be bad: Steep learning curve. There are many people here who seem to love to get to know rules, finding combinations, adjusting bonuses and watch the effects on the system unfold. For them, a complex system is a boon, a large play ground. Other people, though, want to get on with the play or they want tactically interesting options without complexity. A prime example: Chess. The rules of chess are very simple, yet the game offers up loads of possibility for tactics.

And the final reason I can think of: More options mean more to balance against all other options. I remember when I first got Starcraft. I was used to Command & Conquer and other RTS-games where there were loads of units. Then I saw Starcraft and I was disappointed that there were so few units per faction. Then I realized that in Command & Conquer, all you needed to do was to build mammoth tanks. Other units weren't required. In Starcraft, all units are usable during the entire game. The zealot is the first unit you can build but they never get obselete by design.
Now a days, I much rather have few powers that are well thought out and adjusted against the other powers in the game than loads of powers where a few of them come out as plain superior to the rest. It creates an illusion of choice which is really quite limited.

Just my POV of when more choice can be bad. Of course, more choice can be good too


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 3, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> "my monk, Bannor




…What a rip!

I am always suspicious when players blatantly plagiarize a fantasy name for their character.

"No, you cannot call your dude Elric…"


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This preoccupation with paying for rules that you don't use, it is a strange thing. Perhaps it is a commentary on modern capitalist service economies.




Partly. It's the trade off between time and money. Same reason some of us buy modules, use about half of it, and modify some of the rest. The designers are getting paid for their time designing an adventure or rule set but I'm not. I'd rather contribute to that payment, even if I get more than I want, to save me unpaid time, that then must compete with family time, sleep, and so on. Cutting out a rule I don't want to use is generally faster and easier than coming up with and balancing a new one.


----------



## Ipissimus (Apr 3, 2008)

Hat's off, JD, I know where you're coming from.

I'm in 100% agreement that Wizards should be releasing more details. Holding important things this close to their chest this close to the deadline, particularly now that the books are going to print, seems a bit silly.

However, on capturing the feel of oDnD I'm not sure that's something that really has anything to do with the core rules, since it depends greatly on your DM. See, I was the victim of a pessimistic DM for a long time. By a pessimistic DM, I mean a DM that lets you use your imagination to do cool things (e.g. encase a dragon's head in a wall of ice) but they always, 100% of the time, go wrong and wind up harming the party in a spectacular fashion. The problem? It's a valid playstyle. Not every cool, imaginative, idea you have is a good idea.

It took me a long time to realize what was wrong with that way of DMing, though I knew I disliked it. Then, while I was DMing, I started DMing for new players and their expectations revealed the answer. Invarably, every newbie I've played with has this 'cool idea' moment. Their hero leaps off a wall, does a backflip, and stabs the bad guy in the eye. Ok, roll to hit... oh, you got a two, that's a miss, next player. Every single time, the light of creativity flickering in their eyes DIES. That was the worst thing in DMing 1E, 2E for me.

When I started seeing this happening, I wanted ways to deliver the reward such creativity and encourage it rather than kill it with failure. Feats did that a little in 3E, Action Points did it more and what I've seen of 4E action points and Powers does it even better, since they're a renewable resource. And I can balance player creativity with a suitable cost for the innovation while each character comes with in-built cool stuff to do every day.

I feel that with Action Points and Powers that renew, I am more empowered as a DM to adjudicate creative actions that aren't covered by the book by having the players pay the price in Action Points and the expenditure of Powers in their place, a limiting factor that does not nerf the player significantly. I can finally encourage player creativity fairly in relation to the other players.

My point is that everything I've said above is just me eyeballing what little of the rules we know and applying a bit of DM creativity to find a fair and balanced method of dealing with actions outside the rules. It has nothing to do with the rules, it's my own way of solving the problem.

Similarly, capturaing that old school feel of 1E and 2E adventures I think has more to do with the adventures that have been published than the rules. I miss rolling on a random table to find out just what the statue I just touched is going to do to me. I miss the wierdness of the unknown. I miss the fluid and changing circumstances of wholisticly designed dungeons rather than fixed encounters in a fixed space expressly detailed in two different places in the book that I have to flip between so I know what's going on. I miss the detailed descriptions of the monsters that inhabit a room and what they're preoccupied with at the moment rather than the generally bland description that they give in the grey boxes these days. Oh, or the maps all scattered through the book even if they're in the same dungeon, who thought that was a good idea?

But that's an adventure design and philosophy issue, not a rule issue. Hopefully, the 4E exp system will help me throw appropriate encounters against my players, not too easy and just hard enough not to TPK 99.9% of the time. But fixed encounters the way they're presenting them in the last few 3.5E adventures? Yuck! I much prefer a more organic environment like old Temple of Elemental Evil adventure, that was a blast.

Anyway, just my 10c.


----------



## malraux (Apr 3, 2008)

To me, the place for lots of rules that take the system mastery approach and/or expand beyond the core of the base rules (ie stuff like 0-level characters, extra grittiness, etc.) is an Unearthed Arcana book.  That really should be the place to open up all sorts of rule variants.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> It took me a long time to realize what was wrong with that way of DMing, though I knew I disliked it. Then, while I was DMing, I started DMing for new players and their expectations revealed the answer. Invarably, every newbie I've played with has this 'cool idea' moment. Their hero leaps off a wall, does a backflip, and stabs the bad guy in the eye. Ok, roll to hit... oh, you got a two, that's a miss, next player. Every single time, the light of creativity flickering in their eyes DIES. That was the worst thing in DMing 1E, 2E for me.
> 
> When I started seeing this happening, I wanted ways to deliver the reward such creativity and encourage it rather than kill it with failure. Feats did that a little in 3E, Action Points did it more and what I've seen of 4E action points and Powers does it even better, since they're a renewable resource. And I can balance player creativity with a suitable cost for the innovation while each character comes with in-built cool stuff to do every day.




I'm not really seeing how 4E action points and powers remove the possibility of failure. Unless you're going to hand wave the die roll because of cool narration or the interesting idea, you still have to face the non-zero probability that the manuever will still fail. And given the scaling defenses along with attack bonuses of 4e, presumably fail pretty often against level appropriate encounters.

So my question to you is: is it really failure of the maneuver to achieve a "hit" that's the problem, failing to come up with a reasonable method of adjudicating the maneuver, or failure to describe how even a failure to hit can nevertheless come from a cool move and make for an interesting encounter?


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 3, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> It took me a long time to realize what was wrong with that way of DMing, though I knew I disliked it. Then, while I was DMing, I started DMing for new players and their expectations revealed the answer. Invarably, every newbie I've played with has this 'cool idea' moment. Their hero leaps off a wall, does a backflip, and stabs the bad guy in the eye. Ok, roll to hit... oh, you got a two, that's a miss, next player. Every single time, the light of creativity flickering in their eyes DIES. That was the worst thing in DMing 1E, 2E for me.




This post actually inspired me to discuss the idea of competence, heroics, and heroic competence on my blog today.



> Similarly, capturaing that old school feel of 1E and 2E adventures I think has more to do with the adventures that have been published than the rules.




Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that the lack of D&D "feel" to what I've seen of 4E actually lies in the subsystems and naming conventions. Again, I'm talking about how it feels to ME--your mileage may vary:


"Once per encounter" powers feel like TCG mechanics (I believe the notion of "power cards" that can be tapped to show when they've been exhausted has been discussed somewhere here on ENWorld, in fact)
The naming conventions of the powers feel like an MMORPG
The naming conventions of the monsters ("kobold skirmisher," "hobgoblin warcaster," "deathjump spider," etc.) feels like Wizards' minis games to me

So, in essence, the more of a TCG, MMO, or CMG feel the game has, the less of a D&D feel it's likely to have. Now, it's arguable that the feel is in the adventure, or the DM, or the players, or whatever--but I well remember playtesters complaining that d20 _Star Wars_ felt like "D&D in space" because it used D&D rules mechanics, so at least some of that "look and feel" issue is in the mechanics. For that matter, if I tried to design a new version of, say, the _Warhammer FRP_, and I used playing cards instead of dice (a la _Deadlands_), had the spells work like _Magic: the Gathering_, and renamed all of the careers to "Blaster," "Controller," "Tanker," "Scrapper," and "Defender," (as in _City of Heroes_), *even if all of those changes made it a better game in the long run*, there would be at least a few people out there who would say "It doesn't seem like _Warhammer_ anymore."

4th Edition may be the best edition of D&D yet, but I, personally, find the derivative features a bit off-putting. When I sit down to play D&D, I don't _want_ to be reminded of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs, because those aren't D&D to me any more than _Rainbow Six: Vegas_ is.

JD

[EDITED TO FIX SOME TYPOS]


----------



## Puggins (Apr 3, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> "Once per encounter" powers feel like TCG mechanics (I believe the notion of "power cards" that can be tapped to show when they've been exhausted has been discussed somewhere here on ENWorld, in fact)



How is this different from the Barbarian's Rage description in 3e?  He fatigued "until the end of the current combat."  There is no practical differentiation.  Similarly, every spell-like ability in the game was 1/day, 3/day, so on and so forth.  Since "day" rather than "encounter" was the metric used in most of 3e, we once again have no real difference.



> The naming conventions of the powers feel like an MMORPG
> The naming conventions of the monsters ("kobold skirmisher," "hobgoblin warcaster," "deathjump spider," etc.) feels like Wizards' minis games to me



Of course, 1e had its own particular naming quirks.  "The Quivering Palm," "Enervating Touch," "Evard's Black Tentacles" and "Mordenkainen's Disjunction" are all perfectly valid CCG names.  They just happen to be names that you're used to, rather than fairly new names like "warcaster."  Reverse the order that you encounter them (the deathjumper was in the 1e MM), and I suspect you'd think that Blink Dogs, Umber Hulks and Displacer Beasts are a tad too videogamey.


----------



## drjones (Apr 3, 2008)

Having not DMd since 2nd edition the only things that did not feel like dnd when I ran oakhurst for some buddies were:

1. The art.  Some of it has grown on me but other bits are too far from what I am expecting.  I have played DDM for a while and used to read Dungeon so I was pretty used to the old (but recent) style.  Fortunately this has little impact on what anyone at the table is imagining while we play.

2. Knowing what to do.  It might be the simplicity of the rules we have available at the moment but I did not feel the same sense of 'You are the DM, you fill in all the blanks' that kinda paralyzed me as a kid.  It's hard to describe, it just seemed easier to make fun stuff happen without a lot of looking stuff up.

3. It seemed possible to get my girl playing.  Not super likely, but about 1000% more possible that with the older rulesets I played.  She is much more on board with 'you are playing a choose your own adventure but the book is a million pages long' vs. 'you are doing a math quiz that you never got a chance to study for'

But mebbe when I have a bunch of books and such I will feel differently about it.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> Of course, 1e had its own particular naming quirks.  "The Quivering Palm," "Enervating Touch," "Evard's Black Tentacles" and "Mordenkainen's Disjunction" are all perfectly valid CCG names.  They just happen to be names that you're used to, rather than fairly new names like "warcaster."  Reverse the order that you encounter them (the deathjumper was in the 1e MM), and I suspect you'd think that Blink Dogs, Umber Hulks and Displacer Beasts are a tad too videogamey.




Yes, they're also relatively descriptive names too. Contrast Evard's Black Tentacles (which summons black tentacles) with "On Pain of Death", "Tide of Iron", "Fox's Cunning", and "Curse of the Dark Dream". Granted, there's some learning curve when it comes to names and sometimes the language can be challenging, but the sample characters had powers ranging in descriptiveness from "Ray of Frost" to the ones listed above. Clearly, some are more descriptive than others and are far more suggestive of their powers than others. Tide of Iron and Curse of the Dark Dream probably come closest to suggesting what they do of the 4 I listed but they're not as suggestive as Enervating Touch or, in 4e, Holy Strike and Shielding Smite.


