Xithor's page

Split Second. An overweight Rutger Hauer and scantily clad Kim Cattral vs a human eating monster in a near future (set in 2008, made in 1992, things aren't quite as bad as the writers thought they would be) half flooded London.

"We need to get bigger guns. BIG F***ING GUNS!"

Like many of these films, best watched NOT sober.

Consider me a dissenter on this.

These changes would gut my character. At ninth level I will be able to rage for a total of 26 rounds in a day, down from an average of about 30 or so with rage powers used.

I'll just go through the powers that Ogrhel has:

About the same. I have no quibble here.

]Knockback (Ex): The barbarian can make one free bull rush attempt against one target hit in melee this round. The barbarian does not need to move back with the target if successful. This power is used as an immediate action after the attack roll is made.[/quote wrote:

Yet another die roll? seems more complicated than it need to be.

]Swift Foot (Ex): The barbarian gains a 5-foot enhancement bonus to her speed. This increase is always active while the barbarian is raging. A barbarian can select this rage power up to three times. Its effects stack. [/quote wrote:

Sorry, but I like the feel of that huge burst of speed that tires you out a bit. I would never pick this ability as presented here.

]Unexpected Strike (Ex): The barbarian can make a free attack, at her highest attack bonus, against a foe that moves adjacent to the barbarian. Using this power is an immediate action that counts as an attack of opportunity. Once used, this power cannot be used again for 1 minute. A barbarian must be at least 8th level before selecting this power.[/quote wrote:

This is too limiting. A few rage points and I can do this when I wish, instead of using up my AoO. Then you have to keep track of the 5 rounds it takes to recharge. I'd rather track my rage points and have more freedom to act as I see fit.

And thanks for adding more fuel to the "The people hating on 4th Edition all played Wizards" stereotype.

Actually, I play barbarians, rouges and rangers. I was using wizards as an example. Full attack is a wonderfull thing, and not to be dismissed.

My barbarins have been exiled to players handbook two, so I can't say for them, but rouges and rangers are nigh unrecognizable, with cookie cutter computer game type powers. It's just the Book of Nine Swords crap all over again.

I'm surprised they're aren't just "powermeters" to recharge abilities.

The 3.5 monsters had statblocks it's true, but they weren't <i>just</i> stat blocks. But in my opinion, with out a frame of referance, the monster is just something to kill, not a real thinking adversary.

If you think that:

a) Wizards doesn't deserve to try and make money
b) The video game criticism is valid
c) 4th Edition is over-simplified

a) Wizards deserves to try and make money. Everybody deserves to try and make money

b & c) I've played the game, moneyed with the mechanics, reviewed it thoroughly as both a long time gamer & book seller, and had multiple conversations with WoW players about the changes.

The video game criticism IS valid. The monster manual reads like a list of stats you'd see in a video game guide: next to no flavor, with just a wall of numbers.

As for oversimplification, I seem to remember my wizards having spells.

I've seen a few of these videos; none of them were funny (I'm not a big fan of potty humor). They all just seemed to be taking cheap potshots at older editions and playing to the lowest common denominator.

Okay, treating the halfling orphanage like a salad bar was pretty entertaining, but I'll leave it at that

[old man on porch]Rolling 4d6 and throwing out the low die was good enough back in '79, so it's good enough for me now! (spits and hits the spittoon dead center with a resounding clang) Now get off of my lawn![/old man on porch]

but then he may have 9 rounds still for combat if no one hits him... he would be harder to heal and would deal lots more of damage

More than that now, as the Beta changed death to -10 or -(con score), whichever is better.

In my experience, Die Hard causes more character deaths than it prevents. You keep stretching it one more round, then you get hit for 20 points of damage, and you're done. One action, be it attacking, withdrawing, drinking a potion, or whatever, is plenty, and will in fact make death less likely in the long run.

Half-Orcs are fine the way Pathfinder did them I think. The stat bumps are on par with everyone else, the bonus weapons are solid, and the Ferocity works great. Die Hard would be a bit over the top. Sure, Gnomes have their fancy free spells and all, but that won't do much good when you out run them and hack their heads off.

No need to memorize how many points this power need, the total is easy to keep in mind or to keep track with counter or countdown-dice (otherwise you need a whole jug of poker chips by the time you reach 10th level).

That's why you have the name of the power and it's points written on the character sheet.

It's the same as tracking hit points: Use hash marks, write down numbers, or get a bunch of counting stones, bottle tops or something else small.

But, if you want to limit yourself go ahead. Just because you're playing a savage doesn't mean that you, (or your character) doesn't have to think.

3.5 has no rules in the core book to help with political games or economic warfare games. A GM can extrapolate on the latter, and entirely invent the former but there are no actual rules for doing it.

Therefore it's disingenous to level this accusation at 4e without accepting that is's something that has been a part of D&D in general.

It at least has some commodities pricing, and the monsters aren't just a list of mechanics with basic instructions on how to operate them. We had something to work, albeit at a basic level.

the last serious campaign i ran started out with adventuring, and morphed into the players having "real" responsibilities, playing politics, manipulating economies for world shaping reasons, all within the context of a d&d game. and it was FUN. players would call me at all hours with plots to manipulate the price of rantian wheat to undermine the commish territorial ambitions on henecia. or plots to discredit the scion of a particular noble house to ice a planned wedding that would strengthen the alliance between two noble houses who were rivals to the pc's family.

