...Please let me know what you think.
Will do. Apologies for not having time to respond earlier. Life has been very hectic at work. I'm in the throes of negotiating around a million dollars worth of renewed contracts and it's notably more stressful than normal. So please bear with me. This is my release from all of that. And I very much look forward to it. So...
As I stated earlier, I'm probably one of less impressed players/DMs with regard to 4e so far. I've tried it. So at least I'm not offering that opinion without ever experiencing it. Regardless of that still-forming opinion of 4e, I'm not 100% against trying it again as a player rather than a DM.
In addition, I'm all for supporting you in making your job as DM as easy as possible. No one wants an enjoyable game like this to fall apart due to DM burnout. So, if that's your motivation, I'm open to trying a few things. But maybe not all of the ones you listed. So I'll offer individual feedback on what you've proposed...
1. 4E saving throws for ongoing effects - I'd like to adopt 4E defenses, but that could be problematic, so let's just do the saving throws
I agree with avoiding 4e defenses. Not completely sure about what saving throws for ongoing effects will ultimately look like with 3e characters vs. 4e villains/monsters. But I'm willing to experiment with it.
2. No ability score damage - it's a pain to track and can really unhinge the game
This isn't too earth-shattering. It's a keeper.
3. 4E rules for death and dying - basically, you go to -1/2 your HPs before you die instead of -10; each round you are below 0 you make a save. Fail three saves and you die.
Certainly makes for more resilient PCs. If monsters and villains gain this same benefit, it could draw out combat even further. And for PbP games, that can be problematic. If it were table-top, I'd have no concerns. But allowing everyone to stick around into -1/2 their hitpoints may be counterproductive to keeping the story moving along from one encounter to the next.
4. Action points - allow you to take an extra action on your turn
This could help offset #3 above. In that, if action points are plentiful enough to allow for extra actions, it may speed up combat. It could have other beneficial effects like striking a finishing blow on an opponent that's got you tied down so you can spend an action point and run to the aid of a fallen comrade. A lot of my feelings around this rule proposal hinges on how plentiful action points will be...i.e., how quickly they return.
5. Charge as standard action - makes combat more dynamic
Eh...kind of irrelevant, I think. Charging isn't that big a deal in combat. Maybe it takes on more importance in 4e, but if you're already going to grant action points, where's the need for turning a charge into a standard action? Sounds like it would benefit monsters more often than the PCs. I don't anticipate Zieke choosing to charge all that often...and, if not him, who else in the party would take that kind of action?
6. Spell-like misc. magic items (i.e., use activated items) will follow the encounter, and daily schematic with most items being daily. Once per day or once per encounter will be the only options. (e.g., twice per day is less efficient than simply having two items, so why would you ever bother?)
I think it's okay maybe to experiment with this...like trot out a magic item or two that functions this way. But, honestly, one of the aspects about 4e that I particularly don't like is the at-will/encounter/daily basis for powers and effects.
It's the encounter thing that bothers more than the other two, because the latter is already present in 3e. But "encounters" are a bit more dynamic than static in D&D (regardless of what version you're playing). I ran into a definitive problem in this area when the party split up in the 4e game I ran. They both wandered into separate "encounters" and they were within hearing distance of one another, but each smaller group had their hands full and couldn't really support one another at first. Finally, the first group finishes off these stone guardian statues and hurries to aid the others (who were facing the BBEG in the final encounter) and I had to decide if their arrival constituted a new "encounter" for them so they could reuse powers they'd already spent against the statues. Because the other party was getting their butts handed to them, I ruled that the late-arrivers from the statue battle could reuse those abilities and it proved to make all the difference. But I couldn't help wondering about how common this type of situation has been in my games. The party frequently splits up or gets divided due to circumstances and "encounter" takes on a whole different meaning. So, all in all, I don't like basing abilities and powers off of that situational circumstance in the game.
But, despite all that, if you want to experiment with it on magic items only, at least you're starting small...
7. Shift as a move action.
I don't see a whole lot of value to "shifting" in a PbP. If we were table-top, it would be okay. But it's much more of a miniatures-based combat mechanic. I much prefer you ruling how far apart we are from things based on how you imagine us. That's a much easier way of conducting combat in PbP games than worrying overly much about the maps. Don't get me wrong here. Maps can certainly help paint a picture so everyone understands where they are. But you don't have to stick to the squares on the grid in a PbP. Imagination and abstract distances will suffice just fine. Either we're in range to do something or we're not...