----------



## med stud (Apr 3, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Yes, they're also relatively descriptive names too. Contrast Evard's Black Tentacles (which summons black tentacles) with "On Pain of Death", "Tide of Iron", "Fox's Cunning", and "Curse of the Dark Dream". Granted, there's some learning curve when it comes to names and sometimes the language can be challenging, but the sample characters had powers ranging in descriptiveness from "Ray of Frost" to the ones listed above. Clearly, some are more descriptive than others and are far more suggestive of their powers than others. Tide of Iron and Curse of the Dark Dream probably come closest to suggesting what they do of the 4 I listed but they're not as suggestive as Enervating Touch or, in 4e, Holy Strike and Shielding Smite.



Well, to be fair, Evard's Black Tentacles doesn't say more about the spells than that it deals with tentacles, and the tentacles are black. Quivering Palm really doesn't suggest anything about what it does, especially if you aren't into kung fu- movies.

I liked many of the old spell names, I like the new ones but from a practical POV, none of them really give away what the spell does in the game. Even fireball doesn't say much; it is a ball of fire, that much is clear from the name, but no more than that..


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 3, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Yes, they're also relatively descriptive names too. Contrast Evard's Black Tentacles (which summons black tentacles) with "On Pain of Death", "Tide of Iron", "Fox's Cunning", and "Curse of the Dark Dream". Granted, there's some learning curve when it comes to names and sometimes the language can be challenging, but the sample characters had powers ranging in descriptiveness from "Ray of Frost" to the ones listed above. Clearly, some are more descriptive than others and are far more suggestive of their powers than others. Tide of Iron and Curse of the Dark Dream probably come closest to suggesting what they do of the 4 I listed but they're not as suggestive as Enervating Touch or, in 4e, Holy Strike and Shielding Smite.




I'm not sure Enervating Touch or Black Tentacles are all that useful as far as names go. Does the touch make people tired? What do the tentacles do if there are no Japanese schoolchildren in range?


----------



## Puggins (Apr 3, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Yes, they're also relatively descriptive names too.




... as opposed to Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, Tongue of the Sun and Moon,  Indomitable Will, A Thousand Faces, Mordenkainen's Lugubrious Lucubration, Eyebite, Entropic Shield, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, Sepia Snake Sigil, Storm of Vengeance, Simbul's Spell Matrix, Simbul's synostodweomer...

I could keep going all day.

Familiarty with these odd names and phrases and the correspondent unfamiliarity with the 4e terms is probably one reason why Synostodweomer (!?!) is old school, but Tide of Iron doesn't feel like D&D.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 3, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> How is this different from the Barbarian's Rage description in 3e?  He fatigued "until the end of the current combat."  There is no practical differentiation.  Similarly, every spell-like ability in the game was 1/day, 3/day, so on and so forth.  Since "day" rather than "encounter" was the metric used in most of 3e, we once again have no real difference.




A duration of "until end of encounter" and a "cooldown" of "at end of encounter" are very different mechanics. The former provides you with its benefit for the duration; the latter is a benefit that applies once, then can't be used again until you've "untapped," to borrow a CCG term.

And spell-like abilities are more common for monsters than PCs, making them really "1/lifetime," "3/lifetime," etc. The DM uses the power and marks it off, and, in most cases, doesn't need to worry about when the monster can use it again. Not that I'm defending that mechanic, mind you; it's fairly pointless. I just don't believe that the only workable solution is a mechanic that effectively says "You can't use this power again until you've had your next 'coffee break.'"



> Of course, 1e had its own particular naming quirks.  "The Quivering Palm," "Enervating Touch," "Evard's Black Tentacles" and "Mordenkainen's Disjunction" are all perfectly valid CCG names.  They just happen to be names that you're used to, rather than fairly new names like "warcaster."  Reverse the order that you encounter them (the deathjumper was in the 1e MM), and I suspect you'd think that Blink Dogs, Umber Hulks and Displacer Beasts are a tad too videogamey.




I'm not so used to those names that I can't live without them. But my point is that the *conventions* of the names I've seen are a bit too reminiscent of the D&D Miniatures Game, which suggests (to me, anyway) that the similarity is *intended* to bring the look and feel of D&D and the D&D CMG closer together, thematically. Again, _in my opinion_, an off-putting design decision.

JD


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Partly. It's the trade off between time and money. Same reason some of us buy modules, use about half of it, and modify some of the rest. The designers are getting paid for their time designing an adventure or rule set but I'm not. I'd rather contribute to that payment, even if I get more than I want, to save me unpaid time, that then must compete with family time, sleep, and so on. Cutting out a rule I don't want to use is generally faster and easier than coming up with and balancing a new one.




That is the most common collector's rationalisation, yes.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> I'm not so used to those names that I can't live without them. But my point is that the *conventions* of the names I've seen are a bit too reminiscent of the D&D Miniatures Game, which suggests (to me, anyway) that the similarity is *intended* to bring the look and feel of D&D and the D&D CMG closer together, thematically. Again, _in my opinion_, an off-putting design decision.




Hmm. I don't see it that way. I do think that the CMG and new D&D names are very similar - I agree with you there - but I don't think the design decision was "let's make them closer".

Rather, I think this change is due to a fundamental change in how we approach D&D, and it's actually something that really began in 3e, not 4e. We just (mostly) hid it until now.

If you were to ask me during my AD&D playing days what my character was, I'd reply "a human magic-user". Now, we already see the genesis of the 4e monster naming scheme: I have a race and a class. The big difference between AD&D and 3e/4e is that if you asked me what I was fighting, I would have replied with "an ogre" or "an orc". 

The big change of 3e was to give monsters class levels.

When you do this, it is no longer enough to say, "it's an ogre". You need to describe it further... thus: "an Ogre Rogue" or "an Ogre Scout". We're almost at the 4e naming system already.

However, we're also at the heart of one of the major problems with 3e: Preparation time for NPCs. Over and over I have heard complaints about how time-consuming it is to make high level NPCs. The expanded power of the system is great, but, oh, the complexity! (Not only that, the calculation of CR got more and more inaccurate). Towards the end of 3.5e, Wizards experimented with giving premade Monster/Class combinations in various books. For the most part they weren't well received ("we can do this ourselves!") although there were some that were appreciative. What were better received were the unusual combinations and those cases where new special abilities were granted to the monsters... things that lay outside the strict race/class combinations.

With 4e, this idea of giving different versions of common monsters - basically race/class combos, but without the strict rules for creation that could be such a pain in 3e - will be there from the start of the Monster Manual. However, there is a problem. What do we call them?

AD&D (and before) had shown the way - Race/Class. However, these creatures were no longer strictly belonging to a "class" in the way that it was understood in 3e. There's no predefined name - so the name that was chosen was one descriptive of what they do. Kobold Skirmisher (4e) and Kobold Scout (3e) are essentially the same naming convention.

Jumping back a bit to the beginning of 3.5e, this was also the time that D&D Miniatures was released. The first set (Harbinger) had a bunch of minis straight out of the monster manual - Displacer Beast; Ogre, and so forth. However, it also had five different orcs. One of the requirements of any collectable game is to be able to distinguish between the figures. You couldn't call them all "Orc". To make things worse, four of the orcs were basically fighters. Orc Fighter 1, Orc Fighter 2, Orc Fighter 3? Nah, hardly the most inspiring of names.

So, you go descriptive. Orc Warrior. Orc Spearfighter. Orc Archer. Orc Berserker. As the game goes on, you create another Ogre. Ogre Ravager... that's a descriptive term. It's also evocative, which is important. (Human Magic-User isn't really that evocative... Human Enchanter? Much more so).

D&D 4e seems to be copying DDM because it had to deal with the naming convention problem before D&D did. But really, the naming convention dates from the early days of D&D... just now upscaled to more than just humans and demihumans.

As for the Deathjump Spider...

I live in Australia. Being an Australian, I have a certain familiarity with the names of various poisonous creatures. Here's the thing: if you get bitten by a spider, you really need to know what _type_ of spider it was so that you can be injected with the correct antivenin. They're not all called "spider". No, in this wonderful world we have Trap-Door Spiders, Black Widow Spiders, Sydney Funnel-Web Spiders, Redbacks, Huntsmen, Jumping Spiders...

Hmm: they're descriptive names. Some of how they appear, some of what they do.

One of my most hated things about D&D is when a monster is named a bunch of random syllables. I know what a Mind Flayer or an Ochre Jelly or a Displacer Beast is. Illithid? I have trouble pronouncing it! There are invented names that work, but for every one that works there are dozens that don't. (Flumph and Cifal come to mind; I'm trying to think of a 3e one that doesn't work, but they've escaped my mind at present... not memorable enough!)

For monsters that resemble other monsters - or more particularly real-life animals - I prefer that the name stay somewhat easy to remember. It's a spider! What type? "Deathjump". 

Now, the actual form of "Deathjump" may be too anime/CMG/MMORPG for some people, and I sympathize with that, but at least it's descriptive and of more import than being attacked by a Moragon would have (Moragon being a word I've just made up. Probably).

Of course, you can get used to any word if you use it enough, but for most D&D monsters, they'll only really ever be seen once... and not for very long!

This doesn't change the fact that some people - like JD - will feel that the game is less "D&D" as a result, but it might at least provide some context for why the naming conventions have changed... even if they haven't that much!

Cheers!


----------



## smetzger (Apr 4, 2008)

Actually I think the obfuscation of the names is so that its much more difficult for a 3d party to create a compatible product without playing by WOTCs rule.


----------



## Think0028 (Apr 4, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Actually I think the obfuscation of the names is so that its much more difficult for a 3d party to create a compatible product without playing by WOTCs rule.




Piping in real quick:

What in the world are you talking about?! How could that possibly affect third parties? Can they mystically be completely unable to use kobolds in their adventure because they don't know what skirmisher means? Are they completely incapable of writing a new adventure but not new monsters with different names? Do the new names have a mystical Magic Circle against Third Parties?


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> but I well remember playtesters complaining that d20 _Star Wars_ felt like "D&D in space" because it used D&D rules mechanics, so at least some of that "look and feel" issue is in the mechanics




{slight thread derailment}

Well, to be fair JD, there was also stuff like this, which didn't help.

{/slight thread derailment}

-The Gneech


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 4, 2008)

Think0028 said:
			
		

> Piping in real quick:
> 
> What in the world are you talking about?! How could that possibly affect third parties? Can they mystically be completely unable to use kobolds in their adventure because they don't know what skirmisher means? Are they completely incapable of writing a new adventure but not new monsters with different names? Do the new names have a mystical Magic Circle against Third Parties?



I think he means that the name 'Orc Spearchucker' (for example) as a proper name could be copyrighted. Unlike just Orc


----------



## Think0028 (Apr 4, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I think he means that the name 'Orc Spearchucker' (for example) as a proper name could be copyrighted. Unlike just Orc




Only thing I could think of like that would be Illithid, and that is completely original (I believe). Orc Spearchucker would likely be tough to get a copyright on, considering it's something generic + an english word, especially with an open license. 

If there is no open license, then that's the real problem for 3rd parties.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 4, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> D&D 4e seems to be copying DDM because it had to deal with the naming convention problem before D&D did. But really, the naming convention dates from the early days of D&D... just now upscaled to more than just humans and demihumans.



I was going to say much the same thing, but Merric said it better already.

Plus, those names were already the Magic: The Gathering naming style before DDM got hold of them.  Phylexuian Bramblebeasts and Hokkarian Night-Samurai, as two totally made-up examples, were the MTG naming team's bread and butter before there ever was a Orc Banebreak Rider.  I'm not surprised to see those kinds of names in D&D.  I'm just surprised it took them a whole edition to get to them.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The HEROization of D&D is dead.




You saying this is very interesting to me because I have found that the way powers are described in 4e reminds me very much of the HERO system.


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> A duration of "until end of encounter" and a "cooldown" of "at end of encounter" are very different mechanics. The former provides you with its benefit for the duration; the latter is a benefit that applies once, then can't be used again until you've "untapped," to borrow a CCG term.




Barbarian rage can also only be used 1/encounter, in addition to causing fatigue until the end of the encounter.


----------



## GVDammerung (Apr 4, 2008)

4e D&D doesn't feel like D&D?  No news here.  4e is D&D in name only.  This is already quite clear in what is known and will be indesputable when the final rules are released.

