David Marks's page

1) Knowledge of form: To transform into a target form, the caster needs to succeed in an appropriate Knowledge roll, DC 20+LA. (So, if you wanted to transform into a troll, +6 LA, you'd need to make a DC 26 Knowledge (nature) roll.

DC Modifiers: -2 if you've ever seen the form. Another -2 if you've seen the form during the last few days. Another -2 if you have a specimen present.

1a) You can "memorize" forms by spending a skill point, like learning a language. So if you want to turn into a troll on a regular basis, learn "Troll form".

(In practical use, most players rely on memorized forms, which means they have the calculated stats all ready.)

2) Experience Penalty: Casters receive experience based on the table in the DMG, appropriate to their current effective character level. (If your 11th-Level Sorcerer spends the entire adventure polymorphed into a ECL 18 Blue Dragon, he receives expereince for the entire adventure as a Level 18 character.)

I'm not sure about the Experience Penalty, but the Knowledge of Form rule is pretty clever Chris. If my group wasn't moving to 4E, I'd have to give some thought to seeing if they'd accept it. :)

So if you're running a premade module & they buy a copy its perfectly fine for them to leaf through it during the game? No? then there is no reason for a player to use the DM guide or any monster product during the game. If it damages the play experience, you have the right to stop them. reading the adventure as you play is just a little worse than stopping the game while you look up a half dozen creature options in the MM.

We're touching on different points here. In my games, I am upfront with my players that I don't want summoning/polymorphing/whatever to be a drag on what can already be (at high levels) a very slow game. So anything you summon/polymorph into needs to be statted out ahead of time. Denying them access to any books they personally own in this endevor would really be a non-starter.

Likewise, if someone wanted to buy the module we were running and read it, that is their choice. I'd expect them to not use their knowledge to give themselves or the party any kind of advantage, however, and considering the difficulty of not acting on possessed knowledge, I think most (probably all) would decline to read the module before/during running.

That said, I don't use a screen, and a few players have been caught checking out maps during play. Most of the table ends up yelling at them when it happens but I don't stop them. It's their choce. We're all adults after all. :)

Edit: Me no speaka da gud englsh

DON'T ALLOW PLAYERS ACCESS TO ANY BOOK OTHER THAN PHB/CLASS-BOOKS!

Most of the time, the player's are looking at their own copy of whatever to get the resource they need. Tell someone they can't use the book THEY paid for? That'll go over well! :P

Excuse my ignorance of how 4E works, but how about reducing the challenge of encounters to compensate for a party having less magic items? Will that work, or is it not that simple?

That’s pretty much how I handle things in 3.5 – it does screw with the EL / CR system a bit, but they were relatively screwy to start with … and admittedly, I haven’t tried this at high levels yet.

You could weaken monsters on the same scale that you boost characters, and you would get the same results.

You could also throw lower leveled opponents at the party more often, but this would be more work (since you'd have to figure out how many levels to drop them without making them totally inefficient) than just giving an across the board bonus/penalty.

I had given up on reading this thread until you posted Kirth.
You are absolutely correct. There is no ONE TRUE WAY OF GAMING.

By the way, I intend to implement your factorial increase in falling damage immediately!

Of course there is one true way of gaming! My way! :P!

I could swear that Mearls had a post of some type spelling out how an easy way to ditch magic items (something like give an extra +1 to hit and damage ever N levels, a +1 to defenses ever Y levels, etc.)

Right, that's pretty much how you do it. You want to max out at +6 to all attacks and defenses, and give the bonus roughly every five levels, with the first plus starting at 2nd so ...

2nd +1
7th +2
12th +3
17th +4
22nd +5
27th +6

That seems about right to me. :)

Domination from an evil character, but what about a Neutral one temporarily helping an evil villain? Or a fey could come along...;)

That is harsh though, the only other thing I can suggest is grapple monsters.

I *think* prot. from evil prevents mental domination from ALL sources, not just evil ones. It's kinda a wonky spell.

