Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I also approve of the healing surges - the mechanics could be improved, but they do two things that always bugged me about 3rd edition: they limit how many times a day your body can go from "nearly dead" to "perfectly healthy" before you just can't take it anymore. Also, they make the amount of healing granted to you by magic a proportion of your hp. When you think about it, the names of all PF's healing spells are total misnomers. At first level, 'cure light wounds' is a spell that can restore over half the hp of most characters (how is that a 'light' wound?), and at 20th level, you're lucky if 'cure critical wounds' restores even one-sixth of your hp (so it's really more of a 'mildly alleviate critical wounds').

So you're saying the Cure series in PF should be xd8+ 1/4 or 1/2 target's HP?

The Exchange

TriOmegaZero wrote:
...So you're saying the Cure series in PF should be xd8+ 1/4 or 1/2 target's HP?

I'd have to crunch the numbers on that. You don't want healing to be too weak at low levels or too powerful (heal aside) at high levels... the easiest fix would probably be to rename the spells we already have so that they don't "presume" what percentage of hit points they'll heal - whether a series as generically named as healing I, healing II and so on, or something florid like lesser benison of health, mend flesh or what-have-you.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I also approve of the healing surges - the mechanics could be improved, but they do two things that always bugged me about 3rd edition: they limit how many times a day your body can go from "nearly dead" to "perfectly healthy" before you just can't take it anymore. Also, they make the amount of healing granted to you by magic a proportion of your hp. When you think about it, the names of all PF's healing spells are total misnomers. At first level, 'cure light wounds' is a spell that can restore over half the hp of most characters (how is that a 'light' wound?), and at 20th level, you're lucky if 'cure critical wounds' restores even one-sixth of your hp (so it's really more of a 'mildly alleviate critical wounds').
So you're saying the Cure series in PF should be xd8+ 1/4 or 1/2 target's HP?

Before the cure spells are worth the time, they would need significant improvements. The healing value needs to seriously be cranked up. Maybe 1d8 per caster level would be a nice start. Kind of like damage dealing spells in reverse. It would at least make metamagic viable for healing spells. Alternatively, make all healing spells function like the heal spell and restore CL * 10 HP, with a specific cap depending on the level of the spell (such as capping it at each new spell level, so CLW caps at 30, CMW at 50, CSW at 70, CCW at 90, etc).

Heck, here's an alternative method for healing spells. Have the healing spell restore HP as if you were well-rested for a certain number of days. Cure Light Wounds? Maybe you recover 4 HP * HD. Cure Moderate? Maybe your recover 8 HP * HD. And so on and so forth. Heck, you might even decide to scrap lesser restoration and just roll it into the healing spells entirely, and just have them restore ability damage appropriate to the number of days rested the spell provides.

In that case, healing spells would just speed up your recovery rate, but wouldn't heal you of anything you couldn't heal from naturally (so if you suffered ability drain, it wouldn't heal it because you can't heal drain naturally).

Just some ideas. Your thoughts, TriOmegaZero?


Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
~GETTING RID OF THAT STUPID DIAGONAL MOVEMENT RULE. NO! Do NOT defend this rule. It makes NO sense. NONE. Someone tried, I made them walk outside, and *GASP* you get to places QUICKER when you move diagonally, not the same rate. It's STUPID. And of all the rules I moved into Pathfinder from 4ed, this is the one that shall forever move with me. I've NEVER seen it abused in practice.

If you are not going to count diagonals then just use a tape measure, otherwise distance is meaningless. Measure it out. Place two minis 5 squares apart. Measure the distance. Take two minis and place them 5 squares apart corner to corner now measure THAT distance. THAT is why the diagonal rule makes sense.

Whether you travel forward, backward, left, right, or diagonal you travel a DISTANCE. Moving diagonal has nothing to do with it.

The diagonal rule is logical because the distance from se to nw is 1.4 inches instead of a inch. Moving forward through 2 squares gets you two inches, moving diagonally gets you 2.85 inches.

If one square represents 5 feet, then the diagonal is 7 feet. Moving two diagonal squares nets you ALMOST another square.

So just because someone decides to move nw to se they should gain more distance? That is not what makes sense. Why would anyone move forward?

No one needs to defend it because Pythagorus does it so well.

Moving diagonally does NOT get you anywhere faster. In real life if you travel diagonally you are simply traveling a distance.

EDIT: Someone Ninja'd that response.


@Ashiel, I like your suggestion of basing healing on accelerating natural healing as if some number of days have passed. That scales naturally and makes some sort of sense (as if that matters).

What about the idea of limiting the number of heals you can handle in one day (as healing surges do)? That allows healing to become a limiting factor for characters as well. Initially I was not sold on the 4e healing model, but over time I have come to appreciate the value of having to manage healing surges. I could see that being added to PF.


@Finn K
If your going to keep facing please for the love of god make it universal. The 4th ed game I played had the GM not applying it for the melee types so they could see/defend/attack any direction as needed but applying it for my spells so that hypnotic pattern could only affect the monster if cast in front of it. If I cast it behind or to far back on the side it wouldn't catch it in its "peripheral" vision the spell had no effect.