As to Wotc not allowing the game's storied designers have a look at the 4e rules?  No news here.  Like JD most would not be gushing about 4e's feel.  Most would be delivering the message JD delivers - 4e doesn't feel like D&D - ie 4e is D&D in name only.

Of course, 4e designers may want all the "glory" for themselves, as well.  A case of penis envy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy - on the part of the 4e designers vs the 3e and earlier designers.


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> 4e D&D doesn't feel like D&D?  No news here.  4e is D&D in name only.  This is already quite clear in what is known and will be indesputable when the final rules are released.
> 
> As to Wotc not allowing the game's storied designers have a look at the 4e rules?  No news here.  Like JD most would not be gushing about 4e's feel.  Most would be delivering the message JD delivers - 4e doesn't feel like D&D - ie 4e is D&D in name only.
> 
> Of course, 4e designers may want all the "glory" for themselves, as well.  A case of penis envy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy - on the part of the 4e designers vs the 3e and earlier designers.



 Hi, GVDammerung! Have some kool-aid!


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Hi, GVDammerung! Have some kool-aid!




Ye cats, Unca Scrooge!

Cheers,
Gyro


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 4, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> 4e D&D doesn't feel like D&D?  No news here.  4e is D&D in name only.  This is already quite clear in what is known and will be indesputable when the final rules are released.
> 
> As to Wotc not allowing the game's storied designers have a look at the 4e rules?  No news here.  Like JD most would not be gushing about 4e's feel.  Most would be delivering the message JD delivers - 4e doesn't feel like D&D - ie 4e is D&D in name only.
> 
> Of course, 4e designers may want all the "glory" for themselves, as well.  A case of penis envy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy - on the part of the 4e designers vs the 3e and earlier designers.



Hoo boy.

Okay, when combined with your other recent posts this falls under the category of 'ranting,' and we're not a big fan of that. I don't particularly care whether you're pro- or anti-4e, but I expect you to post appropriately in threads and not insult anyone (including the 4e designers). That line's being crossed. I'd also much prefer that you say "To me, 4e is D&D in name only" instead of stating it as an unsupportable absolute. That will definitely help this be a discussion instead of an argument.

If you or anyone else has any questions about this, please email me.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> {slight thread derailment}
> 
> Well, to be fair JD, there was also stuff like this, which didn't help.
> 
> ...




First, the adventure in question has numerous precedents in the Tales of the Jedi era (where numerous Sith wannabes visit ancient Sith tombs on Korriban.

Second, the adventure in question was published over a year after the release of the original core rulebook--well after the playtesters had formed their opinion that d20 _Star Wars_ was "D&D in space."

JD


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2008)

It was always blindingly obvious to me that Star Wars was D&D in space. I mean, you have evil wizards, katanae, and magic. What more do you want?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It was always blindingly obvious to me that Star Wars was D&D in space. I mean, you have evil wizards, katanae, and magic. What more do you want?



Star Wars was never science fiction.  It's always been swords & sorcery in spaceship drag.  I thought that was pretty much obvious to everyone.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Star Wars was never science fiction.  It's always been swords & sorcery in spaceship drag.  I thought that was pretty much obvious to everyone.




Surely you jest?  Star Wars is pure hardcore SF like Asimov or Heinlien.



... what?


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 4, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 4e solution- make throwing salt a per encounter ability.  Take it out of the character's allotted pool of per encounter abilities.
> 
> See if the player still wants to throw salt once it isn't free.
> 
> If he does, then any potential brokenness is mitigated by only getting to do it once per encounter.




That's exactly what I was thinking... inflict the blinded condition(save ends)also it'd be Dex vrs Reflex...

Hey look everyone! we just made a new power!


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> I just don't believe that the only workable solution is a mechanic that effectively says "You can't use this power again until you've had your next 'coffee break.'"




"You can't use this power again until you've seen the sun climb the horizon."


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Surely you jest?  Star Wars is pure hardcore SF like Asimov or Heinlien.
> 
> 
> 
> ... what?




Samurai movie, yo. Kurosawa is the bomb, and American directors love to emulate him.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 4, 2008)

I'd like to return to one of the original points, instead of the "does it feel like DnD" argument; honestly, the feel of the game is going to vary based upon individual taste. The game felt instantly like DnD to me after the first encounter and all of my players thought the same and couldn't find anything they disliked, though some of them won't know how much they like the system until they see the actual character creation rules. 

The point I'd like to talk about is why would WotC NOT allow JD and Sean to become playtesters? That just boggles my mind. I might not agree with JD's taste in games, going by his critique, but who cares? I know what I like and don't need any validation to continue liking what I like. 

But getting guys like JD and Sean in as playtesters would have been a great move, IMO. For one, there was an NDA. It's not like they're going to talk about what they don't like if they didn't like things, so WotC couldn't have been worried about that. For another thing, maybe they WOULD love the game, provided they could see the rules. Also, they would have had the opportunity to submit their critiques to the designers and their background would tend, I think, to make their critiques USEFUL, even if the designers decided not to take the advice (which is more than fair). Add to this the facts that they both WANTED to be playtesters, and asked to be, while Sean was even approached to do freelance work for the system, and it really makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know why they weren't allowed to be playtesters while other designers WERE allowed. I don't know why WotC failed to let them be playtesters but still wanted Sean to do work for 4E. I don't know why no one got back to them to at least say "sorry, we have enough playtesters at the moment" or "sorry, we don't like you, and you smell slightly of soup."

Odds are it was just an oversight, but one of several I've noticed that adds a sour note to my liking of 4E. I love what I've seen so far and I WANT to like this edition, after the complete and utter failure of the last one (for my group) but I wish they'd learn to be a bit more ... savvy. 

They also should have been more forthcoming with the GSL information instead of giving a deadline, failing to meet it, and then basically saying "any minute now" for the last few months.  "We're in the final stages of deciding on a timetable to vett a proposed meeting to determine a projected release date in the future" or something. In other words, "we have no idea at this time and cannot speculate, much less offer a deadline, in good conscience, though we will release a statement once we have something of substance to announce." We would still be in limbo, but we would have known we were in limbo instead of expecting something and slowly realizing things were in limbo on our own, which is worse IMO. But, whatever, I don't want to talk about the OGL/GSL, just pointing out another thing that I think they bungled a bit.

And I really wish they'd release more information than just Blog posts. I wish they were more active. One of my favorite memories of the 3E release was Sean (mostly) answering someone's direct question regarding some change in the system almost every day. Sometimes several times a day. The information was small, but it was in a steady stream, not small and in tiny infrequent dollops hidden in blog posts. Sean revealed a hell of a lot of information (while his ever present charm made me dream of dropping heavy objects on his head, as previously mentioned). At this point, without Enworld to gather the info that's been released, I'm not sure I'd know much of anything about 4E. 

WotC should really thank Enworld. If it wasn't for the info I've found here I would have never given the new edition enough of a chance to decide that I like the direction it's going in. I mean, I love most of what I've found out and really can't wait to start playing with the actual rules--waiting for the release is driving me crazy, like waiting for christmas as a kid! But that's due to Enworld's efforts, unfortunately, not due to anything that WotC has done. 

Was there a point to all this? Hell, I don't know. But I feel better now, so that's good enough for me. I'm oldschool and realize that posting to a message board is for my own edification and satisfaction, not to actually change anything. Only the whipersnappers think the point of posting is to accomplish something.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 4, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> [...] but at least it's descriptive and of more import than being attacked by a Moragon would have (Moragon being a word I've just made up. Probably).
> 
> Of course, you can get used to any word if you use it enough, but for most D&D monsters, they'll only really ever be seen once... and not for very long!



tangent

One thing I've done for my new campaign is rename some of the old standard monsters - so far, so good in the "preserving the mystery" department; I've even got one player running a list of "monsters encountered", something I haven't seen in over 25 years!  The players now know a "Grash" is an Orc renamed, but haven't worked out what "Quitch", "Knill", and "Turvitian" represent yet despite having met them all and had them described. 

Biggest challenge for me is remembering to use the new names in the heat of the game. 

/tangent

Lanefan


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It was always blindingly obvious to me that Star Wars was D&D in space. I mean, you have evil wizards, katanae, and magic. What more do you want?




I will bite.

From Lucas' actual first attempt at writing Star Wars...



> *The Story of Mace Windu*
> 
> Mace Windu,, a revered Jedi-bendu of Ophuchi who was related to Usby C.J. Thape, Padawaan learner to the fame Jedi...




And then it blathers on in a convoluted plot about a young princess, with an aged retainer named Skywalker, and two kidnapped imperial bureacrats, try to carry her clan treasure of _aura spice_ across a desert planet to safety.  

As we all know, D&D at its heart is just poorly recycled Kurosawa dressed up in the leavings off Herbert's plate.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Apr 4, 2008)

[Tangent] You know, i am going RIGHT NOW to my Eberron campaign document and begin a story about the Aurum clerk Usby C.J. Thape who stole a portion of _aura spice_ from their vault in Sharn and is now on the run


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 4, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I'd like to return to one of the original points, instead of the "does it feel like DnD" argument; honestly, the feel of the game is going to vary based upon individual taste. The game felt instantly like DnD to me after the first encounter and all of my players thought the same and couldn't find anything they disliked, though some of them won't know how much they like the system until they see the actual character creation rules.
> 
> The point I'd like to talk about is why would WotC NOT allow JD and Sean to become playtesters? That just boggles my mind. I might not agree with JD's taste in games, going by his critique, but who cares? I know what I like and don't need any validation to continue liking what I like.
> 
> ...



Really good post. Specially the point about WotC not revealing a lot of info, and the fact that ENWorld made the difference.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 4, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I'd like to return to one of the original points, instead of the "does it feel like DnD" argument; honestly, the feel of the game is going to vary based upon individual taste. The game felt instantly like DnD to me after the first encounter and all of my players thought the same and couldn't find anything they disliked, though some of them won't know how much they like the system until they see the actual character creation rules.
> 
> The point I'd like to talk about is why would WotC NOT allow JD and Sean to become playtesters? That just boggles my mind. I might not agree with JD's taste in games, going by his critique, but who cares? I know what I like and don't need any validation to continue liking what I like.
> 
> ...



My assumption is that there are enough designers out there that would have been interested in playtesting. But WotC needs a wider base of people testing their system, not just designers. Designers have probably a different perspective on a game, and their professional attitude to it can affect what they will focus on. They might even have a habit of reporting things differently, or, being the tinkerers they are, give feedback that is inappropriate (instead of critisizing or highlighting stuff, they might want to change rules. Which increases the workload on going through the feedback...) In the end, there needed to be some diversification in the group of testers. (Though I wonder if it's enough, considering that many playtesters were recruited from the RPGA)
And there was off course a limit of the number of playtest groups to take. Maybe they made a tombola, and some of the designers on their large list of possible playtesters got picked, but many didn't. Or they had actual preferences. "The blood-sucking mouse offered very good insights on topic X of book Y. We might want someone like him in the tests." Or it wasn't any intention, and Ari got his place just because he was in a (RPGA?) group that applied for it...

Off course, with more resources, more time, and if wishes where horses, I wouldn't mind more playtesters, and also more designers in the mix. (though, what's with the saying of "too many cooks..."?

What I don't get yet is why they haven't gotten more information by now, if they are actually approached to work again for WotC. 



> They also should have been more forthcoming with the GSL information instead of giving a deadline, failing to meet it, and then basically saying "any minute now" for the last few months.  "We're in the final stages of deciding on a timetable to vett a proposed meeting to determine a projected release date in the future" or something. In other words, "we have no idea at this time and cannot speculate, much less offer a deadline, in good conscience, though we will release a statement once we have something of substance to announce." We would still be in limbo, but we would have known we were in limbo instead of expecting something and slowly realizing things were in limbo on our own, which is worse IMO. But, whatever, I don't want to talk about the OGL/GSL, just pointing out another thing that I think they bungled a bit.