I think it's safe to say that, as D&D games go, yours is a unique case. It simply does not make sense to create an entire economics system to satisfy the wants of a handful of groups who have chosen to step away from the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game and towards a more simulationist playstyle when it would detract from the experience of many, many more gaming groups who play D&D in a more traditional manner.

I think it's safe to say that you're utterly incorrect on that Scott. Over my 20+ years I've seen other or have had my own characters buy shipping companies to impose trade embargoes, found false religions for societal manipulation, entertainment & profit (I'm rather proud of that one), marry for political advantage, manage & manipulate their agricultural commodities to gain power, open their own businesses (both legitimate and as a front for their start up thieves guild), and many, may other examples, both honest and shady.

This is spread out over many different people and many different game groups. As far as I'm concerned, political role-playing is just as much a part of traditional D&D as hunting Dragons. Hell, I've hunted dragons for political reasons rather than glory or cash.

The players of this game cover a wide spread, and I think that 4e ignores the political and monetary based segment of that constituency at it's own peril.

I like the Rage point counter idea. Nice, I will have to try that.

thanks

You're welcome!

Should Barbarians be more like Sorcerers or Monks? Out of all the powers, this feels the most out of place.

On the contrary, I think it's quite well suited for some barbarians. You have to be a fairly high level to attain the power, so it's not as if joe shmoe 3rd level Barbarian can just whack you with a jolt of electricity, you've got to work for it.

It makes perfect sense to me that a powerful individual would be able to draw the kind of power to do that little extra damage kick, be it gift from the gods, indomitable will, or just a little something they figured out how to do from watching the wizard.

Also, it's optional! If it doesn't work with your idea of a barbarian, then pick another power (I'm playing a barbarian at the moment myself, and I'm probably going to skip this power myself). It's all about choice, delicious, delectable choice!

I find that it's no more complicated than fussing about with remembering to add your Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus, or managing Druid Wild Shape.

It's most definitely less hassle than dealing with spells.

Really, only the Fighter and maybe the rogue have less to deal with. It's not as if you have a lot of them really, and mechanic wise the individual powers are pretty easy to deal with. If you're having trouble keeping count, then just get a little dish filled with as many counters as you have rage points, and it seems like problem solved.

The flexibility of the rage system is what makes it so inviting, so I'd be against anything that changes it. If someone comes up with an alternate that they like to use, that's fine for them, but the system that's in place now works remarkably well.

Tons of good ideas here, but back in my 2E DM days I had to resort to cold-blooded murder to knock one of my players in line.

He groaned, he moaned, he threw a big hissy fit. The other players rallied to my defense, and he threw such a tantrum he was asked to leave the house.

Did I single out that character for a very tough battle with the protagonist? Yes. Was it because he was disrupting the narrative and sucking the fun out of the game for everybody? Yes, yes it was.

I only came to this decision after multiple hints & warnings. I felt that he had left me no choice but to kill off his precious baby.

He didn't come back right away (and was in fact not welcome for quite awhile due to his tantrum), but when he came back he was a bit more respectful of me and of the other player's goals.

Of course when our group switched DM's he went right back to his old habits, and I nearly PK'd him, but that's another matter entirely.

@Xithus- I think your choice of the half orc Barbarian is great- you had an opportunity to make an iconic character that is richer and more complex than before and you embrace it and run with it. That's what I love about this system. I apologize if it...

No offense taken. Just stating where I was coming from.

Should I be forced to play the barbarian as you see him?

I'm in complete agreement with you Zero. Part of the fun of the game for me is breaking convention. Am I playing a Great Axe & Power Attack 1/2 Orc Barbarian? Sure, but he's also sporting a 15 Charisma, a decent wisdom, a rank in perform comedy, and a heart of gold. If everybody plays the same stereotypes every time, there's no point in playing (at least for me).

If the new rules say a Barbarian can read, great! Not every "savage" culture lacks the written word of some form or another. As I said in my last post, it should be a decision made in each individual group. Viva la variety!

Well, I've been playing a 1/2 Orc Barbarian for 6 levels now and I can report that I'm quite pleased.

Combat wise, Ogrhel is pretty much an old-fashioned power attack with a great axe style barbarian, although his first level feat was toughness, which is worth it let me tell you.

The rage point system is a massive improvement over the old style. Spreading my rage out over many different rounds rather than using it all up in one daily shot in my first couple levels probably kept our party wizard (as well as Ogrhel) alive.

While I'm not that impressed with of all the rage powers, the ones I've chosen have worked well. Intimidating Glare has cowed a few opponents from time to time (the 15 Charisma helps), but the real winner so far has been the increased movement power. From running all the way across the room to pound an enemy spell caster while he was monologing, to turning on the speed to out a Rube Goldberg type undead releasing trap, it's been a winner and well worth the rage points. I just picked up Knock back and haven't had an opportunity to use it yet, so I'll hold judgment for now. But, between the way cleave works in Pathfinder and the fact that Ogrhel just picked up his second attack, I have high hopes.

I've only managed to run out of RP's twice, one time at first level, and another where the enhanced move was used quite liberally. I kind of expect to have it happen a little more often now that I have my third rage power, but we'll see. Keeping that in mind, the number of RP's is just right as far as I'm concerned. Ogrhel Stays in the fight for a good long time, giving the wizard/ranger the opportunity to do what she needs, and the rouge ample time to get into flanking position to really put the hurt on.

As for the literacy issue, we didn't even think about it, in fact we didn't even notice that it wasn't mentioned in the new class description. Ogrhel cannot read, as is fitting for his upbringing. I say play it as the individual players & DM's see fit.