Personally I also like the inherent magic concept I've always been bothered by Vancian magic's fire and forget concept. I've mastered the mystreies of the universe but I can't remember how to cast magic missle till I go back and study my books even though I've cast it once a day or more for the past 40 years.

4th ed magic is not something I like particularly since most of your spells are range 10 or less while ranged fighters can hit you at virtually any range and melee types once they stop laughing are glad to see the arcane caster walking into hitting radius.

Things I like about 4th ed . . . the faster ability progression thats about it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Ash, I'll get back to you on the healing changes once I give it more thought.

As for healing surges and daily healing caps, I'm not opposed to the idea off the bat. It can lead to interesting mechanics, like desert conditions slowly reducing your number of surges per day if you don't drink water.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

@Ashiel, I like your suggestion of basing healing on accelerating natural healing as if some number of days have passed. That scales naturally and makes some sort of sense (as if that matters).

What about the idea of limiting the number of heals you can handle in one day (as healing surges do)? That allows healing to become a limiting factor for characters as well. Initially I was not sold on the 4e healing model, but over time I have come to appreciate the value of having to manage healing surges. I could see that being added to PF.

I think there should be a limit to healing when there is a limit to damage. That is to say, never. As long as you have spell slots, you should be able to keep spamming heals to keep people up. Healing by its very nature is sacrificing your actions to try and negate the actions of another, after the fact. The problem is current healing is terribly inefficient. It is literally just a waste of actions unless you are trying to prevent the character from bleeding out, and even then it's iffy tactically.

I think having a good healer should prolong your adventuring stamina, not be limited by it. A good healer in a game should be able to take impossible situations and through their ministrations be able to get you to pull through it and keep going. Instead of burning through healing spells rapidly and then having to stop and recover spells, I believe a good healer should reduce the need to stop at all.

For example, let's pretend we're going with the speedy-rest idea for cure spells. Let's say we have a 5th level Party. Our cleric can cast cure light wounds (1 day worth of well rested), cure moderate wounds (2 days worth of well rested), and cure serious wounds (3 days worth of well rested). Maybe even let the Cleric apply their Heal skill when casting to give the benefits of aided rest.

So our Fighter gets seriously banged up in a fight with some foes. The cleric casts cure light wounds on him and restores 20 HP to the Fighter (4 HP * Fighter level). Later the Fighter suffers more serious damage, and the cleric drops a cure moderate wounds and heals the Fighter for 40 HP, bringing him back up to full. Later still, the Fighter is reduced to near death, and so the Cleric bursts him up for 60 HP. In each case, the Cleric has used his actions to prolong their adventuring day. He could, theoretically, using spontaneous casting to convert all his spells to healing spells, could keep the party up and moving for a long time. Likewise, since the spells would scale with the level of the target, a higher level cleric could sustain the party longer and longer.

Now, some people might be really upset at the idea that a 1st level spell could heal up to 80 HP to a 20th level character or Cure Critical Wounds healing up to 320 Hp, but I don't think that's a bad idea at all Damage is so heavy at higher levels that healing just cannot keep up. Healers that matter are essentially non-existent in the game as it is.

I guess it really comes down to how powerful you want your healing to be. In its current form, it's really only for out of combat, and even then it's only used via wands because they're not worth using your real spells on. I think I would actually like having healing characters being a huge plus to the party's longevity.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
It can lead to interesting mechanics, like desert conditions slowly reducing your number of surges per day if you don't drink water.

That seems like a fair idea, if you consider healing surges. It's worth noting that thirst and arid conditions inflict damage that cannot be healed through without eating, drinking, etc. So the effect may be much the same in either case.


DigitalMage wrote:


Whilst your point of view is valid, the key point is that yours is not the only valid point of view, and that the designers of 4e presumably got the impression that the diagonal move rule had a poor cost/benefit ratio for enough players that it would be best that 4e used a simpler rule.

And this is another point to be clear on, many of us understand and can even calculate the diagonal moves in PF, however the benefit it gives (in terms of increasing the fun of the game) compared to the extra hassle /effort /time it takes is not worth it to us. For us the extra "realism" is not worth even the slight delay in calculating areas of effect and movement. Obviously for yourself the extra realism is worth it, which is great as PF uses your preferred method.

Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'. How is counting the 1:2 ratio on diagonal squares really a matter of difficulty?

It is not a matter of simulation. Clearly if you look at the battlemat,the mini that moved 3 squares corner to corner has a greater displacement than the one that moved 3 squares front to back. It simply throws off the scaling of your map.

I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers. i find math of pathfinder to be sweet and easy.


This is a good thread talking about the problems with porting minions over to PF.

This is a discussion of several implementations of minions for PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The diagonal movement thing is just a matter of where you want to use complexity. Everyone in this thread knows that you're breaking from reality if you use the one-as-one movement system. It's not a matter of being unable to understand it or not realizing that it's not proper geometry. It's just considered an acceptable break from reality, allowing complexity to be spent elsewhere. It's like not tracking mundane ammo; everyone can count how many arrows were fired, but many groups elect not to. Yeah, it does mean that there's the occasional "hilarious" comment about the quantity of ammo someone must be carrying, but whatever. Pointing out that one-as-one movement defies the rules of geometry is like pointing out that not tracking mundane ammo defies the rules of physics. People know that, they're just choosing to abstract it away for other benefits. I'm pretty sure that in every group that uses one-as-one somebody comments on it eventually, just like someone comments on any of the dozens of other weirdnesses that crop up when you try to reduce skirmish combat to a discreet system.