Out of curiosity, for those willing to houserule polearms as unsheathable for "realism" issues, what do you do with double swords, dwarven urgoshes, gnomish picks, orc double axes, dire flails, spiked chains, and all the other silly weapons?

Are they sheathable? Usable in tight corridors? Some other random limitation not covered by the rules?

Thanks for the tips. If you don't mind me asking why fighter over barbarian? More feats? and Why sorcerer over bard? Spell list?

Fizz

Your Barbarian would lose access to his spells while raging, I think. And the bigger spell list would probably make it easier to utilize the few spells you have. At least, that's my off the cuff reasoning.

Well, if you give everyone +1 to hit and to all defenses every few levels you should be fine. The progression can vary, but should top out at +6. +1 at 2nd then every five levels seems like it would work out fine.

I think we've hit on something, though, about the druid, with the use of this spell. 4E doesn't seem to want to have anything in the rules that the DDI can't handle... Polymorph seems like it would be pretty high on the list - at least as a 'free form' spell.

I've seen this meme going around, but it seems no matter how many times I stomp it out, it just keeps going. The DDI does not adjudicate ANY rules, what so ever. In fact, in no way is it limited to playing 4E. You can play any edition of DnD you want on it, or even Pathfinder, or SR, or whatever (although I don't know what options we'll have for minis, so things outside fantasy might be tougher ...)

The VTT is just a table-top, no mechanics involved.

As for how Druids are going to work ... that's mostly how things have been trending already, so that seems most likely to me. Check out PHB II where WHAT you turn into doesn't matter ... it's just fluff. The polymorph itself gives you certain set abilities. Expect a bit of that too! :)

Hopefully. But I want to be able to turn somebody into a toad -- or be turned into one.

For all of WotC's (perfectly reasonable) objections to the spell, I never once met a player that thought it should be removed from the game.

Lol, true true. It seems like that is a unfortunate casualty in the choice to get rid of instant death effects. It's a bit of a mixed bag. Maybe they could bring it back similar to how Disintegrate works now, with multiple saves needed before you're 'morphed? Oooh, that seems like a good idea now that I think of it ...

PS. McCoy, mind if I post this over at ENWorld? I bet a number of posters over there would like to see this as well, although if you want the scoop, go right ahead. :)

Edit: A clone! But that could only mean the Reverse Vampires! :O!

I guess there goes my theory about alien abduction! :P

Thanks McCoy. I know Scott posted on ENWorld about going on vacation for a week or two, dunno about Linae. :)

I miss the polymorph spells. What is a more iconic within fantasy literature than turning someone into a toad?

Of course, WotC has been increasingly hostile to the spell, and released a monster redesign (for 3.5) to castrate it.

Play balance be damned -- when I play a swords & sorcery game, I want traditional elements of swords & sorcery. Otherwise, let's just remove orcs, elves, unicorns, talking trees, magic swords, and knights in shining armor. We've still got knights and armor -- they've just lost their lances.

The spell makes the genre more fun. I want it back >:|

Well, when the Druid comes out next March, we'll likely see what we should expect from Polymorph here in 4E. I expect it will likely give a buff or ability relevant to the creature turned into, but with a different power per creature, much like 3E was heading towards, with spells like "Troll Form" or "Giant Form".

I expect we won't really see anything like Baleful Polymorph unless it is either A) save ends or B) similar to how systems like Hero treat Polymorph, where if the "damage" of the polymorph exceeds the HP, then the creature is polymorphed, otherwise they are fine. (Hmm, Firefox is ok with polymorph, but not polymorphed, strange.)

Cheers! :)

No one in my group is much interested in Pathfinder. The concensus seems to be that if we wanted to play 3.5, we'd just play 3.5. No need for new rules or extra books (we have LOTS of 3.5 books!)

Of course, we're going to 4E, so we won't really be playing 3.5 post Pathfinder anyway.