I am really at loss what is happening their at WotC at the moment. Whoever is responsible for it, I hope he knows what he is doing, and I hope in the end, the final decision will also be positive for players and potential 3rd-party publishers. But I am really no longer as optimistic as Orcus is. (But can anyone be?  ) It's sad. I love basically everything about 4E, but this part might become a weakness. Not that it would stop me getting 4E, but still...



> And I really wish they'd release more information than just Blog posts. I wish they were more active. One of my favorite memories of the 3E release was Sean (mostly) answering someone's direct question regarding some change in the system almost every day. Sometimes several times a day. The information was small, but it was in a steady stream, not small and in tiny infrequent dollops hidden in blog posts. Sean revealed a hell of a lot of information (while his ever present charm made me dream of dropping heavy objects on his head, as previously mentioned). At this point, without Enworld to gather the info that's been released, I'm not sure I'd know much of anything about 4E.
> 
> WotC should really thank Enworld. If it wasn't for the info I've found here I would have never given the new edition enough of a chance to decide that I like the direction it's going in. I mean, I love most of what I've found out and really can't wait to start playing with the actual rules--waiting for the release is driving me crazy, like waiting for christmas as a kid! But that's due to Enworld's efforts, unfortunately, not due to anything that WotC has done.




I think WotC "trick" in marketing is using "media" like EnWorld doing the job. All information we have on 4E came from WotC. But it was the community of D&D fans that assembled it into stuff like the PHB 4E light, and that is really an amazing thing. But why do we assume that WotC didn't expect something like this too happen, and counting on it? It is a kind of "Viral Marketing". Expose some small tidbits, and the fans will go all over it, organize, analyze, critisize and fantasize about it. All this increases our personal investment in 4E, because we "worked hard" to assemble all the information we liked. 
Off course, some of us might now believe WotC is stupid or incompetent for releasing so little information, but the truth is, they are just doing it in a way to make us even more interested. 
Off course, this strategy doesn't work for everyone. But I think on some level, it works for all the people that still post here (even those that don't like everything - or anything - they see) more then we like to admit. 
There might be a time - and more importantly, a "focus group" (like not-yet-roleplayers) - on which this strategy doesn't work. I suppose we will see something more in the future (The Rouse implied as much, though I would have expected to see something of it by now...), but I wouldn't count on it giving us more information - they will just be using different channels...



> Was there a point to all this? Hell, I don't know. But I feel better now, so that's good enough for me. I'm oldschool and realize that posting to a message board is for my own edification and satisfaction, not to actually change anything. Only the whipersnappers think the point of posting is to accomplish something.



You accomplished to have people read something and thought about something. You can't really hope for more, I guess.


----------



## OchreJelly (Apr 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think WotC "trick" in marketing is using "media" like EnWorld doing the job. All information we have on 4E came from WotC. But it was the community of D&D fans that assembled it into stuff like the PHB 4E light, and that is really an amazing thing. But why do we assume that WotC didn't expect something like this too happen, and counting on it? It is a kind of "Viral Marketing". Expose some small tidbits, and the fans will go all over it, organize, analyze, critisize and fantasize about it. All this increases our personal investment in 4E, because we "worked hard" to assemble all the information we liked.




Agreed.  And to compare, isn't this the very same thing that happened to the run up to 3E?  If memory serves I came to this very site for my info back then, not WOTC, whose site was even more difficult to navigate back then.  Everything was scoops, and leaks back then (again, my memory could be fuzzy).  I remember very little official info except for maybe weeks before launch.  I certainly don't remember any 3E PHB lite's being created with the info available.  

Maybe it's just the nature of the internet and expectations some 8+ years later.  I personally think they are doing fine release to release one new thing each week.  We gamers tend to always be information starved , don't we?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 4, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> ... as opposed to Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, Tongue of the Sun and Moon,  Indomitable Will, A Thousand Faces, Mordenkainen's Lugubrious Lucubration, Eyebite, Entropic Shield, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, Sepia Snake Sigil, Storm of Vengeance, Simbul's Spell Matrix, Simbul's synostodweomer...
> 
> I could keep going all day.
> 
> Familiarty with these odd names and phrases and the correspondent unfamiliarity with the 4e terms is probably one reason why Synostodweomer (!?!) is old school, but Tide of Iron doesn't feel like D&D.




It's true that the monk's powers are particularly "poetic" (read: obscure). My argument is that if you wanted to keep a sort of monkish flavor, the terms should have been confined there. But a power that is neither descriptive of the special effect nor the effect is unnecessarily obscure and 4e is compounding the problem rather than solving it.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 4, 2008)

Star Wars = Telekinetic Shao Lin Monks in Space

That's why we love it.


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> First, the adventure in question has numerous precedents in the Tales of the Jedi era (where numerous Sith wannabes visit ancient Sith tombs on Korriban.
> 
> Second, the adventure in question was published over a year after the release of the original core rulebook--well after the playtesters had formed their opinion that d20 _Star Wars_ was "D&D in space."




re: playtesters: yes, I realize, which is why I referred to "stuff like this" ... the particular scenario was just one that really jumped out in my mind as an example as "feeling like _D&D_." All I meant was that as much as I loved both the original d20 _Star Wars_ and the _RCR_, there was a systemic tendency to "fall back on" _D&D_-style mechanics and/or challenges -- I don't think the observation is without merit. (If the playtesters in question were coming at it from the POV of people used to the very free-form, "plot first and map only if absolutely necessary" feel of the previous WEG game, they'd be even more prone to seeing it.)

In the context of the current discussion re: the "feel of 4E," I agree with you that some of it is mechanics. But there's more to it than that ... there's also the goals that the mechanics serve. Just like picking (electronic) locks and having very tactical battlegrids gave _Star Wars_ a "_D&D_ in space" feel to some people because they were looking for fast-moving action and chases through asteroid fields. In 4E, it seems to me, the goal is to make every player feel like a power-flingin' bad*** right out of the gate, which turns _D&D_ tradition absolutely on its head. In previous editions, you didn't become a power-flingin' bad*** until the game had been going for five years and you'd lost three or more characters trying. Thus, in that vein at least, 4E doesn't "feel like _D&D_" because it's not really designed to.

Sorry if my comment stepped on your toes. FWIW, like I say, I did like your work on the _Star Wars_ line. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Puggins (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> A duration of "until end of encounter" and a "cooldown" of "at end of encounter" are very different mechanics. The former provides you with its benefit for the duration; the latter is a benefit that applies once, then can't be used again until you've "untapped," to borrow a CCG term.




You're introducing an artificial difference.  The Barbarian can use his rage once per encounter and then is winded until the end of the encounter, which is actually MORE dependent on the encounter dynamic than anything that 4e has put forth.

And there's plenty of other examples of these "untapping-required" abilities, even in core.



> And spell-like abilities are more common for monsters than PCs, making them really "1/lifetime," "3/lifetime," etc. The DM uses the power and marks it off, and, in most cases, doesn't need to worry about when the monster can use it again. Not that I'm defending that mechanic, mind you; it's fairly pointless. I just don't believe that the only workable solution is a mechanic that effectively says "You can't use this power again until you've had your next 'coffee break.'"




The bard can use his music only a certain number of times until his next coffee break.

The paladin can smite evil only a certain number of times until his next coffee break.

The cleric can turn undead only a certain number times until his next coffee break.

Every core spellcaster can cast a spell only a certain number of times until his next coffee break.

The Monk's stuns...

The Paladin's lay on hands...

The Druid's wildform...

And on and on.  The sole difference between 4e and 3e (and 2e and 1e and BECM) is the length of said coffee break, which doesn't suddenly morph all of these abilities into "untap" mechanics.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 4, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> And on and on.  The sole difference between 4e and 3e (and 2e and 1e and BECM) is the length of said coffee break, which doesn't suddenly morph all of these abilities into "untap" mechanics.




It makes a difference if the pacing and daily resource management is something you consider part of the overall D&D experience. Untapping powers for use in every encounter during the day does feel a bit more like the process between turns in a CCG than untapping powers via a camping/nightly resting time.
But like JD has been saying, whether 4e's changes feel like D&D or not is a subjective judgement. And so far, he's unconvinced.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> My assumption is that there are enough designers out there that would have been interested in playtesting. But WotC needs a wider base of people testing their system, not just designers. Designers have probably a different perspective on a game, and their professional attitude to it can affect what they will focus on. They might even have a habit of reporting things differently, or, being the tinkerers they are, give feedback that is inappropriate (instead of critisizing or highlighting stuff, they might want to change rules. Which increases the workload on going through the feedback...) In the end, there needed to be some diversification in the group of testers. (Though I wonder if it's enough, considering that many playtesters were recruited from the RPGA)




Actually, I learned recently that the decision might have boiled down to "Do you work for another game company?" Since I run The Game Mechanics, they may have decided that giving me a copy of the rules (without charging me $5,000) would have been unfair to the game companies they actually approached about the GSL and the "early adopters" program.

As for designers potentially being bad playtesters, I can see that ... for most people. But I would hope that Wizards would have remembered that, ever since I worked on _Star Wars_, I've championed the idea of non-design feedback: "We tried this, under these conditions, and here's what happened" as opposed to "We tried this, it didn't work, so we suggest you try rules more like this."

And I firmly second your hope that Wizards actually has a well-researched, well-reasoned strategy behind the way they're going about all this. It's been too long since I've worked there for me to claim that I know what the current zeitgeist is, but I'm fairly certain that Wizards of the Coast is staffed by humans, who have all the usual agendas, foibles, misconceptions, power struggles, and not-so-good-after-all ideas that all humans have--but magnified by the corporate environment (just like every other corporation I've worked for). So, while I don't want to suggest that Wizards is going about this haphazardly, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if their plan is less than carefully calculated.

JD


----------



## drjones (Apr 4, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's true that the monk's powers are particularly "poetic" (read: obscure). My argument is that if you wanted to keep a sort of monkish flavor, the terms should have been confined there. But a power that is neither descriptive of the special effect nor the effect is unnecessarily obscure and 4e is compounding the problem rather than solving it.




I realize there have been some fancy sounding power names floated about but looking at the 1st level pregens most of their power names are quite prosaic.  

Besides, can't you just get out a pencil and scratch out "Super Eagle Talon Windchime" and write in 'Stab the Guy' if that floats your boat?


----------



## Puggins (Apr 4, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's true that the monk's powers are particularly "poetic" (read: obscure). My argument is that if you wanted to keep a sort of monkish flavor, the terms should have been confined there. But a power that is neither descriptive of the special effect nor the effect is unnecessarily obscure and 4e is compounding the problem rather than solving it.




Hmm, I guess there's where we differ.  You see it as a problem, and I see it as a feature.  _Mordenkainen's Lugubrious Lucubration_ is one of the most obtuse and cryptic terms I've ever read, in or out of D&D, and I absolutely adore it.  Same with every name on the list I made.  I like names with some flavor.  Tide of Iron may not be descriptive, but I'll take it over the bland "shifting attack" any day.


----------



## Puggins (Apr 4, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It makes a difference if the pacing and daily resource management is something you consider part of the overall D&D experience.




The pacing of 3.x was abysmal, and, in my experience, differed from 1e/2e quite a bit.  The ability to go through a dungeon or raid a palace without taking a break to sleep is a major step forward.

Resource Management still exists in the game- every class has daily abilities, and per-encounter abilities present a different form of resource management within each encounter.  I see no fundamental advantage that any previous edition has over 4e in these terms.



> Untapping powers for use in every encounter during the day does feel a bit more like the process between turns in a CCG than untapping powers via a camping/nightly resting time.




Well, that's subjective, but since two reasonable people can have different opinions on this sort of stuff, sure.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> 4th Edition may be the best edition of D&D yet, but I, personally, find the derivative features a bit off-putting. When I sit down to play D&D, I don't _want_ to be reminded of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs



TCGs and MMOs are two of the most popular types of games in decades. (Not sure about CMGs just yet.)

Why is it a bad thing that D&D is borrowing ideas, mechanics, and, yes, naming conventions from those types of games?


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> You're introducing an artificial difference.  The Barbarian can use his rage once per encounter and then is winded until the end of the encounter, which is actually MORE dependent on the encounter dynamic than anything that 4e has put forth.