I don't want to say "I'm spending the complexity elsewhere", because that looks like I'm just accusing people who use the 1-2 system of running boring combats, which isn't necessarily true. They could be playing with gamers who don't give a lot of attention to how they're moving, or with people sufficiently experienced at the system that they can rapidly visualize the routes that they can take through complicated battlefields, or they could simply not care that sometimes a player's turn takes a bit longer. When I was a new DM, I did run a lot of combats in Flatemptyroomlandia against goblins of the Mostly Just Move And Attack Tribe. I also used 1-2 diagonals. As I ramped up combats and environments in complexity in an effort to keep each combat memorable in its own right, I started chopping things that just got in the way. Mundane ammo tracking was first, and I resisted dropping 1-2 diagonal movement for a long time, but eventually let it go and don't miss it. I'm not advocating that every group switch to 1-1, and I understand that it's important for a lot of people, and I understand that you don't want to cut realism where you can help it (it's fortunate that root two is so close to 1.5, so the rule helps you get almost perfect over short distances with little trouble), but it's something that we've done.

Dark Archive

I cannot stay silent on this, I guess.

The argument that the distance from the center of the square to it's corner is indeed correct. However...

The game defines the character as occupying the whole five foot area. At no time does the character exist solely at the square's center; they exist in the square's center and the square's corners simultaneously. And when a character moves, they cease to exist inside the previous five foot square and instead now exist in the adjacent five foot square. At no time do you transition slowly between each square; you are either in that square, or you are not.

This is, evidently, why you are not wrong either. If one was to remove the grid, and instead measure the game's movements out with a measuring tape, the previous diagonal movement would be slower, because the character is no longer limited to the square. And, in real life, if one moves 'diagonally' well, they don't! (Both these points were made).

The problem comes from the fact that the game works as an abstraction. There are no cut and dry rules for movement as far as transitioning. The game uses terms for grids, and then it uses terms for, well, not grids, and damn, it gets weird. The game even defeats itself; A fireball explodes in a 30 foot radius spread (Spread. Is that a mathematical term that can be applied to a circle?), but then the diagram shows...not a sphere at all!

Because it is an abstraction. And that's fine.

Thus, neither argument is wrong, but each is applied to one's preference and gaming table. Me? I've got the gamer that can't figure out how to add when they roll 1d8+3 (thanks for the example). I've got two of them actually, and yeah, one of them IS me, and yes, I've never been shy about how bad at math I am. Somehow, I've managed to live almost 30 years, happily, without being good at it, all while getting a college degree. (So, I'm not that bad at math, I just don't have the memory for it.)

And I'm still smilin' like an idiot!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed an insulting post and the replies to it.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Finn K wrote:

*shrugs*

Military maps have square grids too-- but if you try 4E distance measuring for land navigation, you're going to be very very lost (not to mention dropping your shells way short if you're calling in mortars or artillery).

I'd also be in trouble if I tried to jump normally while on the moon. ;)

There's also the fact that creatures do not occupy the full 5 foot square they are in. A creature making a 30 foot move on the grid could actually be only moving 20 feet, from the corner of the square he starts in to the closest corner of the square he ends in.

The game is abstracted, and trying to stick strictly to real world physics is not something I care to waste my game time with.

Pretty much this. :P

Since Ross removed the whole string where I said I was done with this particular point of discussion, I am going to repeat that part of the statement, politely.

No-one appears to be trying to make the indefensible argument that the math behind the PF/3.5 rule does not make a good approximation of distances involved, and others have clearly demonstrated that mathematical proof more than a few times in this thread -- the discussion of movement rules appears to revolve around whether or not the additional "complexity" of diagonal movement is worth it, or if it should be okay to ignore "real-world" geometry and make diagonal moves the same cost as straight moves for ease-of-play.

I do not agree with any of you that the PF rules for diagonal movement are at all complicated or difficult in play. I do not think that they should be ignored. It is quite obvious that none of you who favor using the 4E style diagonal movement rules are going to agree with me on that.

So-- drop it. The dead horse we've been beating is just a bloody stain on the grass now.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

And again, both methods will end up with actual distance moved diagonally not equaling distance moved horizontally. It is entirely a matter of preference.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
And again, both methods will end up with actual distance moved diagonally not equaling distance moved horizontally. It is entirely a matter of preference.

TOZ-- if this is a response to me, see the post (as presently edited) immediately above yours. If you're responding to Carl Cascone, by all means feel free to continue the discussion with him. :)

Silver Crusade

Liam Warner wrote:

@Finn K

If your going to keep facing please for the love of god make it universal. The 4th ed game I played had the GM not applying it for the melee types so they could see/defend/attack any direction as needed but applying it for my spells so that hypnotic pattern could only affect the monster if cast in front of it. If I cast it behind or to far back on the side it wouldn't catch it in its "peripheral" vision the spell had no effect.

Personally I also like the inherent magic concept I've always been bothered by Vancian magic's fire and forget concept. I've mastered the mystreies of the universe but I can't remember how to cast magic missle till I go back and study my books even though I've cast it once a day or more for the past 40 years.