8. 4E monster design - including minions, elites, and solos. I will still use 3E parameters to set the monsters attacks and defenses, and I will keep hp totals within 3e norms (e.g., using minimum hp for minions, maximum for elites, and hp boosters for solos). But I will not use skill points or feats for monsters. They may emulate feats, but I will not be constrained by HD and prerequisites when determining capabilities that are "feat-like".
This sounds like it will provide you with the most benefit in streamlining how you prepare encounters for us. I have only one reservation. How well will monsters designed with 4e mechanics fare against PCs based on 3.5 mechanics? If anything, I suspect that the "balance" between what's a "challenging" encounter vs. an "overwhelming" encounter may get warped as a result of this mish-mashed houserule. But we can always playtest and see...
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
Hey all, my work schedule is settling down, so hopefully my posting schedule will return to some semblance of normalcy within a week. Thanks for your patience.
Wow, can we write books or what?!? ;)
(Says the guy that started it!)
I an NOT going to try to reply to EVERYThing that is posted above, I'm crazy, not suicidal! ;P
So, I will be posting responses to a few things at a time as they catch my attention,...
Re: Practiced Caster: Yes, You can take it more than once, once for each caster class you have. The way I read it, (tell me if you disagree JSL) it adds +4 to your Caster Level up to your current Character Level, (It says nothing about differing between Normal classes and PRC class levels) that means (to me) that if Sli survives to Wiz4/Sor1/UM3 And has Practiced Caster twice, once for Wiz and Sor, His Wiz Caster Level would be 10. (Wiz4 + Practiced Caster 4 + UM 2) [Only +2 for the 3 UM levels, 1st lvl bonus would go to Sor]
Re:
Hmm. I've always thought that you could take the PrC and meet the prerequisite simultaneously. So you could take the PrC at level 5 as long as you take the skill rank you need at that level, too.
That is up to you. I have played it both ways, but I have gotten used to having to meet the prereq FIRST (In playing Neverwinter Nights) before you can take the PRC. I'm good with either way, tho I can see that they went to a lot of trouble to balance the class so that you end up at 11/11 when you get to 10th lvl UM, starting earlier might throw that off a bit, but I might also get those 3rd lvl spells a lvl earlier too, I'll do the math and let you know tomorrow!
Re:
I'm not seeing that on my aggregate list of Meta Magic feats. Do you mean Quicken Spell from the PHB? Or am I missing a resource?
Um,... Yes, that is what I meant,... <Blush>
Re: Wizard never running out of spells (& similar comments): OK, remember I haven't actually played or read the 4E rules yet, so bear with me if I have misunderstood what I HAVE read!
-I LIKE where PFRPG is going with this. You have one '1st lvl' power that you can use forever, (As well as unlimited casting of your memorized cantrips per day!) the only change to THAT I would consider is that while the power for the 'Non-specialist' wiz is cool, since he dabbles in everything, he should be able to choose which one he wants from all available. Just a thought.
-AGree with NSpicer on 'Encounter' rule, how many times have we (who have played before, sorry Dreamer) run from something and run INto another critter? If you fired off your 'encounter' power trying to slow the 1st critter down, do you get it back as soon as you run into critter #2? Seems to me that it would be easier to say that there is a minimum game time required for the magical 'capacitor' to re-charge.
Re: about Daily/at will/encounter spells/powers- I am on the fence on this one. I think I will happily leave finally deciding till after I have played 4E at least once.
BUT- my basic philosophy as a long-time caster player is, A) Never use up all of your spells in your first encounter of the day, and B) never die with a single spell uncast! I'm sure I'll have more to say on this later,...
Re:
OK. The main reason I'm lobbying for 4E, honestly, is a selfish one. Despite all the changes in 4E, I think one thing folks agree on is that the DM's job is easier. And I'm the DM.
OK, you GOT me here! (FOUR Kids?!? My wife and I can hardly handle TWO!) And work sounds like it has been sneaking up on ALL of us lately. So I am ALL for easier and preventing JSL-DM Burnout!!! But,... converting 4E monsters and pitting them against (primarily) 3.75 characters? It SOUNDS like you might be making MORE work for yourself to me! No one will be happier than ME if I'm wrong, just pointing out a thought.
Ok, That's enough for tonite! LAters all!
EDIT- Oh, and Santinj~, Nice play, I literally didn't see that one coming! ;)
Hey all, my work schedule is settling down, so hopefully my posting schedule will return to some semblance of normalcy within a week. Thanks for your patience.