If the difference appears artificial, then perhaps I didn't express it well enough. Here's another try: While 3.X has plenty of mechanics that can only be used once per "encounter" (and let's not get bogged down in the semantics of "day," "round," "encounter," and any other division of time that D&D employs), using them did not encourage MY gaming groups to stop after encounters any longer than was necessary to heal, search, and loot. If a 3.X barbarian rages, he knows that he is still as effective as a fighter for another few encounters, at least. In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.

Now, it's possible that the DM did not explain the rule correctly to us, and you don't actually need to take that break for the power to "recharge." But, again, _my perception_ was that 4E had introduced a mechanic with clear parallels to Magic: the Gathering's "upkeep phase." Hence, I saw the similarity I mentioned in the post that started this sub-thread.

JD


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> Hmm, I guess there's where we differ.  You see it as a problem, and I see it as a feature.




... which is kind of my whole point.

JD


----------



## danzig138 (Apr 4, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Well, then those testers should hold their tongues as well.



Ummm. . .didn't you just say


			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> The playtesters have seen the full rules, and they've praised the game.




Maybe you can clarify, since this reads as the playtesters who like the rules can say so, but those who don't need to stfu. I doubt that's what you're trying to say, since that would be a stupid thing to say.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> The pacing of 3.x was abysmal, and, in my experience, differed from 1e/2e quite a bit.  The ability to go through a dungeon or raid a palace without taking a break to sleep is a major step forward.
> 
> Resource Management still exists in the game- every class has daily abilities, and per-encounter abilities present a different form of resource management within each encounter.  I see no fundamental advantage that any previous edition has over 4e in these terms.




See, statements like this make me think you might have a misconception about my perspective. I am by no means arguing that 3.X is perfect. I agree that the pacing leaves a lot to be desired. I just feel that the mechanic they chose to correct the pacing issue feels more like a TCG than D&D--and that that is enough of a discordant note to count as a strike against the game _in my book_.

JD


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> TCGs and MMOs are two of the most popular types of games in decades. (Not sure about CMGs just yet.)
> 
> Why is it a bad thing that D&D is borrowing ideas, mechanics, and, yes, naming conventions from those types of games?




If the goal is to preserve the feel of D&D, then anything that reminds players of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs while they're playing runs counter to the goal.

Here's an analogy: A few years back, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Carrie-Ann Moss were extraordinarily popular. Not everyone liked them, of course, but the majority of Americans were very aware of them.

Now, if Peter Jackson had cast them as Aragorn, Arwen, and Galadriel, would you have enjoyed _Lord of the Rings_ as much? Sure, they might have done good jobs, but, until you saw the whole movie, you might have felt that Jackson had caved in to the popularity factor, casting "big names" instead of actors who wouldn't have reminded you of _Fight Club_, _Tomb Raider_, and _The Matrix_. (Hell, I still can't watch Hugo Weaving in that movie without occasionally thinking of Agent Smith ...)

So, while ideas, mechanics, and, naming conventions from other games may be brilliant bits of game design, when they appear in D&D, I'm reminded of those other games. (In fact, I recall using the expressions "tap" and "untap" during our demo game, and at one point saying "F4" and miming pressing a button on my keyboard when activating one of my character's "at will" powers.)

To me, that's not good.

JD


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.





Which is more likely, though:

1) After a hard fought skirmish, the adventurers lingered for a few minutes - cleaningthe blood from their blades and armor, replenishing their fluids, straightening their cloaks and recovering dropped packs and weapons.  And,of course, tending to minor cuts and scrapes and searching the bodies of the fallen, or. . .

2) After the hard fought battle, the adventurers immediately fell back into order and continued on their way?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 4, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> Hmm, I guess there's where we differ.  You see it as a problem, and I see it as a feature.  _Mordenkainen's Lugubrious Lucubration_ is one of the most obtuse and cryptic terms I've ever read, in or out of D&D, and I absolutely adore it.  Same with every name on the list I made.  I like names with some flavor.  Tide of Iron may not be descriptive, but I'll take it over the bland "shifting attack" any day.




I used to work as a tech writer and I DM most of the time. So my perspective on the rules is that they should be written for clarity and ease of use. I'd prefer it if they saved the flowery language and purple prose for the fluff and keep it out of the crunch. There are plenty of special terms and coined words in the rules that I'm expected to know, keep flowery powers to a minimum and make my job easier.



			
				drjones said:
			
		

> I realize there have been some fancy sounding power names floated about but looking at the 1st level pregens most of their power names are quite prosaic.
> 
> Besides, can't you just get out a pencil and scratch out "Super Eagle Talon Windchime" and write in 'Stab the Guy' if that floats your boat?




And most of their names should be and remain prosaic, for clarity's sake. But why should it be the burden of the clarity advocates to rewrite the rules to make things simpler? Why shouldn't it be the DM's job to flower it up and make the terms relevant for their own game worlds and campaigns? 
I believe they've put the shoe on the wrong foot.

But, ultimately, that doesn't have much to do with the feel of D&D as far as I'm concerned since, as people have pointed out, we've always had a certain amount of this. It has to do more with editorial standards of the material.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> ...using them did not encourage MY gaming groups to stop after encounters any longer than was necessary to heal, search, and loot. If a 3.X barbarian rages, he knows that he is still as effective as a fighter for another few encounters, at least. In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.



I haven't seen the rules either, but it's my hope that "heal, search, and loot" and "5-minute break" will be effectively equivalent.  In other words, I hope that there's not a sense that your characters are sitting around waiting for their powers to reactivate like a light on a waffle iron or something.  Instead, your per-encounter powers will be active again whenever the characters have calmed down and prepared themselves for the next encounter.  Including things like healing, searching and looting.


----------



## malraux (Apr 4, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> 2) After the hard fought battle, the adventurers immediately fell back into order and continued on their way?



Or even worse, ran to the next door as fast as possible because the cleric had cast a few 1 minute/level buffs and the party didn't want them to run out.

Anyway, I think this partially depends on the DM, but I don't envision the 5 minute rest as involving just sitting around twiddling thumbs, but the process of looting the bodies, healing everyone back up, etc. to be a break during which /encounter abilities reset.  If the DM is making you sit and stare at the wall for exactly 5 minutes, that seems to miss the intent of the rule.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the rules either, but it's my hope that "heal, search, and loot" and "5-minute break" will be effectively equivalent.  In other words, I hope that there's not a sense that your characters are sitting around waiting for their powers to reactivate like a light on a waffle iron or something.  Instead, your per-encounter powers will be active again whenever the characters have calmed down and prepared themselves for the next encounter.  Including things like healing, searching and looting.




Unfortunately, mechanically, they *will* be sitting around waiting as though for a waffle iron.

In theory, the players can assume that they're healing, searching, and looting--but, if the encounter was very easy for them (as we've heard some were at DDE), *sometimes* the PCs take no damage, and have no reason to heal. Sometimes there's nothing to search: The summoned monster faded away in a puff of smoke, or the room was previously searched, or whatever. And, sometimes, there's nothing to loot, because, well, sometimes monsters just don't carry any treasure or gear.

So, some of the time, the PCs _need_ to spend some time recovering. But some of the time, they are also just killing time until the 5 minutes are up and they can have their "per encounter" powers back again.

This happened to us while we were playing "Raiders of Oakherst." So I assume it's possible for it to happen in the real game.

JD


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 4, 2008)

> And I firmly second your hope that Wizards actually has a well-researched, well-reasoned strategy behind the way they're going about all this. It's been too long since I've worked there for me to claim that I know what the current zeitgeist is, but I'm fairly certain that Wizards of the Coast is staffed by humans, who have all the usual agendas, foibles, misconceptions, power struggles, and not-so-good-after-all ideas that all humans have--but magnified by the corporate environment (just like every other corporation I've worked for). So, while I don't want to suggest that Wizards is going about this haphazardly, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if their plan is less than carefully calculated.



Sometimes I wonder how I can be so naive, since I am actually working at a company where not everything works fine and smooth and I (and my colleagues) sometimes wonder if people are really as stupid as they seem to be.  
(Not that the company is bad or failing. But there are some thing where you really wonder...)

But I always assume the best. (And then incompetence, and then malevolence...) 



			
				JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> If the difference appears artificial, then perhaps I didn't express it well enough. Here's another try: While 3.X has plenty of mechanics that can only be used once per "encounter" (and let's not get bogged down in the semantics of "day," "round," "encounter," and any other division of time that D&D employs), using them did not encourage MY gaming groups to stop after encounters any longer than was necessary to heal, search, and loot. If a 3.X barbarian rages, he knows that he is still as effective as a fighter for another few encounters, at least. In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.



Hmm. This is not something that feels "new" or un-D&D to me. I started with 3E, and having a 5 minute break to loot bodies and (maybe even more importantly) putting out the Wands of Cure Light Wounds to heal the Fighters back to full. 

In regards to rest, I sometimes feel that 4E "shortcuts" the whole thing you did in 3E anyway. Off course you would ensure that all PCs are fit after each combat encounter. Off course you wouldn't start your adventuring day before all resources are replenished (spells prepared, all damage healed, all levels restored...)


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, mechanically, they *will* be sitting around waiting as though for a waffle iron.
> 
> In theory, the players can assume that they're healing, searching, and looting--but, if the encounter was very easy for them (as we've heard some were at DDE), *sometimes* the PCs take no damage, and have no reason to heal. Sometimes there's nothing to search: The summoned monster faded away in a puff of smoke, or the room was previously searched, or whatever. And, sometimes, there's nothing to loot, because, well, sometimes monsters just don't carry any treasure or gear.
> 
> ...




I see what you're saying, JD, but I think that this sort of thing can easily be explained away by a DM. Just one quick mention in your description of the PCs' "blood cooling" or "adrenaline slowly loosening its hold on their hearts" and you're back in it. I think the 5 minute break is only as much of a speedbump as we want to make it. You could not pay any attention to it at all and just 'assume' that the five minutes were eaten up by searching for loot and 'walking' to the next encounter.

But it does come down to playstyle. My players, for instance, wouldn't, and haven't, noticed anything artificial about the 5-minute break. I insert my one line of descriptive text, they nod, and we move on. They're not the types to wonder if they rested six minutes, or only four minutes, and so on. They just accept that a generic "break" took place while they were doing other stuff and then want to know what they see next.

I would say that these 'new' designations, like encounter powers, only seem strange because they are new. Once you've used them a bit you won't even notice them. Or so I imagine.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 4, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> My players, for instance, wouldn't, and haven't, noticed anything artificial about the 5-minute break. I insert my one line of descriptive text, they nod, and we move on. They're not the types to wonder if they rested six minutes, or only four minutes, and so on. They just accept that a generic "break" took place while they were doing other stuff and then want to know what they see next.



Exactly.  One sentence- "The last orc falls to the floor.  You sheathe your weapons, check one another to make sure everyone is alright, and move on."

If you insist upon narrating it like this- "The last orc falls.  Ok, everyone, time for your mandatory 5 minute break!  Nothing happens for five minutes.  Ok, now move on." then you won't enjoy yourself.  And its your own fault, too.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I would say that these 'new' designations, like encounter powers, only seem strange because they are new. Once you've used them a bit you won't even notice them. Or so I imagine.




I honestly hope you're right.

JD


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 4, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Exactly.  One sentence- "The last orc falls to the floor.  You sheathe your weapons, check one another to make sure everyone is alright, and move on."
> 
> If you insist upon narrating it like this- "The last orc falls.  Ok, everyone, time for your mandatory 5 minute break!  Nothing happens for five minutes.  Ok, now move on." then you won't enjoy yourself.  And its your own fault, too.




Well, sure, except that it's not the DM who gets to make the call. When he announces that the last orc has fallen, the _players_ will be the ones saying "We take a coffee break to get our per-encounter powers back."

At the very least, after they've wandered about a bit, healing, searching, looting, wiping the blood off their weapons, and so forth, at least one player is going to ask "Have we been here five minutes? Have our per-encounter powers had time to regenerate?" How the DM answers is not the issue; it's the fact that nearly every group has that one player who's such a tactically-minded gamer that he's going to be "watching the clock" after every encounter.