Facing will be universal as used by me. Since rounds are 6 seconds, I will probably allow change of facing as an "immediate action" IF the character in question makes the perception check to realize that someone is coming up behind him/her and is about to whack the character from behind (since it hardly takes any time at all to turn around-- on foot anyway, turning the horse you're on if mounted is a different story)-- but yes, the way you're facing and looking will be the way you're facing and looking for all purposes, not just as an inconvenience to spell-casters. And it does mean that if you're facing the wrong way and fail to notice that rogue behind you-- you're going to get 'sneak attacked' although there is no-one else anywhere nearby (doesn't take anyone else present to get a 'flank' or 'rear' attack, if the target leaves their back to the enemy, either through stupidity or failure to notice).

As I've indicated to Kagehiro-- I do find the 'Vancian' fire-and-forget concept interesting, but it is not the magic system I'd design and put into a game if I were the one creating it, and it's not my favorite fictional magic system by far. It comes off of a very particular idea about how magic works, drawn from the fantasy novels of Jack Vance (thus, where we get the name 'Vancian'); and it is still relatively true to the original source material. I don't like playing characters who have that issue of forgetting spells once cast-- but *if* magic works that way, it is a challenge for characters to deal with. The whole bit about alien patterns and symbols and such that are hard to pack into your mind in the first place, and are wiped from your memory in the process of releasing the spell-- was rather original when Vance came up with it for his books.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel, TOZ--

I find the comments/ideas on healing very interesting. I'll keep watching for more of this discussion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Indeed, I have to consider if the changes will make the game what I want before I chase them further.

Quote:
I do find the 'Vancian' fire-and-forget concept interesting, but it is not the magic system I'd design and put into a game if I were the one creating it, and it's not my favorite fictional magic system by far.

It being the only system I've used, I've gotten used to it. I can hardly call it Vancian any longer, now that I have a better understanding of the term. Far more like loading a weapon system with a complement of rounds. I understand not liking it, but I think it makes sense now that it isn't 'memorizing' spells any longer.


It took me a while to get used to Vancian Casting. Sometimes I nickname it the ammo system. Preparing a spell is like preparing which bullets you're going to fire that day. Every spell you have is like a round that gets fired and you get to decide on what effect it has. It makes sense for wizards. For Sorcerers, it doesn't work quite so well. Somebody made an interesting variant in the Homebrew section though that made sorcerers working on a spell point system (with wizards working normally). I also made a thread about healing working off of the target's hit-dice in the homebrew section some time ago.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The best analogy I've heard for how spontaneous casting works comes from atoms. Now, I don't know any more about atoms than I remember from high school chemistry, but basically some part of how atoms work with energy works like this - someone with more chemistry/physics know-how can probably explain this better; I know that the following isn't very good and probably has some errors in it. ^_^

An atom has a certain number of electrons. (Atoms of heavier elements have more.) When an atom absorbs energy, some of those electrons get kicked up to higher energy levels. There are a certain number of discrete energy levels an electron can be at, much like there are a certain number of spell levels spells can be at. Later, an electron can drop back to its base state, which kicks out a chunk of energy the same size as the chunk that brought it to its excited state. It cannot, I believe, go down to a "medium" state; it's all or nothing. That's why sorcerers can't cast two 2nd-level spells with a 4th-level slot. Releasing the "level four" packet of energy requires funneling it into a single spell.


Wiggz wrote:
Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked... ...was the creation of 'minions'

This is actually one of the things I hated the most about 4th Ed. The nameless, faceless mob that exists solely to glorify the PCs by being slaughtered. Maybe it comes from playing games like Shadowrun but Orcs, Goblins, etc are people too.

Every sapient creature is going to have their own culture and motivations. Sure they might be evil by virtue of their actions but the idea of them being evil for the sake of evil is absurd. Evil is motivated by the "greater good", perceived or actual necessity, cultural edicts, callousness/lack of empathy, social pressure, a genetic predisposition toward violence in Orcs, etc. It's ridiculous. Unless of course we're talking about Planar beings like Angels and Demons that by their nature embody abstract concepts.

In my games every creature capable of thought is an individual. The idea of the "trash mob" annoys me to no end. In my opinion the "minion" system is designed to have player boost their egos by showing off what badasses they are in an imagined world. But then my games focus more on the RP, character development, and intellectual stimulation over the hack & slash. ^_^


Arikiel wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked... ...was the creation of 'minions'

This is actually one of the things I hated the most about 4th Ed. The nameless, faceless mob that exists solely to glorify the PCs by being slaughtered. Maybe it comes from playing games like Shadowrun but Orcs, Goblins, etc are people too.

Every sapient creature is going to have their own culture and motivations. Sure they might be evil by virtue of their actions but the idea of them being evil for the sake of evil is absurd. Evil is motivated by the "greater good", perceived or actual necessity, cultural edicts, callousness/lack of empathy, social pressure, a genetic predisposition toward violence in Orcs, etc. It's ridiculous. Unless of course we're talking about Planar beings like Angels and Demons that by their nature embody abstract concepts.