Hey Arc! Nice to see your Vampiric Image again! ;) Glad to hear it, see you soon!
Hey all, my work schedule is settling down, so hopefully my posting schedule will return to some semblance of normalcy within a week. Thanks for your patience.
Hey, good for you. The restaurant business can be a killer. My father-in-law started a new restaurant 3 years ago, and no one has seen him since!
While you were gone, we got rid of the quasit and the wrathspawn rather efficiently. But just wait 'til you see what kind of a mess we've gotten ourselves into now!
Re: 4E saving throws for ongoing effects
It will work as follows: Say you are attacked by wrathspawn, which have a poisonous bite. You are hit by the bite and make a Fort save vs. a DC (3e). If you fail, you are poisoned and suffer an ongoing effect until you make a save. Instead of being a Fort save against the original DC, which in PbP could be lost on a previous page of posts, you roll a d20 and try to get 10 or higher (4e).
I think this makes alot of sense for PbP because it gives people a chance to recover and get back in the mix sooner. Imagine if you were paralyzed by a carrion crawler. At PbP rate, you may as well go on a two-week vacation while waiting for the paralysis to wear off. Now you have something to do every round. And you don't have to keep asking me what the DC is.
For ongoing effects like paralysis, I can see the benefit. So probably worth including it. For poison, however, I'm not sure I see it as clearly. I like the notion that in 3e you have to make an initial save to shrug off the poison. If you fail that, you're faced with ever-deteriorating ability damage (which can be more lethal than mere hit-point damage) everytime you're forced to make secondary saves. It works quite well for everything from fast-acting poisons to long-suffering diseases. So, in that sense, I think ongoing effects are supported better by 3e than 4e. I'd hate to think that every round Zieke would get to make a save against poison (or disease) and by rolling 10 or higher immediately lift all effects of it. To me, 3e mirrors reality a bit more...in that, even after you finally stave off further ability damage from such effects, your health and stamina (i.e., your CON score moreso than your hit-points) is still suffering until you can take the in-game time to build it back and recover the ability damage.
Basically, it's two sets of mechanics for measuring the status of a PC. Hit points mean one thing. Ability scores are another. Hit points can come back much more quickly. But stuff that insidiously attacks the body or mind by sapping away ability score points has a lot of merit to it...
Re: 4E rules for death and dying
Monsters die at 0. Some NPCs may be exceptions. Some monsters may not stay dead. Most will be out of action permanently at 0 hp, just as I've been doing now.
This is your decision to make. By having PCs survive down to -1/2 their hit points, you'll ensure we can all stick around longer. In some ways, it's kind of a reverse healing surge that you're offering by giving us a deeper durability track. We just don't have to define a mechanic like healing surges and how often they can be used to take advantage of prolonging our survival. If you extend this to us AND some NPCs, however, I do still believe you might prolong combat within the PbP as a result. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
For the record, however, healing surges and 5-minute rests vs. extended rests is another element of 4e that I don't like as much. The fact that all PCs can now heal themselves by immediately regaining 25% of their hit points after expending a healing surge...can also expend as many healing surges to get back to full hit points between encounters by taking a 5-minute rest...and then get all their healing surges back by simply taking a 6-8 hour extended rest...well, it all just stretches my suspension of disbelief too far. I much prefer, as Dreamer pointed out, that healing come from either a divine source or the application of the Heal skill between battles. I know it doesn't put us back in action as quickly. But I prefer to think of the wounds created by weapons in combat as being something more than near misses and bruising that a PC can suddenly discount by getting his second wind. As a part-time game designer, I can understand the mechanic behind healing surges and the reason for including them. But as a player with a story-telling bent, I don't like how it plays out in comparison to 3e.
Re: 4. Action points
You start each day with 1 AP. You can use one AP per encounter. You can accumulate APs for defeating multiple encounters without an extended rest.
If you include swift actions to allow for an extra "free" action to use a potion, etc....then is there really a need for APs as well? Or are you just more in favor of giving the PCs the opportunity for an extra attack or movement? Because that's the most likely use for APs. And, given your concerns already about how many iterative attacks 3e PCs will be getting in comparison to your 4e monsters/villains, as well as the notion that solo monsters will face multiple actions from a party of 5-6 PCs, it sounds like giving us APs will exacerbate that problem even further...