JD


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> I honestly hope you're right.




Well, that has been the case for me, so if I can be considered a model of it, then your hopes may be realized. I am a pretty heavy WoD player in it they have powers that work on a Per-Scene basis, and it has worked extremely well.

It gives balance, dramatic flare, tension, etc. to a scene. To have these powers as per-scene.

The same can be said for per-encounter powers in D&D, they are quite similar to eachother in many regards.


----------



## malraux (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Well, sure, except that it's not the DM who gets to make the call. When he announces that the last orc has fallen, the _players_ will be the ones saying "We take a coffee break to get our per-encounter powers back."
> 
> At the very least, after they've wandered about a bit, healing, searching, looting, wiping the blood off their weapons, and so forth, at least one player is going to ask "Have we been here five minutes? Have our per-encounter powers had time to regenerate?" How the DM answers is not the issue; it's the fact that nearly every group has that one player who's such a tactically-minded gamer that he's going to be "watching the clock" after every encounter.
> 
> JD



Easily fixed by the DM house ruling that, unless he says different, /encounter powers reset between combats.  That leave it open for a surprise attack on a weakened party, but in almost all cases its just not an issue.  I put this in the category of stuff with the player who always moves in a zig-zag, just because he can in 4e.  Its distracting only because its new and different.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Well, sure, except that it's not the DM who gets to make the call. When he announces that the last orc has fallen, the _players_ will be the ones saying "We take a coffee break to get our per-encounter powers back."
> 
> At the very least, after they've wandered about a bit, healing, searching, looting, wiping the blood off their weapons, and so forth, at least one player is going to ask "Have we been here five minutes? Have our per-encounter powers had time to regenerate?" How the DM answers is not the issue; it's the fact that nearly every group has that one player who's such a tactically-minded gamer that he's going to be "watching the clock" after every encounter.



This is one reason why I personally view the 5 minute concept as simply a baseline.

If the dramatic tension, story-points, action, combat, etc. has slowed down and that particular sequence of events has come to a close for a satisfactory amount of time, could be them hiding in a sewer for an hour trying to recover as guards run around above them. Could be 10 minutes spent cleaning their horses, etc. 

If there is a signifigant enough pause-period and time between plot-scenes/points of dramatic/story tension then that is when encounter-powers come back.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 4, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.




I don't see how this is different or worse than 3e, where after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they need to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be *fully healed by a wand* before the next encounter.

Nor do I see it being any different than the Barbarian's player telling the DM "I'm going to wait until my fatigue wears off before we continue on."


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I don't see how this is different or worse than 3e, where after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they need to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be *fully healed by a wand* before the next encounter.




I'm not saying it's worse, but I do think it *feels* different. You can reasonably expect a PC who's lost a lot of his hit points to want to be healed up to at least half his normal total before continuing. (Players who insist on "topping off" their characters are always going to do so, though--in any version of the rules.) But here, I'm talking about the difference between "I don't think I have enough hit points to survive another encounter" and "I _really_ want to have my Power of Amaunator available for every encounter."

Further, I think it leads to an artificial rest period between groups of monsters, so that they can be technically considered "new" encounters. As I understand it, if the party goes from a group of goblins in this room to a group of goblins in the next room without waiting the full five minutes, they're considered to be still in the same encounter--and, thus, less prepared, for lack of having used their "per-encounter" powers less then five minutes ago.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Nor do I see it being any different than the Barbarian's player telling the DM "I'm going to wait until my fatigue wears off before we continue on."




Perhaps. But most parties aren't composed entirely of barbarians--or even classes that have "once per encounter" special abilities. True, a spellcaster who blows his day's allotment of spells in one encounter is going to lobby heavily for resting (for several hours), and I agree that that's bad. But it seems to me that we've merely traded resource management for time management.

JD


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it's worse, but I do think it *feels* different.



Sure. But so what? 3E *feels* different than 2E. AD&D *feels* different than BD&D. The claim that a new edition of D&D "doesn't feel like D&D", regardless of whether it's qualified with "_to me_" or not, is meaningless because there is no one feel for D&D. It implies there is one feel for D&D, and that the new edition no longer has that feel. But the implication is false.

Play 4E for a while, and it will probably feel like D&D too. Then when 5E comes along, we can get another different feel. And presumably, complain that it doesn't "feel like D&D".


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2008)

I don't think the "5-minute" thing needs to be taken so literally. 

Unless there is the equivalent of a time bomb ticking down, where each second is vital, I think it can be safely assumed that enough time passes between encounters for abilities to be renewed.  After a battle, the characters will be cleaning and binding wounds, cleaning or sharpening weapons, retrieving arrows, adjusting their armour, retrieving any backpacks or gear that they dropped what the fight started...  Or just take a few minutes to catch their breaths, refocus, have a drink of water, or whatever.

If the players fight a group of goblins, and a second group of goblins enters the room just as the last one falls (because they heard the noise and came to check it out), then it's part of the same encounter.  If the players kill a group of goblins, then move on to the next room and fight a group of goblins waiting for them, it's generally safe to assume that it's a new encounter.

No time management is required whatsoever unless the plot requires that every minute be precious.  As a DM, I wouldn't even require players to explicitly tell me that they were taking a breather to recover their powers.  That is the default assumption, and it is only the exceptions -- such as when a second wave of monsters burst into the room before while a battle is in progress or just as it is ending -- where a refresh wouldn't occur.  And I'd only use that shtick sparingly to heighten tension, or if the players were really careless.


----------



## Henry (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I don't see how this is different or worse than 3e, where after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they need to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be *fully healed by a wand* before the next encounter.
> 
> Nor do I see it being any different than the Barbarian's player telling the DM "I'm going to wait until my fatigue wears off before we continue on."





I hate to say it, but the 5-minute break reminds me MORE of 1st edition than 3rd. Any of those 1st edition players out there remember that the DMG said that it was ASSUMED that all combats took "one turn" (10 minutes) as characters looted bodies, dressed wounds, took quick breathers, etc.? 3e effectively got rid of the "one turn" rule, and here 4e is, bringing it back. It's not the first thing that reminds me of 1e (or as Ari Marmell says, reminds him of Basic/Expert/etc. D&D!) and the more they keep releasing it doesn't look like the last...


----------



## catsclaw (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> ... I think it leads to an artificial rest period between groups of monsters, so that they can be technically considered "new" encounters. As I understand it, if the party goes from a group of goblins in this room to a group of goblins in the next room without waiting the full five minutes, they're considered to be still in the same encounter--and, thus, less prepared, for lack of having used their "per-encounter" powers less then five minutes ago.



Artificial rest period?  How quickly are you guys sprinting through your dungeons?

If you assume fighting for your life is at least as strenuous as running an 800m race, I haven't seen very many runners who would gladly run two of them back-to-back.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I hate to say it, but the 5-minute break reminds me MORE of 1st edition than 3rd. Any of those 1st edition players out there remember that the DMG said that it was ASSUMED that all combats took "one turn" (10 minutes) as characters looted bodies, dressed wounds, took quick breathers, etc.? 3e effectively got rid of the "one turn" rule, and here 4e is, bringing it back. It's not the first thing that reminds me of 1e (or as Ari Marmell says, reminds him of Basic/Expert/etc. D&D!) and the more they keep releasing it doesn't look like the last...




I've already adopted that idea for 3.x games when I DM; any combat encounter is assumed to take about 10 minutes when all is said and done.  And even if it actually took place over five 6-second rounds, that doesn't mean that all of the action took place over a contiguous 30-second span of time; those 30 seconds just show the highlights of the battle.

I actually really hate the 6-second rounds (and GURPS' 1-second rounds even more) because it encourages people to take things far too literally.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it's worse, but I do think it *feels* different. You can reasonably expect a PC who's lost a lot of his hit points to want to be healed up to at least half his normal total before continuing. (Players who insist on "topping off" their characters are always going to do so, though--in any version of the rules.) But here, I'm talking about the difference between "I don't think I have enough hit points to survive another encounter" and "I _really_ want to have my Power of Amaunator available for every encounter."




But that's no different from "I only have 1 5th-level spell, and I don't feel comfortable moving on without it." It's always been a factor with resource management, and it was much more limiting to advancement in 3e, since you were bound to a variable "refresh cycle," depending on the ability.

The only difference I see is what was once a system that was different based on the class (8 hours, time of day, 24 hours, etc.) is now a system that is consistent for all classes.



> Further, I think it leads to an artificial rest period between groups of monsters, so that they can be technically considered "new" encounters. As I understand it, if the party goes from a group of goblins in this room to a group of goblins in the next room without waiting the full five minutes, they're considered to be still in the same encounter--and, thus, less prepared, for lack of having used their "per-encounter" powers less then five minutes ago.




Again, I don't see how this "artificial rest period" is any different from earlier editions. You go into a dungeon, fight a few encounters, then take 8 hours (or more) to recover, since your spellcasters are out of spells by then. Fighting off a gang of goblins, then taking a couple minutes to catch your breath isn't unreasonable in comparison.



> Perhaps. But most parties aren't composed entirely of barbarians--or even classes that have "once per encounter" special abilities. True, a spellcaster who blows his day's allotment of spells in one encounter is going to lobby heavily for resting (for several hours), and I agree that that's bad. But it seems to me that we've merely traded resource management for time management.




"Heavily lobbying" often turns into "complete necessity" when said spellcaster is your only healer, and is blowing through his spells fast because there are 3 or more other people to heal as well as himself.

In 3e, you had three different time management systems that applied to different classes. Divine casters had to prepare at a particular time of day, and only at that time. Arcane casters had to prepare spells after 8 hours of uninterrupted rest. Other per-day abilities require either 24 hours between activation.

If your cleric prays at dawn, and runs out at noon, you either have to wait until the following dawn or continue without healing. If your wizard runs out of spells, you've got to stop for 8 hours and make sure there are no interruptions, then be able to continue. But if you've got a situation where both occurs, then by 8 pm (after 8 hours of rest at noon), the wizard will be ready to go, but the cleric still has another 10 hours in order to be able to pray for spells again. 

In 4e, you have two time management systems that apply to all (known) classes. Per-encounter abilities require a 5 minute "short rest" to refresh. Per-day abilities require a 6 hour "long rest" to refresh. Consistent, simple, and allows all characters to be refreshed at the same rate, instead of running into the "I've still got 18 hours left on the cooldown to pray to my beloved deity for healing" issue.

Out of the two, 3e sounds like far more time management than 4e, since you have to track different "cooldowns" for different classes.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> It's not the first thing that reminds me of 1e (or as Ari Marmell says, reminds him of Basic/Expert/etc. D&D!) and the more they keep releasing it doesn't look like the last...



Yes. But claims of "it doesn't feel like 3E" are not the same thing as "it doesn't feel like D&D". I think most people making the second claim actually mean the first.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> If the goal is to preserve the feel of D&D, then anything that reminds players of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs while they're playing runs counter to the goal.




I'm not sure it's possible for this NOT to happen. Let me explain hopefully.

When I started playing with 1E, there was no TCGs, MMOs, Console/PC RPGs or CMGs. There simply was nothing to compare the experience to.

When I switched over to 2E, there still was no TCGs or CMGs to compare my play experience with. Playing 2E was a singular experience as the only MMO I knew about back then and had played was the original Neverwinter Nights and the console/PC RPGS were basically D&D RPGs (the goldbox series/ultima)

When I switched over to 3E, M:TG had trumped D&D, Diablo had conquered the etherspace and Final Fantasy VII had rocked the N.America gaming scene and I think I started playing Mage Knight the same time. Funny enough, many people claim that 3E plays like Diablo

When 4E is released, it is being released in a sea of TCGs, MMOs, PC/Console RPGs and CMGs. Pretty much impossible NOT to find some aspect of the game with other things in such a manner.

So how is it possible for a game to be unique in such an environment. For example, in my play experience, D&D combat has never really done real-time battles well a la WoW, but in 1E, there was no game to compare it to whereas in 4E, I can say, "Oh, it's not like WoW but more like Disgaea/La Pucelle Tactics" and a fair number of people would nod their heads in agreement.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> If the goal is to preserve the feel of D&D, then anything that reminds players of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs while they're playing runs counter to the goal.