Cheers! :)

In 3E we often tried to fill the "roles" without really having a nomenclature to use. If there was no trap/lock worker, someone would roll one, no healer, someone would make one. No front-line fighter, next person who dies (and it would rarely take long!) gets to be one. That sort of thing.

In 4E, I definitely find my group asking who is filling what role, with what class they are using to fill it secondary information. Pretty nifty.

Cheers! :)

David Marks wrote:

I see it as a Wizard never stops working on their spells, and instead of erasing, he is changing them, adding a gesture here, a new word there, that changes the overall effect of the spell from the previous one to the new one. Think editing the same word document and saving over, instead of writing a new one and throwing the old one away.

I like the concept, but it still doesn't explain why he can't cast the old version if he wants to :)

He wasn't smart enough to make changes in a different colored ink. ;)

FakeHealer has the right of it, in my mind, but said it much better than me. :)

That's doesn't work so well for me. You basically have the rules dictate a PCs decision if you take that approach. The response from the player would be "Well, I don't care if they're obsolete I'm keeping them anyway," and then the only reply is that the rules MAKE you delete them. It's better to have them disappear on their own (although it's a really odd mechanic and hard to justify) than having the rules force a player into making a decision by fiat.

I see it as a Wizard never stops working on their spells, and instead of erasing, he is changing them, adding a gesture here, a new word there, that changes the overall effect of the spell from the previous one to the new one. Think editing the same word document and saving over, instead of writing a new one and throwing the old one away.

I just scooped up a few DCCs myself, with the intent of converting them over for 4E. Which DCC is this?

Giving the creatures the ability to inflict combat advantage with an at-will attack may be a little strong, but does not seem especially so. Your solo vine should have two AP. Perhaps another ability to let it hit multiple opponents ... maybe some kind of gas-cloud or thorns it shoots?

What would be the perceived benefit of allowing a character to "sheathe" a polearm as any other weapon? What would be the benefit of disallowing it?

I'd let a player do it, either by slinging it over his shoulder, or possibly through a screw in half/fold as mentioned in this thread. I wouldn't penalize a character for using a non-standard weapon by imposing mechanical difficulties on him.

Cheers! :)

A two-handed weapons damage bonus, as it were, is supposed to be reflected in their increased damage die. Power Attack, however, does do more damage with a two-hander; so do a number of Fighter powers. That's about it though.

"If the weapon has a magical property which causes the weapon to automatically return when thrown, ignore this rule." ?

Yeah, more or less. All magical properties cause thrown weapons to return when thrown in 4E though. :)

Then the player with the high-level Xena clone KILLS the DM...

That too, makes life interesting! :P

Maybe, but you KNOW, the moment I declare an absolute...

Lol, fair enough, but at least state that the clause about not-returning does not overrule the general property of magical throwing weapons ... uh ... return-y-ness. You can make a non-returning one if you want, but enchanting one of these should, in general, ensure its return. (Absolutes = bad, generalizations = generally ok) ;)

Drat! You noticed! Actually I went back and forth on this. I would imagine that they would be considered 'Superior' (except the Quoit) most of the time.. but if a campain with decidedly Eastern themes? Martial.

How about this solution: They're considered Martial, but if you don't hail from a region where they are common, you need to spend X amount of time training with them to learn how to use them (that time being days or weeks, vary to taste).

Actually that's probably not a bad idea, though it's a bit inverted from what I wanted to model. If a '5' were to hit, for instance, would a '4' count as a drop instead of a return?

Well, I was thinking of the natural roll, just to be clear. But I'd say, if a roll of 4 (or one under whatever you settle the "not-returning thresthold" at) still hit, say it doesn't return anyway. Makes life more interesting. ;)

Well, I didn't want to say 'all magical Chakram auto-return', even though it would PROBABLY be true.. I can imagine SOMEONE making one that didn't JUST to argue with me. :P

Check your magic items chapter in the PHB bud. All magical thrown weapons return to you now. ;)

Seems interesting. Where do you place them in terms of proficiency groups? Ie, are these Simple, Martial, or Superior weapons?