Re: 5. Charge as standard action
It will actually make a bigger difference in 3e than it does in 4e. Ironically, in 4e, you are often better off moving and using a power than charging (which limits you to a basic attack). But in 3e all you have are basic attacks, soooo treating charge as a standard action, allowing charging through difficult terrain, and allowing turns increases the PCs threat range dramatically and leads to quicker, more decisive engagements. The main reason to charge is for the attack bonus. This ruling would make charges more common.
I realize this rule would make charges more common. I'm just not sure I see a need for making them more common. Is the extra attack bonus (at the expense of reducing your AC) really warranted all that often? I've never found it to be in 3e, but maybe there's more of a reason in 4e with ACs and Defenses coming into play against various attacks? Treating charging as a standard action is your call. I'm willing to roll with it. I just don't imagine Zieke resorting to it unless there's a clear reason he has to because he'll be less likely to hit an opponent's high AC if he doesn't. So, with that in mind, it sounds like the monsters will be using against us more often instead.
Also, I'm not sure I agree as much with the idea of charging through difficult terrain. It's supposed to be difficult terrain for a reason. It supposed to slow you down...make you check your footing or force you to focus on keeping your balance in the middle of a life-and-death struggle. But, if you rule that you can simply charge through it with no effect (i.e., it's the same as charging across easy terrain), that just seems kind of odd to me. Maybe if you ruled that charging through difficult terrain is possible for the added movement, but it doesn't grant you attack bonus on the other end of it, I might see it as viable. But that's just my impression of it based on how you've described things so far. Without playtesting it...who knows?
Re: Spell-like misc. magic items
Basically what I'd like to eliminate is 2/day, 3/day, 7/day, etc. type items. I have two reasons. 1) It is extra paperwork; 2) The 3e rules penalize multiple use per day items (their higher cost results in them having a higher item level, which is hard to justify because a 2/day item is seldom as powerful as a slightly more powerful 1/day item).
Okay, I can see the pointless distinctions between 1/day vs. 2/day, etc. It can become extra paperwork if it's a high-use item with 7/day, etc. Eventually, it just becomes better to call it an at-will, because you're unlikely to find 7 different times you'll use that specific item unless the effect is instantaneous rather than long-lasting. For instance, a 1/day use of magic weapon is going to last you through an entire encounter. But a 1/day use of magic missile is going to last you through one attack action. So there are differences in how I foresee it playing out.
If you go with 4e's "per encounter" devices and/or abilities, I don't necessarily think the paperwork goes away though. You have to remember if you used this power, but haven't used that one yet. Is this situation constitute a "new" encounter yet or not so they all refresh. If it's more 3e-focused and your item is useable either at-will or a couple of times per day, I think I'd find that easier to track than introducing a new set of "uses" based on encounters.
In terms of the magic item design problems with 1/day vs. 2/day, etc., I can see your point on that. Balancing magic items is difficult at best anyway (even with your houseruled crafting system, though it has certain advantages I like). I think that's because magic items are variable depending on the actual effect you place in them. How can you really compare a 1/day use of mage armor to animate rope? They're both 1st level spell effects, but they're clearly not equal. Not in terms of how often situations arise where those abilities are needed. And not in terms of the in-game effect they wind up generating. That's because magical effects based on spells all target different elements within the game. So all 1st level spells aren't equal, and so on. So giving one ability (mage armor) a 1/day use and another (animate rope) a 2/day use may wind up being equal depending on the game effect they can reasonably have.
This is why magic item design isn't an exact science. Spells and spell-like effects aren't equal to one another, just like feats in 3e aren't equal either...
Re: Encounter powers in 4e
...by the time PCs are higher level, they have enough powers that they can reasonably expect to use a different one every round in a 5-6 round fight (using a few at wills, all their encounters, and one daily, for example)....One thing I like about encounter powers is that you know you will get it back before the next fight, so you use it each fight. Sometimes players sit on their powers all day while their allies are getting their butts handed to them. Encounter powers are use-it-or-lose-it.
Since most combats don't last much longer than a few rounds, I haven't typically found higher level PCs to face this problem all that much in 3e. Where it does come up is usually at lower levels, and that's why I like what Paizo has chosen to do with PFRPG. All of the spellcasters receive an at-will ability at 1st level that they can keep on using even as their higher level spells get used up from one battle to another. This keeps them active and engaged so players don't face the dreaded 15-minute adventuring day. But it does it in a way that I prefer over 4e.