In my games every creature capable of thought is an individual. The idea of the "trash mob" annoys me to no end. In my opinion the "minion" system is designed to have player boost their egos by showing off what badasses they are in an imagined world. But then my games focus more on the RP, character development, and intellectual stimulation over the hack & slash. ^_^

I think you missed the point of minions. As a DM I like to have flexibility. Sometime the players fight very challenging solo monsters. Sometimes I want them to feel like they are in the middle of a large scale pitched battle with thousands on each side. Most players only have to track the health of their character. The DM has to track the health of every NPC present in the fight. Once your NPC get past level 2, managing large numbers of NPC gets cumbersome. The idea behind minions is to simplify bookkeeping to allow DMs to have large numbers of NPCs without is bogging down the game.

Nothing says that minions can't have faces and personality. I also use minion like rules for the PC allies.


Charender wrote:

I think you missed the point of minions. As a DM I like to have flexibility. Sometime the players fight very challenging solo monsters. Sometimes I want them to feel like they are in the middle of a large scale pitched battle with thousands on each side. Most players only have to track the health of their character. The DM has to track the health of every NPC present in the fight. Once your NPC get past level 2, managing large numbers of NPC gets cumbersome. The idea behind minions is to simplify bookkeeping to allow DMs to have large numbers of NPCs without is bogging down the game.

Nothing says that minions can't have faces and personality. I also use minion like rules for the PC allies.

The way I see it if a battle is big enough to be that cumbersome (like in a war) then it should be dealt with through storytelling. Focus on the action that the players are involved in while describing what is going on around them. There's no need to roll out every single thing in such a battle. You could spend hours on a single turn in a war even with the "minion" system.


Arikiel wrote:
Charender wrote:

I think you missed the point of minions. As a DM I like to have flexibility. Sometime the players fight very challenging solo monsters. Sometimes I want them to feel like they are in the middle of a large scale pitched battle with thousands on each side. Most players only have to track the health of their character. The DM has to track the health of every NPC present in the fight. Once your NPC get past level 2, managing large numbers of NPC gets cumbersome. The idea behind minions is to simplify bookkeeping to allow DMs to have large numbers of NPCs without is bogging down the game.

Nothing says that minions can't have faces and personality. I also use minion like rules for the PC allies.

The way I see it if a battle is big enough to be that cumbersome (like in a war) then it should be dealt with through storytelling. Focus on the action that the players are involved in while describing what is going on around them. There's no need to roll out every single thing in such a battle. You could spend hours on a single turn in a war even with the "minion" system.

I am glad your players like that style. If I resolved a situation like that without my players having to roll and use their combat abilities on their character sheet, I would get accused of railroading my players.


@Arikiel: isn't that what warhammer's for?
personally i can see the place of minions, even if the definition isn't 4th edition's 1hp monsters and is more along the lines of low hp todies for the big boss. they're there to add some variety to the encounter, along with turning the advantage in the action economy away from the PC's for a turn or two. i agree with arguements put forth by both sides of the debate, and my position has shifted somewhat away from using minions in my games... though not entirely.
i think it's always going to boil down to who you play with, what they and you find fun, and... come on, everyone join in. you've all heard this speach before!


Charender wrote:
I am glad your players like that style. If I resolved a situation like that without my players having to roll and use their combat abilities on their character sheet, I would get accused of railroading my players.

Oh no I keep them rolling. It's just that a large scale battle consists of several smaller battles. Not all of which the players are involved in. I just have them roll out what they're doing within the larger backdrop.


Arikiel wrote:
Charender wrote:
I am glad your players like that style. If I resolved a situation like that without my players having to roll and use their combat abilities on their character sheet, I would get accused of railroading my players.
Oh no I keep them rolling. It's just that a large scale battle consists of several smaller battles. Not all of which the players are involved in. I just have them roll out what they're doing within the larger backdrop.

And if during one of those smaller battles, you need a dozen or so soldiers and their sergent involved in the fight?

That is a perfect place to use a minion, or something like it.


Eh fudge it. You know roughly what the outcome would be. The players are the focus. If it doesn't involve the PCs it's not worth wasting time rolling out.

Shadow Lodge

The best rule for mass combat is the rule of cool.


Kthulhu wrote:
The best rule for mass combat is the rule of cool.

As we say in Cyberpunk 2020

Style over Substance. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Carl Cascone wrote:
Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'.

As I stated in my post, for me, yes, there is an "extra hassle /effort /time" in calculating the diagonal movement rule in 3.5 and PF - its not much, but it is noticeable.

I personally always play RAW so when I run 3.5 or PF I run the diagonal rule and accept the extra effort, however when I play 4e I use the 4e movement rules where diagonals only count 1 and it has absolutely zero impact on my sense of verisimiltude, so as there is no "cost" for me, even the slightest benefit means it has a great cost: benefit ratio.

Carl Cascone wrote:
I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers.

I found the 3.5 Grapple rules fairly okay, but I can accept that people have different levels of ability, comprehension, or patience for detailed rules, and so accept that some people may find grapple difficult.

I think you just need to accept that for people other than yourself counting diagonals can be difficult to varying levels of degree (for me, its only very slightly more difficult, as for me the issue is remembering teh number of diagonals moved - I am good at maths but not so great at keeping more than one number in my head especially when being distracted by AoOs and all the numbers mentioned therein).