Returnable seems interesting, but it might be better to have it return on a miss if the roll is above a threshold (like 5). That'll ease the calculations going on, and give less info on the monster's exact defense. Also, maybe add something about how a magical one ALWAYS returns, no matter what, just so no one imagines any kind of conflict here. :)

I hadn't realized that there WERE two 'main guides' coming for the settings, though that does make some sense. One crunchy and one fluffy... Well, here's hoping they pull it off. :)

Indeed! Technically, there are in fact THREE books planned for each campaign setting, with the third being an adventure. :)

Oh, there's going to be a LOT of crunch in that book...

I actually admit to being a little dissapointed in that so much of the book is going to be crunch. I really miss the excellent fluffy write-ups from second edition. Though, I suppose, it can't be helped at this point.

I think the new campaign model is for most of the fluff to be segregated into the Campaign Guidebook while the Player's Handbook gets most of the crunch. 3E was somewhat similar, but it seems 4E might be even stricter on the fluff/crunch split here.

Holy crapamole! This is awesome! I'd give you a kiss, but your big ape face is off putting.

Thanks! :)

Not to continue inciting a flame war, but I think it is a bit silly to suggest that a discussion on a messageboard should be held to the same requirements as a court of law. I wonder if people treat their friends the same way. "Hey I saw on TV a few days ago that [blah] was suppose to happen." "What station was it? What time of day was it? Do you have actual evidence that you can show me? If not, then you are just blowing smoke." It is a messageboard folks, not a proof board.

Depending on what my friends were saying, some claims would require backing up. The crazier I consider the claim, the more proof I'd need to believe them.

OT - is it just me, or are there posts disappearing, or failing to show, etc, an AWFUL lot lately?

It is bad today, but this is a bug that has been plaguing the boards here for quite a while. I've found a solution for when the most recent post is failing to show up is to simply post to the thread (I generally use just a post saying "test").

Posting will fix the problem, and you can just delete your meaningless post afterwards to keep from crowding the threads with crap.

But... I'm not normally angry, even when posting here...

Though, granted, that poodle pic REALLY disturbs me.

But look at his wide, even manic, grin. Surely he is the Poodle of Happiness, not the Poodle of Disturbance. ;)

Point from above with respect to DDO failing.

I think that's a gross overstatement, considering the game is still running and has enough subs that they continually add new content to the game. Has the best instanced dungeons of any MMO. They also just added monks to the game, which is cool.

DDO was fun, but just not quite what I had hoped for from a DnD based MMO. Honestly, I think the VTT is closer to what I would have really liked ...

Still, the game did apparently have a viable population when I left. I'm happy to hear they're still chuggin along.

Snorter wrote:

Why does 'it is present' in the Pokemon Generation, or the WoW Generation, have to mean 'it is rampant'?

Wow; twenty-eight minutes! Your reactions are slowing down, old man!

At least in terms of marketing, are you SERIOUSLY going to argue that the bullet points for most new games, including 4E, are much more about 'how powerful your deck/character/figure' is than how much you're going to role-play?

What does marketing have to do with the nature of the game itself?

Also, what does roleplaying have to do with CC/MGs?

Sounds interesting. Can't wait to get home and check it out. :)

I started the thread over at EN World, if anyone wants to read it, I did reveal a lot of details:

Link

I'm not sure what is weirder ... Shroomy-Ape or Shroomy-Skull. The mind ponders ...

doppelganger wrote:

Wasn't this the whole point of developing the OGL? To get other producers to make adventures so WotC could focus on stuff all players would buy instead of stuff that just the DM would buy?

True. And, one might say that it ended up being a winning strategy. The problems started when Hasbro bought WoTC and started demanding more (bottom line wise) from D&D then the current RPG could/can support.

I believe Hasbro owned WotC even before 3E was actually released, FYI.

vance wrote:

Significantly smaller runs of a diversity of product (like, say, campaign settings) would have made much more financial sense.

Indeed, the companies that succeeded and succeeds through the OGL era do just that.