All those game formats are derivatives of D&D, in one way or another. So if (a derivative of) D&D reminds you of (the current edition of) D&D, that's _bad_?   



> So, while ideas, mechanics, and, naming conventions from other games may be brilliant bits of game design, when they appear in D&D, I'm reminded of those other games. (In fact, I recall using the expressions "tap" and "untap" during our demo game, and at one point saying "F4" and miming pressing a button on my keyboard when activating one of my character's "at will" powers.)
> 
> To me, that's not good.
> 
> JD




If I understand you correctly, your complaint is that 4E reminds you of Magic and WoW. So if you'd played OD&D, then avoided any sort of game for 34 years, and then tried 4E, you'd have nothing to compare 4E to other than OD&D, and thus would have no problem. Right?

It sounds like the core of your issue is not 4E. The core of your issue is you. You're a smart guy and you've played games other than D&D. Being a smart guy, you perceive similarities between D&D 4E and these other games. For some reason, for you this perception is negative.

I... I don't think anyone, including the 4E designers, can help you with that. You've got to work that out for yourself.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 5, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> So if (a derivative of) D&D reminds you of (the current edition of) D&D, that's _bad_?




Your confusion may stem from the fact that you've got it backwards.



> If I understand you correctly, your complaint is that 4E reminds you of Magic and WoW.




Apparently, you don't understand me. My complaint, as referenced in the post that started this thread, is that 4E does not feel like the D&D I'm used to. Two of the causes are that it reminds me of CCG mechanics and MMO power-naming conventions.



> It sounds like the core of your issue is not 4E. The core of your issue is you.




Apparently, then, I'm the core of some other people's issues, too--because I know for a *fact* I'm not the only one who feels this way.

JD


----------



## hong (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Apparently, you don't understand me. My complaint, as referenced in the post that started this thread, is that 4E does not feel like the D&D I'm used to. Two of the causes are that it reminds me of CCG mechanics and MMO power-naming conventions.




As long as you don't also start complaining about how "exploits" are about cheating, it's all good.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> But that's no different from "I only have 1 5th-level spell, and I don't feel comfortable moving on without it." It's always been a factor with resource management, and it was much more limiting to advancement in 3e, since you were bound to a variable "refresh cycle," depending on the ability.




The major difference I see is that the refresh rate is so short that it becomes far more attractive. In previous editions, knowing that you were going to be "out of action" for 6-8 hours was a tactical concern--the monsters might be ready for you next time. In 4E, as near as I can tell, the 5-minute refresh rate encourages you to take more rest periods.

But, again, if it doesn't feel different to you, then more power to you. I'm not trying to convince you not to play 4th Edition. I'm just explaining the factors behind *my* disappointment with what I've seen so far.

JD


----------



## Zaruthustran (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Apparently, you don't understand me. My complaint, as referenced in the post that started this thread, is that 4E does not feel like the D&D I'm used to. Two of the causes are that it reminds me of CCG mechanics and MMO power-naming conventions.




Well, I hope you're able to work things out but it looks like it's a longshot. Given:

1. 4E is not the D&D you're used to (it is a new edition).

2. The new edition, by design, builds off proven & successful mechanics from other (D&D-inspired) game formats.





> Apparently, then, I'm the core of some other people's issues, too--because I know for a *fact* I'm not the only one who feels this way.
> JD




I doubt you're the core of other people's issues, man. But if you meant that you know other people who prefer OD&D to the newer editions, and who are also having trouble enjoying 4E's changes because they're reminded of other games... well, I believe you. I don't think your issue is unique.

At any rate: I appreciate the replies, and I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say after the full release.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> The major difference I see is that the refresh rate is so short that it becomes far more attractive. In previous editions, knowing that you were going to be "out of action" for 6-8 hours was a tactical concern--the monsters might be ready for you next time. In 4E, as near as I can tell, the 5-minute refresh rate encourages you to take more rest periods.
> 
> But, again, if it doesn't feel different to you, then more power to you. I'm not trying to convince you not to play 4th Edition. I'm just explaining the factors behind *my* disappointment with what I've seen so far.




The difference as I see it, with the inclusion of per-encounter and at-will powers, it is simply less necessary to stop and rest.

This means you can open up dungeon-crawls more, say have them rushing to rescue someone, or escape a dungeon that is slowly filling with water, etc.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> The difference as I see it, with the inclusion of per-encounter and at-will powers, it is simply less necessary to stop and rest.
> 
> This means you can open up dungeon-crawls more, say have them rushing to rescue someone, or escape a dungeon that is slowly filling with water, etc.




Reminds me of the C1 Lost Shrine of Tamoachan.

And A4 In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords.

I'm glad to hear that 4e is finally going to let me run adventures like that.


----------



## catsclaw (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear that 4e is finally going to let me run adventures like that.



Nobody's saying it was literally impossible to run those adventures in previous versions, as if the books would self destruct if you had more than 4 combats in a day.  If you really, really wanted to you could run a space-opera-meets-superheros-meets-Muppet-Babies game under 3.5 rules.  The point is _how easy_ the game system made it to run them.  If you're playing a 5th level wizard or cleric in 3.5, having more than 4 combats in a day is suicide unless the combats are pushovers.  If you're playing a 5th level fighter or rogue, you can go all day until the healing runs out.  As a GM, you're forced to either design adventures with 4 combats or less, pass out wands so the wizards aren't _totally_ useless, or watch the spellcasters get bored and start playing Halo on your XBOX during the 6th combat.

For what it's worth, I don't think 4e will be a great system to run that space-opera-meets-superheros-meets-Muppet-Babies game I alluded to earlier.  I _do_ think it's going to be a better system to run adventures with a built-in time limit, however.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 5, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I don't think 4e will be a great system to run that space-opera-meets-superheros-meets-Muppet-Babies game I alluded to earlier.  I _do_ think it's going to be a better system to run adventures with a built-in time limit, however.




I am interested in seeing how healing-surges-as-primary-resource-limit works in extended, as opposed to tournament, play. Assuming all healing, even item-based healing, consumes someone's HS, it provides a hard limit on how far you can go. (Look for mechanics to use healing surges to power non-healing-powers...for example, a fighter who 'exhausts himself' (burns a healing surge) to perform a powerful attack (maybe something that ignores DR). If WOTC doesn't use this concept, someone will.)


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> As a GM, you're forced to either design adventures with 4 combats or less, pass out wands so the wizards aren't _totally_ useless, or watch the spellcasters get bored and start playing Halo on your XBOX during the 6th combat.




Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach.  In 28 years of DMing using this approach and running plenty of adventures involving non-stop action and end-of-the-world deadlines, I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table and fire up the Atari 2600 or Atari 5200 or or Sega Genesis or Nintendo 64 or Atari Jaguar or Sega Dreamcast or Playstation or Playstation 2 or X-box or X-box 2 or Playstation 3 or Wii.

I obviously must be doing something wrong.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 5, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Easily fixed by the DM house ruling that, unless he says different, /encounter powers reset between combats.  That leave it open for a surprise attack on a weakened party, but in almost all cases its just not an issue.  I put this in the category of stuff with the player who always moves in a zig-zag, just because he can in 4e.  Its distracting only because its new and different.




I think that it the logical way to go.  Just tell the players that it is assumed they have taken a quick breather unless the narrative tell them they have not (yet).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach.  In 28 years of DMing using this approach and running plenty of adventures involving non-stop action and end-of-the-world deadlines, I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table and fire up the Atari 2600 or Atari 5200 or or Sega Genesis or Nintendo 64 or Atari Jaguar or Sega Dreamcast or Playstation or Playstation 2 or X-box or X-box 2 or Playstation 3 or Wii.
> 
> I obviously must be doing something wrong.




I get your drift.  I have many fond memories of dungeon crawling as a Wizard carefully counting every last spell.  "Do I use the last Fireball now, or hold onto this one big spell in case we get attacked at the end of the day when we are depleted?"

Nonetheless there is a real pacing issue here that every DM of every edition must wrassle with.  The "9:15 am: It's Miller time!" is not new to 3e, although 3e did add certain kinds of options that made this more likely to occur IMO.

3e has given the players and PCs a lot of interesting options.  That is a good thing.  The downside is that PC potency became much more varied, not just PC to PC, but minute to minute.  The net effect is it is harder on the DM to design encounters to be an appropriate match for his party -- the very same encounter could be either a cakewalk or eat a PC based on a bunch of little things the DM cannot easily influence.

4e is trying to take a problem off the DM's plate with a fresh look at resource management.  The down side is we are losing the challenge of certain kinds of resource management.  The plus side is we are losing the challenge of certain kinds of resource management.

From my POV, the net is players are losing a little while the DM is gaining a lot.  My guess this will turn out to be a good thing overall.  We shall see.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Your confusion may stem from the fact that you've got it backwards.



This has been discussed before. If something's a good idea, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Ideas from a MMO should not be rejected simply because they're from a MMO.



			
				JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Apparently, you don't understand me. My complaint, as referenced in the post that started this thread, is that 4E does not feel like the D&D I'm used to.



I ask again: so what? Of course it's not going to feel the same. It's not the same. 3E feels different than 2E. AD&D feels different than BD&D. So what? It's a new edition; if it were the same as 3E, there would be no point.


----------



## catsclaw (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach.



And for thousands of years, people copied books by hand.  The existence of scriptoria is a lousy argument against the printing press. 



			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> In 28 years of DMing using this approach ... I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table



Good god, man!  28 years?  Doesn't it seem to you that with _28 years of experience_ you might be a tad better at it than 95% of the DMs out there?

Great DMs don't need rules that help them DM.  Heck, a really great DM could run a great game based on the rules for checkers.  Or maybe based on a medieval miniatures wargame.*  But the sad fact is, the vast majority of us lack either the time or the talent to be a great DM.  And _that's_ where we need the rules to help us.



* Although maybe not rock-paper-scissors.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

Dear lord.  28 years.

I need a new hobby.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> And for thousands of years, people copied books by hand.  The existence of scriptoria is a lousy argument against the printing press.










Yeah, easier is obviously always better....


----------



## hong (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Yeah, easier is obviously always better....




Your point, spider-boy?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach.  In 28 years of DMing using this approach and running plenty of adventures involving non-stop action and end-of-the-world deadlines, I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table and fire up the Atari 2600 or Atari 5200 or or Sega Genesis or Nintendo 64 or Atari Jaguar or Sega Dreamcast or Playstation or Playstation 2 or X-box or X-box 2 or Playstation 3 or Wii.



That never happened in my games, either. Though I remember some people taking long bathroom breaks (but not during rounds), and people sleeping (but not during combat, and there is/was only one player I know that had the problem, who sadly is no longer among us...)



> I obviously must be doing something wrong.



I am getting a bit tired hearing this. 
My first answer:  
You must altered something. Or ignored something. Or have different sensibilities. You probably cheated or something. or you had fun where the rules certainly didn't suggest you were allowed to. What do I know? Fact is, you did it wrong, and I am glad you can't do it wrong any longer in 4E. Now you will only have fun if the game mandates it. (BTW: Wasn't there a mandatory fun webcomic?)

My second answer: 
Or you are just a better DM then me. I know that my idea of a "quick, run/fight your way through the center of this wandering ice storm before it destroys the next village" didn't work out as I would have liked too. Yes, it was my fault. The "run through the dungeon" shouldn't have contained more then 4 encounters, or maybe more, but each of them with a lot lower EL. But I couldn't pull it off, since I want every combat to feel exciting, and my (Power)gamist players only have fun when they are firing spells right and left and are dropped to 0 hit points at least once per combat. I just can't work well with the tools 3E gave me. I think I might work better with the new 4E tool set. I fully admit, I am a lesser man for it. But I always suspected something wasn't right with me, and I never believed it could be something good. So, here it is. I am a bad DM. Horrible, in fact. I might be sometimes okay (at best) at coming up with a basic storyline including the prerequisite twist and stuff. But everything else, I am bad at.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Your point, spider-boy?