Liberty's Edge

Arikiel wrote:

Sure they might be evil by virtue of their actions but the idea of them being evil for the sake of evil is absurd.

[...]
In my games every creature capable of thought is an individual. The idea of the "trash mob" annoys me to no end.

I really don't understand how you link the concept of Minions to the implication that of those Minions being evil for evil's sake.

In 4e Minions are simply combatants who are less important to the narrative (4e is actually rather Narrative in its leanings) and likely to be taken out of the fight by a single well landed blow (if you want a Simulationist reason maybe they are well trained but lack combat experience).

As already stated Minions in 4e can be on the PCs' side, i.e. on the side of the heroes, and 4e even provides extra rules for such hirelings including extra abilities they can add to the PCs' abilities.

E.g. Trailblazer (Aura 5): Allies in the aura gain a +2 power bonus to Dungeoneering checks and Nature checks.

Minions, as well as allowing for genre conventions of the heroes mowing their way through a swathe of nameless foes, can also allow for the PCs to hire on extra guards / mercs / soldiers and have them actually have a mechanical impact on the game (rather than their effectiveness be handwaved by the GM) whilst at the same time not getting the game bogged down in too much book keeping.

Arikiel wrote:
But then my games focus more on the RP, character development, and intellectual stimulation over the hack & slash. ^_^

Roleplaying, character development and intellectual stimulation are not mutually exclusive to the idea of minions or mooks - games such as FATE which are much more focused on the narrative and roleplaying out the aspects of the character (pun intended) and is much less of a hack & slash tactical war game than Pathfinder has rules for Minions.


I wonder if the people who complain about 4E movement also complain about the fact that in PF you can totally grapple things you can't touch (since in PF being smaller makes you easier to grab).

Liberty's Edge

Ion Raven wrote:
in PF you can totally grapple things you can't touch (since in PF being smaller makes you easier to grab).

This is one of the reasons why I prefer the 3.5 Grapple rules (amongst several), I actually exploited this weird rule when playing RotR and felt "dirty" for doing so :)

Anyway, one thing I like about 4e is the distributed healing - the ability for everyone to recover some hit points by themselves irrespective of class, and even recovering some in a fight via Second Wind is just great! Whilst a cleric can be a boon, in 4e it isn't anywhere near as necessary, and also done without the "happy stick" of Wands of CLW (a concept I detest).

I am not a big fan of having everyon recover all Hit Points overnight (one of the big turn offs of 4e for me) but if the game has an assumption that default play will be like that, at least 4e does it right by just saying it happens, rather than apparently how 3.5 and PF are expected to be played - with the happy sticks!

In my Freeport game I just started using Reserve Points from Unearthed Arcana and it pretty much does what I want - a bit like healings surges in 3.5, but not quite as beneficial.

The use of Reserve Points has already allowed what would have been a TPK to turn into a mere complication (the PCs were dragged away and thrown into a cellar where they recovered in a few minutes enough so that they could over power the two guards left with them.


An interesting thread, and after having time to consider the various arguments being made, my thoughts on some of the topics mentioned thus far:

Minions - great concept if implemented correctly, and used sparingly. I don't care for the 4E implementation, though it works well enough for what it is designed to do, and the second point depends on the DM and scenario. The early LFR modules tended to overuse them; DMs in their own campaigns have probably learned how to utilize them better by now.

Movement - put me in the the 1:1 movement camp. It's a small thing, and by itself, I really wouldn't worry about it, but as one of many small things that I can adjust to make my life as a DM easier without changing the game as a whole, every little bit helps. It may not seem hard to keep track of 1,2,1,2, but in the middle of a combat, even players are tracking multiple number streams at the same time, so simply making it 1:1 removes what in the heat of battle can become a source of problems.

Healing Surges - interesting idea with an implementation that works well for 4E. The concept could be ported over to PF, but the implementation would have to change to fit. In what little I've played, they never really struck as being good or bad, just different.

Vancian spellcasting - great for wizards, clerics, and other casters who prepare their spells ahead of time. The flavor works great, and the mechanics work well. Generally breaks down when trying to account for spontaneous casters. Flavor doesn't fit, and the mechanics end up feeling forced and clunky. I would love to see someone take the alternate system in UM and flesh it out with the idea of using it for spontaneous casters while keeping the vancian system for prepared casters. While that would mean 2 systems that a DM would have to keep track of, I think it would be worth it in the long run, and really highlight the differences between the two styles in ways that cannot be achieved if both use the same basic mechanics.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
My borders of verisimilitude are rather stretchy, but the notion of a goblin in blue trousers going down to a poke from a pointy stick while a goblin in red trousers next to him takes 10 rounds of hacking with a chainsaw to take out does quite stretch said borders.

This is already true of standard pathfinder.

Blue Trouser Goblin is a level 1 warrior.

Red Trouser Goblin is a 10th level fighter.

Here's a terrifying thought. What if they are both wearing the same trousers?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Here's a terrifying thought. What if they are both wearing the same trousers?

I think that, unless they have the appropriate teamwork feat (3-Legged Goblin), they will suffer some pretty hefty penalties.