But when WotC is expecting the 'Guide to Menzorbarranzan' to compete in raw numbers with the required PHB, though, that's their mistake. WotC could have taken the lessons of TSR and worked them to their advantage, but they took the WRONG lessons, and didn't want to deliver content at all - which is why we're getting the splat cycle that we're getting now.

Wasn't one of the big lessons from the end of days of TSR that a company should not have a diversity of campaign settings? I see that listed as a big mistake in several articles and gamer recollections of the old days.

The big problem is that as you split into several different lines you fracture your market. The DL players don't buy the FR stuff, the FR guys don't buy the DL stuff, and who knows what those crazy PS fans are doing.

4E is planning on trying to have the best of both sides by doing a limited release (3 books) of each campaign setting. Popular ones may be revisited later, and they'll probably all pop up in Dragon and Dungeon, but hopefully the small lines will help keep the market mostly solidified. :)

David Marks wrote:

When 3E debuted, it was general consensus then that selling adventures was a loser's game. Since only DMs bought the adventure, while everyone bought the splat, selling splats simply hit a larger share of the market at whole. For a large span on 3E's history, WotC wasn't really interested in selling adventures at all.

Wasn't this the whole point of developing the OGL? To get other producers to make adventures so WotC could focus on stuff all players would buy instead of stuff that just the DM would buy?

Indeed, that was one of the driving reasons from my understanding. For quite a while, that's more or less how it worked out too. :)

I almost bought H2 the other day but stopped myself because H1 wasn't that good. Curse you for making me want this!!!

From the reviews on ENWorld, it seems H2 is a good-sized step up from H1. Considering the negative reviews H1 got, I'm glad to hear it! :)

Absolutely correct. I feel WotC never put as much effort into selling adventures as they did into selling splat books.

When 3E debuted, it was general consensus then that selling adventures was a loser's game. Since only DMs bought the adventure, while everyone bought the splat, selling splats simply hit a larger share of the market at whole. For a large span on 3E's history, WotC wasn't really interested in selling adventures at all.

Ok, I give, how about a little love for Craft, Profession, or Perform then?

Those three were likely pretty hotly debated for 4E. The new skill system doesn't fit any of them very well. But my take on Craft/Profession is that either people never used those skills at all, or they used those skills to flesh out their character's background. If you didn't use them, no loss in their removal, and if you used them to flesh out your character, you can do so just as easily by writing it into your backstory/roleplaying.

To look at it from another angle, consider the difference between Attack powers and Utility powers in 4E. At one point, a developer said they wanted to move away from forcing characters to choose between roleplaying flavor and mechanical benefits. I never liked having to weaken my character as an adventurer in order to depict that he had a life outisde of adventuring, and I'm glad 4E removes that aspect of things.

Perform, of course, is a different kettle of fish. I'd like to see Perform come back in some fashion, although obviously it won't as a skill does now, unless maybe it has no untrained uses. (Hmm ... no untrained uses could probably work for Craft and Profession too ...)

But back to the point, I do want Perform back, and hope to see it when the Bard finally rolls out next March.

Cheers! :)

BTW, I'm also not saying that powergaming isn't always useful. In MMORPGs it's very difficult to have fun with friends who level their characters at different rates because one guy knows how to level faster and get a better build of his character than others. Once friends have vastly different levels, it's very hard, and many times impossible to play those characters together.

A feature from EQII (which may or may not be there in WoW) is the ability to mentor a lower level character. The mentor's level is reduced to the level of the student, allowing him to gain XP from the lower level challenges faced by the student, but the mentor takes a massive XP penalty. Meanwhile, the student gains a small-ish XP bonus, and gets to hunt with his friend who has outleveled him.

It's more often used to let people who outleveled some content experience it, but my friends used to use it to help a new friend catch up with us so he could play with us more often.

Of course this is all completely off-topic, and I don't think even has anything to do with power gaming ...