That the Book of Kells is a lot more beautiful than the NIV bible that I have sitting on the shelf next to me, even though the NIV version is certainly easier to read and run adventures with.

That easier isn't always "better."  

Maybe I just don't know what the kell I'm rambling on about....


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That never happened in my games, either. Though I remember some people taking long bathroom breaks




Did they happen to take a copy of the original AD&D Monster Manual with them?

If so, that might explain this phenomenon....


----------



## hong (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> That the Book of Kells is a lot more beautiful than the NIV bible that I have sitting on the shelf next to me, even though the NIV version is certainly easier to read and run adventures with.




Screw "beautiful".



> That easier isn't always "better."




Screw "scare quotes".



> Maybe I just don't know what the kell I'm rambling on about....




Exactly.


----------



## JeDiWiker (Apr 5, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> At any rate: I appreciate the replies, and I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say after the full release.




The funny thing is--and I think people who respond to me lose sight of this--I think it's very possible that 4E will grow on me, and I'll eventually come to like it. Maybe not within minutes of finishing reading the Monster Manual, but eventually.

The fact is that Wizards has played things so close to the chest with 4E--the considerably smaller pool of playtesters than 3E; the delayed GSL; the refusal to include industry professionals in the playtest pool, and, to a lesser extent, the freelance pool; the lack of real information on their web pages and the designers' own Gleemax blogs--that they have made it impossible for *anyone* to develop an informed opinion of the game, positive or negative.

There are things I like about 4E (the reduction in the "recharge rate" of combat readiness, the additional hit points at 1st level, and so on), and things I don't (the arbitrary shuffling of the races, the aforementioned "coffee break" mechanic, etc.). Some of those things other posters agree with, some they don't. That's fine: We can agree to disagree, just as we do about Macs and PCs, Republicans and Democrats, Baptism and Catholicism, and any number of other purely preferential issues.

If my original post had any message, it was not "Don't like 4E," but rather "Look at 4E with a more critical eye." I'll say it again: Wizards has not shown *any* of us enough yet to declare that 4E is indisputably superior to 3.5. Some of the features they have shown us certainly correct a lot of what is wrong with 3.5, but, 4E being an entirely new edition, it's going to have flaws that don't appear until the game has been out for a month, or three months, or a year. If I've learned anything in my 9 years of professional game design, it's that, when you go back to the drawing board, it's not just a chance to introduce more improvements--but a chance to introduce more errors.

Feel free to ignore my advice. Buy 4th Edition the moment it comes out, throw away your old rulebooks, and hold parades in honor of the designers. Whatever floats your boat. I, personally, intend to approach it considerably more cautiously (much the way I did with Windows Vista, Area 51: Blacksite, and Scientology): I'll read *impartial* reviews (assuming I can find any), I'll talk to my FLGS about whether they've seen numerous returns, and I'll talk to people who have tastes similar to mine and see what *they* think of the game.

And I will keep it firmly in mind that Wizards is in business to make money for Hasbro, and it is therefore in their best interests to only show us the parts about 4E they want to showcase. What lies beneath the surface, like Schrodinger's cat, has at this point an equal chance of being an unequivocal success and equal chance of being a colossal failure. Personally, I'm betting it's going to fall somewhere in between--and I'm hoping it leans more toward the success side.

At any rate, I think I've said about everything I can say here. If you disagree with me, fine. If you disagree with my right to an opinion, then never sit down at a gaming table with me. But, if you want to discuss this more with me, you're more than welcome to come by my LiveJournal at jediwiker.livejournal.com; obviously, I'm there more than I'm ever here.

Good luck to all of us.

JD


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Screw "beautiful".




Sure.  When are you coming over?


----------



## hong (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Sure.  When are you coming over?



 I'm coming over Wolfspider RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

Well said, JD.

I certainly shake my head when I read about people selling all their D&D 3.5 books in order to make way for a game they really know little about.

Of course, their hastiness means that I'll be able to save money completing my collection, so it's not all a bad thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Did they happen to take a copy of the original AD&D Monster Manual with them?
> 
> If so, that might explain this phenomenon....



Would it help you that the host of our games usually has gun books and historical warfare books lying in his bath? 

And does this mean I now have to buy a AD&D Monster Manual to find what the fuss is all about?


----------



## Harshax (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> So, while ideas, mechanics, and, naming conventions from other games may be brilliant bits of game design, when they appear in D&D, I'm reminded of those other games. (In fact, I recall using the expressions "tap" and "untap" during our demo game, and at one point saying "F4" and miming pressing a button on my keyboard when activating one of my character's "at will" powers.)




I'm not on any bandwagon to jump on your back, in fact, I've lurked this thread because I didn't really draw the same 'anti-anything' conclusions that other posters drew from your blog, but I would like to know a little more about this part of your post.

You miming pressing 'F4' sounds like you're jaded by your video game experience, and can't see how the innovations (or borrowing, whatever) of 4E might be a really *great* thing for the game.  That's just one interpretation anyway.

I've had players at my table that correlated every plot, character or scene with a movie, or a book, or a meme, and were too often interested in metathinking the whole game, and then wanting to discuss the similarities. I'm not saying you're anything like this, just pointing out how your comment reminds me of this one player. His interaction with my game at my table was indicative that he was a 'casual roleplayer'.

You would get a very stern look from me, if you did that at my table. Maybe once is funny, but more often would show disinterest. To which, I would encourage you (for both our sakes) to find a more interesting group or activity. Because frankly, you're wrecking it for me.

Sure, I can agree that big name stars would have changed the feel of LotR for some, but there were other actors in that movie which I did recognize. Guess what?  It didn't wreck it for me, because I *wanted* to be entertained. I remember once (only once) an uncle in my family dressed up as Santa. I was pretty little, and after the novelty wore off, I realized it was my uncle. But it was still a lot of fun to pretend it wasn't.

It's clear to me that 4E is trying to move into a more pulpy sort of theme with D&D, and realizes that players are more interested in pretending that there characters are facing hoards of foes and swinging from chandaliers, than they are managing their wealth level, or  dealing with the artificial 'daily recharge' pacing which we found in 3.x. I think that's a good thing. If I wanted to spend time tabulating wealth level, I'll do that at tax time, not at the game table.

From a story telling perspective, 4E introduces a clever design element that will be very good  in assisting DM's in creating enjoyable adventures. I've seen less of the actual game than you, but from what I've read, 4E is training the DM to look at gameplay as scenes in a movie. While the 'artificiality' of a 'coffee break' mechanic may seem absurd to some, from a story telling perspective, it's awesome. After a combat, saying you 'catch your breath' is all that is necessary to link the previous scene to the next set of activities. Really needing to know what happened in that five minutes takes you down the same avenue of metathinking as the eternal question of a bygone era - 'Why did none of the old school maps have bathrooms'? The best answer is always 'Who cares' were not going to roleplay that!

Sorry for the rant man. I think you're great, but I'm wondering if you (and others in this forum) just gotta loosen your grip a little on this whole thing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 5, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> Feel free to ignore my advice. Buy 4th Edition the moment it comes out, throw away your old rulebooks, and hold parades in honor of the designers. Whatever floats your boat. I, personally, intend to approach it considerably more cautiously (much the way I did with Windows Vista, Area 51: Blacksite, and Scientology): I'll read *impartial* reviews (assuming I can find any), I'll talk to my FLGS about whether they've seen numerous returns, and I'll talk to people who have tastes similar to mine and see what *they* think of the game.




You are right, that you should not sells your 3.5 books. 
You are right, that you should read through the book before you buy it.
You are right that you should ask people with similar taste as you before you buy it. 
And you are right, that wizard could really have given out more information by now...

But: if noone buys it first, there is noone to ask.

A good idea is: buy or borrow one book for the whole group (or even for several groups), try it out for yourself with the complete rule set...

For what we know, most of it sounds great. But I think so much is left out, and i formed a very distinct opinion about how rituals, crafting and several other things we know very little of should be implemented. If the actual rules are worse, i could easily be turned off...


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> And does this mean I now have to buy a AD&D Monster Manual to find what the fuss is all about?




Well, unless you are a 12 year old boy who is going through confusing changes, I doubt that the AD&D Monster Manual would hold much interest for you--at least in terms of artwork.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Well, unless you are a 12 year old boy who is going through confusing changes, I doubt that the AD&D Monster Manual would hold much interest for you--at least in terms of artwork.



Never overestimate my mental maturity!    

But - I have the internet these days... I guess I won't need the AD&D Monster Manual after all...


----------



## Lizard (Apr 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Never overestimate my mental maturity!
> 
> But - I have the internet these days... I guess I won't need the AD&D Monster Manual after all...




Damn you, Internet!


----------



## erisred (Apr 5, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I think the only true, educated and honest opinion one can have with limited exposure is a "wait and see" . we don't know alot about 4e, so lets just wait and see.
> 
> I realize this opinion doesn't work well in a discussion though, and isn't nearly as fun, so continue, please.
> 
> call me crazy



Okay, you're crazy!  

But so am I...because I agree with you. "Wait and see" is where I'm at until I have the books in my hands.

Sure, I'm somewhat worried about 4e not being what I want it to be, but at this point...having no frame of reference but what I have gleaned online...who's to say whether my worry is justified or not.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 6, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm coming over Wolfspider RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 6, 2008)

JeDiWiker said:
			
		

> (much the way I did with *Windows Vista*, Area 51: Blacksite, and *Scientology*)




You approached Vista AND Scientology?

Man, you've either got a huge brass pair or you're completely nuts.


----------



## drjones (Apr 6, 2008)

erisred said:
			
		

> Sure, I'm somewhat worried about 4e not being what I want it to be, but at this point...having no frame of reference but what I have gleaned online...who's to say whether my worry is justified or not.




I feel the same way about the great New York earthquake of 2020.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 6, 2008)

If you insist upon setting your desire for what is essentially nostalgia in direct opposition to my desire for a high quality game, then I'm glad you don't feel that D&D is D&D anymore.  There have been a TON of video games, tradeable card games, and miniature wargames invented over the past few years.  Some of them undoubtedly got something, somewhere, right.  Declaring use of those mechanical innovations to be verboten because the fact that someone else got there first makes it "not D&D" is about the fastest way to stab a stake right through the heart of this game.  If what you want is nostalgia, play the game for which you're nostalgic.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 6, 2008)

Just to be clear, I've read through most of the thread and I noticed a disconnect between the short rules that everyone is using and the way that the short "coffee break" was explained and actually played at DDXP.

In COMBAT the only way for a character to heal *himself* is to use his Second Wind ability to expend a healing surge.  The leader role characters have specific abilities that allow other characters to heal even if they have already expended their Second Wind.

Outside of combat a character can use as many healing surges as he has left to heal *himself* by taking a short rest.  In addition, during a short rest encounter powers are also regained.

That last sentence, I think is what is tripping everyone, because the way it was played and explained at DDXP was that encounter powers are reset at the beginning of the encounter.  So any break between combats restores the encounter powers and it was up to the DM to determine when an encounter ended and another started.

IOW, if you ran into encounter 1 in room A and did not take any damage.  Then you decided to immediately kick in the door to room B, without resting.  If room B contained encounter 2 and encounter 2 was considered a different encounter, you started encounter 2 with all your encounter powers restored.  However, if you took damage during encounter 1 and did not take a short rest to use healing surges to regain those hit points, then you started encounter 2 with damage but your encounter powers, including second wind, were still restored.

The only time that you would not regain encounter powers between encounters was if the encounters started to mix with each other.  That is, you're fighting in encounter 1 and during that encounter the monsters from encounter 2 join in.  For all purposes that is still considered the same encounter and your encounter powers are not refreshed when the new combatants join the fray.

The question even came up of what happened if an encounter started while you were taking your short rest?  The answer was the same.  Encounter powers are reset, healing depends on what you were able to do before combat began.

So a lack of information from the short rules is probably causing this confusion.  BTW, this was the same at both tables I played in.

I'm not saying that this is how the Real Rules will handle it, as I have not seen them.  But I can only tell you what was explained to us at DDXP by two different DMs which were both playtesters so they had seen a lot more of the rules than just the quick start rules.


----------