Silver Crusade

Ion Raven wrote:
I wonder if the people who complain about 4E movement also complain about the fact that in PF you can totally grapple things you can't touch (since in PF being smaller makes you easier to grab).

Wow. Haven't grappled in PF (yet), so I didn't realize they took out the need to hit on your foe before you could initiate a grapple and just moved the rules straight to initiating it. I see something I want to house-rule back to the 3.5 rule, now that I'm aware of the problem.

I guess that means your answer is "yes" though. :P


DigitalMage wrote:
Carl Cascone wrote:
Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'.

As I stated in my post, for me, yes, there is an "extra hassle /effort /time" in calculating the diagonal movement rule in 3.5 and PF - its not much, but it is noticeable.

I personally always play RAW so when I run 3.5 or PF I run the diagonal rule and accept the extra effort, however when I play 4e I use the 4e movement rules where diagonals only count 1 and it has absolutely zero impact on my sense of verisimiltude, so as there is no "cost" for me, even the slightest benefit means it has a great cost: benefit ratio.

Carl Cascone wrote:
I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers.

I found the 3.5 Grapple rules fairly okay, but I can accept that people have different levels of ability, comprehension, or patience for detailed rules, and so accept that some people may find grapple difficult.

I think you just need to accept that for people other than yourself counting diagonals can be difficult to varying levels of degree (for me, its only very slightly more difficult, as for me the issue is remembering teh number of diagonals moved - I am good at maths but not so great at keeping more than one number in my head especially when being distracted by AoOs and all the numbers mentioned therein).

Perhaps my frustration with ignoring the diagonal rule simply comes from my experience in education. It probably is not a game issue at all. I understand that most gamers know the diagonal is longer. I understand that YOU the DIgital MAge made a valid decision to ignore that rule yet you understand it. My issue and often frustration comes when a vast majority of people, do not understand simple geometry. Eliminating the diagonal rule is a missed oppurtunity to subtly teach a simple principle.

Perhaps a person (not even a child, plenty of adults do not understand simple math) doesn't realize the diagonal is longer. Pathfinder might make them realize there is a difference, where 4e in striving to be accessable is willing to ignore it, because it is 'just too hard'. There is an opportunity to VISUALLY teach a math principle while having fun.

Now I understand the purpose of gaming is NOT to educate, yet I wonder if my vocabulary would be at the level it is now if not for Gary Gygax and D&D. 4e eliminated much of the intellectual lifting for access. It is not WOTC's job to teach, but it is just one more missed opportunity 'along the way' to teach something valuable.

I do not think that learning the diagonal rule makes people more educated or anything insulting like that. I am discussing it as that '1 more thing' that can be ignored that over time adds up.

People think being enumerate is not an issue. If we in the United States at least had a better rate of math proficiency it is quite possible many people purchasing houses could have identified they were being sold a bill of goods by predatory banks if they were able to simply inject numbers in a formula.


DigitalMage wrote:
Same as above

And I am with you, I enjoyed the 3rd edition grapple rules. One reason the 4e teaser video annoyed me.


I am baffled by any discussion of the way "Magic" works that includes any variation of the phrase, "Doesn't make any sense."

It's magic. And in reality, no seriously I've researched this, magic, in reality, is supplied by a system of large tanks maintained by spirits with big eyes and small mouths, Each tank contains a goo that is transformed into material essence and then transformed again into thought that is propelled through a dimensional gate directly into the pituitary gland of the caster, where, no really stay with me here, it is converted into a certain amino acid that can only exist in the prime material plane for a specific duration, that can be a very long time, or not, but is rendered inert when vocal or somatic effort is made that releases the goo from the essence through the amino acid. THEN, the amino acid travels to the brain where it interacts with receptors that reduced the charged state of neuron pathways where the memory for doing the vocal and somatic stuff is stored. Some goo is lost in the process and in most cases material components are consumed in the spell casting to replenish the essence that is reconstituted into goo and placed back in the vessels.

So yeah, magic, gee I hope the next set of rules for magic "make sense". (Or to put it another way, I hope the rules for doing things in the game that depend upon elements we might classify as fantastic and in conflict with the rules of the natural universe, work in a way that is playable to at least some of us.)

It seems silly to complain that Vancian magic, “Doesn’t make sense,” when what you really mean to say is that Vancian magic does not allow you to play the game in the way that you want to play it. It might as well be a system that requires the player to roll a set of colored dice and only if the red die is higher than the yellow die can you cast a spell.

“But I don’t understand why I have to prepare, ahead of time, spells when I might not know the right spell to prepare.”

Okay you don’t have to anymore. Instead you have to guess which hand I’m holding a d12 in to cast a spell.

Magic, sheesh.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
It seems silly to complain that Vancian magic, “Doesn’t make sense,” ...

Well, I think the main problem is that Vancian magic is almost entirely unlike any system of magic portrayed in popular literature / film / folklore / etc. The only things that are really similar are 1) very obscure works that have only been salvaged from complete obscurity because of their influence on Dungeons & Dragons; or 2) works that are themselves direct adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons.

Liberty's Edge

Carl Cascone wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
Same as above
And I am with you, I enjoyed the 3rd edition grapple rules. One reason the 4e teaser video annoyed me.