I would definitely disagree that the presence of non-combat skills fails to promote power gaming. In a sense, the game designers are putting in game mechanics that let you define your character completely. In 2nd edition I felt this was lacking to a great deal unless you used the optional skill system. By putting these into the rules, they are definitely encouraging players to think about the world the characters live in and what other skills a person living in that world would normally have.

However, your point is valid that powergaming definitely existed pre-4th edition.

I will give you another example instead. If you look at the list of abilities for each class in the SRD, few of the abilities are "named" the same way powers are named in 4th. I don't have the 4th book in front of me, but every power in 4th is given a name much along the lines of Magic: The Gathering card names. This, for me, encourages the leveling mentality because it encourages thinking in terms of power vs level.

I personally feel that this flavors the game to a degree that encourages powergaming.

FWIW, I think non-combat skills are some of the worst spots in 3E in terms of powergaming. Anyone ever seen a character designed to crank Diplomacy? Or Bluff? Even with heavy circumstance penalties, it is easy to get characters who can still roll 20 or 30s without breaking a sweat, at really low levels. Amp the levels up a bit and you have guys able to out-bargain Balors LONG before they could actually fight them.

Grimcleavers houserules are good, you should check them out.

Alternatively, if you review the monster stat blocks, you'll find that they don't seem to have encounter powers.

What they do have is a "recharge" mechanism using a d6, whereby at the start of each round they roll a d6 to see if that power "recharged".

The simple answer is for you to houserule a similar mechanism for your players encounter powers. You can use a d6/6 - I'd recommend initially to make them all require a "6" on the recharge. If you think that's too often use a d10/10. That adds some additional drama to the combat.

Another alternative might be to allow spending an action point to recharge an encounter power. So instead of an extra standard action, one of their encounter powers is usable again.

I know these don't meet all the criteria you laid out, but I think either (or both) of these would be much simpler for you and your players.

Pete

Some monsters DO have encounter powers, just to be clear Pete. I think they can even have dailies, if you give them a class template (but I haven't read that area too closely so ...)

I think letting PC encounters recharge on 1/6th of the time is a bit too strong, although 1/10th might be ok. Either way though, you're giving the PCs a leg up so be warned.

Using an AP to get back an encounter sounds more reasonable to me, but still be careful. Playing with fire tends to burn. :)

Based on what I've seen from you in every other thread I've noticed you in, you're pressin for an argument. I'm just workin of observation and may be jumping the gun. But we've managed to keep the pro/anti 4e debate to a relative minimum on this thread, and I for one would like to keep it like that.

Wasn't there something from earlier up thread about not reading more into a post than what is there? I can't seem to recall now ...

As for ninjas, it is well known they like to flip out and kill everything. That's a fact! ;)

Why do you think we use them? Do you actually think we NEED them? That's where we hide all of the components of our UberDeathRays. Didn't you know that when you get to be a higher level gamer you learn to cast *real* spells? Just ask Jack Chick.

Lol. Not Black Leaf! Nooooooo! :P

Old people used to at least attempt to disguise their creeping better than modern games tend to.

It's the walkers. They confuse us youngsters. :P

Here's the issue with any game: if you do not embrace the spirit and intent of the rules (give up something to gain something of equal value), you are not doing it right. If a Player and DM agreed that being afraid of bathing was worth uber power, they are not embracing the intent and spirit, they are just Monty Hauling. It doeesn't matter which game you are playing, someone is always going to rape it so they are cooler.

If that DM & Player look at the restrictions of S&P, they tell you that if it's not an actual hindrance in gameplay, it's not worth points ... much the same wway Hero System says "if it's not really a disadvantage to the player, it's not worth points." If you are unwilling to embrace the spirit of the rules and only want to rape them for your own advantage, you shouldn't be playing.

I agree, if someone approaches the game system with the intention of squeezing out every possible advantage they can get, they will do so, no matter the rules.

But my post was meant to counter the point from up thread about how 3E introduced power creep into DnD. It was there in 2E just as much. For all I know, it was there for 1E too, but never having played in that era, I couldn't say.

Cheers! :)