Now you see, whilst I had no problem with the 3.5 Grapple rules I can accept that others did, and so the 4e teaser video didn't bother me at all, I just thought it was a humourous jab at an aspect of the rules that other people found a bit too complicated for what they wanted from the game.

4e's Grab mechanic seemed a bit too simplistic to me as you couldn't escalate IMmobilised to Restrained, however experiencing it in play and thinking about how it works it could actually be a cool grappling system - someone grabs you, you can grab them right back, then as its only a Minor action to sustain you can attack them and the try to escape, or try to escape, sustain the grapple and then move them.

I also like the fact that you can try to wriggle out, or brute strength your way out of a grab to escape.

So while 4e's Grab isn't perhaps all that 3.5's Grapple was, it is still a rather elegant mechanic and a lot simpler ruleswise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Terquem wrote:
It seems silly to complain that Vancian magic, “Doesn’t make sense,” ...
Well, I think the main problem is that Vancian magic is almost entirely unlike any system of magic portrayed in popular literature / film / folklore / etc. The only things that are really similar are 1) very obscure works that have only been salvaged from complete obscurity because of their influence on Dungeons & Dragons; or 2) works that are themselves direct adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons.

Jack Vance just did a good job explaining his magic system. Any other magic system from the time could easily have worked that way, including folklore.

It is not inherently better or worse than any other magic system, but it is the BEST system for any edition of Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really don't know how correct it is to categorize the work of Jack Vance as, "Obscure". Is this a comment coming from someone who is familiar with his work, and numerous awards and believes it is "Obscure" simply because it is not the current "Thing" on HBO. It is, to me, the same as saying the works of Bing Crosby, Cole Porter, or Oscar Wilde, are "Obscure". probably not an accurate description. "Not as well known as Salvatore", would even be a stretch. It would all depend on what group of people you are asking.


Terquem wrote:
I really don't know how correct it is to categorize the work of Jack Vance as, "Obscure". Is this a comment coming from someone who is familiar with his work, and numerous awards and believes it is "Obscure" simply because it is not the current "Thing" on HBO. It is, to me, the same as saying the works of Bing Crosby, Cole Porter, or Oscar Wilde, are "Obscure". probably not an accurate description. "Not as well known as Salvatore", would even be a stretch. It would all depend on what group of people you are asking.

Exactly.


Carl Cascone wrote:

Perhaps my frustration with ignoring the diagonal rule simply comes from my experience in education. It probably is not a game issue at all. I understand that most gamers know the diagonal is longer. I understand that YOU the DIgital MAge made a valid decision to ignore that rule yet you understand it. My issue and often frustration comes when a vast majority of people, do not understand simple geometry. Eliminating the diagonal rule is a missed oppurtunity to subtly teach a simple principle.

Perhaps a person (not even a child, plenty of adults do not understand simple math) doesn't realize the diagonal is longer. Pathfinder might make them realize there is a difference, where 4e in striving to be accessable is willing to ignore it, because it is 'just too hard'. There is an opportunity to VISUALLY teach a math principle while having fun.

Now I understand the purpose of gaming is NOT to educate, yet I wonder if my vocabulary would be at the level it is now if not for Gary Gygax and D&D. 4e eliminated much of the intellectual lifting for access. It is not WOTC's job to teach, but it is just one more missed opportunity 'along the way' to teach something valuable.

I do not think that learning the diagonal rule makes people more educated or anything insulting like that. I am discussing it as that '1 more thing' that can be ignored that over time adds up.

An interesting point of view, however, some of the simplification is good. I've played a bit of 2E, and there are definitely parts that were so overthought that they ended up unnecessarily complicated. I personally like 3.x/PF overall for it's level of complexity, but combat, which is when the use of a grid is most likely, is not an area where you want a lot of little things bogging down the scene, and getting in the way of the flow of the battle, either mechanically or narratively. In that area, 4E was very good; it retained the essence of the battle without bombarding everybody with a constant stream of numbers to have to remember.

Considering that neither alternative represents the true measurement of a diagonal properly, it's less an issue of teaching basic math principles, and more of an issue of how much potential frustration and headache is that tiny little bit of additional accuracy, that still isn't fully accurate, worth to the DM and the group. For some, being as accurate as possible as often as possible is an important goal. For others, something that small simply doesn't add enough to the game to make it worth bothering with.

The Exchange

Kthulhu wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Here's a terrifying thought. What if they are both wearing the same trousers?
I think that, unless they have the appropriate teamwork feat (3-Legged Goblin), they will suffer some pretty hefty penalties.

Nice one, Kthulhu. As soon as I saw that line I was preparing a snappy retort - but I got here too late. I was going to go with "Doesn't it get kind of crowded?" but honestly, yours is better.


I dislike the implementation of 4e minions. Something, however, I wouldn't mind seeing in Pathfinder: Stat blocks for some readymade 'mook' type enemies juxtaposed next to mastermind type monsters in a bestiary. Some mook stat blocks of basic savage humanoid type enemies at various levels. Or possibly an entire supplement devoted to CR-adjusted mook statblocks. To keep things interesting and viable at higher levels.

Examples: Basic orc warrior, orc barbarian 1, orc barbarian 3, orc shaman, etc.

Would make my life a hell of a lot easier as a GM.

101 to 150 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.