To me, I'm not really interested in long-running dungeon crawls where you can squeeze in 10-12 fights because of all these encounter-based and at-will powers (most of which are equal in power level to 3e's daily powers). That's just not my style of play. I do like the notion of making sure a wizard never runs out of "magic" to throw around from one fight to another by giving him an at-will energy ray or touch attack that duplicates a low-level spell effect. But at the same time, I like that his more potent spells are left "taxing" enough that he can only focus and produce them according to the number of prepared spell lots he has for higher level effects. To me, that's a fair and reasonable way of mechanically defining how magic works for D&D. But the encounter-based mechanic and how 4e has chosen to characterize (read: power up) their at-will and daily abilities just doesn't support the kind of game I'd prefer to run. Doesn't mean I can't play in one...it just isn't something that I find as credible or enjoyable.
Re: Shift as a move action.
We will eventually have some maps again for large combats where it's impossible to keep track of all the adversaries w/o a map. I would also like to make a bunch of things (drinking potions, picking stuff up) swift actions instead of move actions. I can see how this seems pointless, so I will refine action re-definitions to give it better context.
Fair enough. This is an area where I know the pain of having to DM large-scale combats or combats across unique terrain or locales. So I don't mind exploring whatever you want to try to streamline things and help you keep your sanity intact. I am a little curious though. Given that such combats lie in our future, won't the extra bookkeeping around including "shifts" complicate things further for you? We're not bothering all that much with relying on 5-foot steps under the 3e mechanics right now (though I do you recall you occasionally deciding to say we could use those kinds of actions to accomplish some things). But really, I see it in abstract terms for the purposes of PbP. To me, it's always your call. I'm not going to get hung up on whether or not the rules say I should get a 5-foot step that would allow me to do something...or that something counts as a move action or free action rather than a standard action so an opponent should or shouldn't be able to do something on any given round. None of that matters to me. What does matter is that you determine what is or isn't possible from round-to-round given the circumstances of you're imagining the scene playing out. And, once you decide an action either can be done or can't be done in a certain round, that's all I need to know as a player. The rest is really superfulous...and it should be that way in a PbP format.
Re: 4E monster design
In 3e, creatures go from having high AC relative to their own attack bonuses (e.g., AC 16, AB +3) at low levels to having low AC relative to their attack bonuses (e.g., AC 30 AB +35) at high levels. This means combat changes as the characters progress. It transforms from who can leverage tactics and circumstantial bonuses in their favor to who has the most hp/healing/resistance and who rolls the fewest 1s.
I agree. That's the difference between low- to mid-level play vs. high-level play. And it's why I've always preferred the low- to mid-levels. So I always find myself not worrying overly much about that problem in 3e. I so rarely make it into high-levels with a PC that it never comes up. And I'll be interested to see if this game can progress into higher levels, too. Most PbPs don't make it that long, but you've got a great game going here. That's why I wanted to join it when you had an opening. I'm interested in seeing how far it can go through the Rise of the Runelords storyline. And I'm interested in seeing how far Zieke can progress in level as he experiences it.
In 3e, most creatures have a mix of very good and very poor save bonuses. This is exacerbated by multi-classing. The result is that as DCs go up at higher levels saves will often be gimmes or near-impossible. High-level PCs often rely on high DC save-or-die effects vs. enemies weak saves. If the PCs start doing that, the monsters are going to do it too, and we'll have a bunch of dead PCs on our hands.
I've always perceived the higher level saves to be the same in just about any game. I don't know that that's a problem inherent in 3e. And I'm not sure 4e fixes it completely. Eventually, it always becomes gimmes or near-impossible. That's the breaks of facing a really tough monster. Learn its weakness. Know your own. And make sure you play to your strengths to defeat it.
In 4e, attacks against defenses typically have the same success rate as against AC (give or take a little) and there are no truly save-or-die effects. This gives everyone more to contribute and less to be paranoid about.
Not to be argumentative...and certainly not with you, specifically...but I've heard this case made about 4e and spoke of in terms that makes it sound like more of a positive than I would view it. It reminds me of not taking responsibility or accountability for one's own actions. It seems like we live in a day and age now where everyone gets to be a winner and there are never any losers, all the way down to Little League baseball. And I think we're losing a lot, culturally and even morally, as a result. So, this need to make sure there are no save-or-die effects so we don't upset someone by inadvertantly taking out their character on the whim of a simple die-roll just doesn't sit well with me at a visceral level.
There's nothing wrong with that situation, in my opinion. It demonstrates the random viciousness that life hands you sometimes. And it helps to illustrate those sheer luck, almost-fated heroic situations that can define what it actually means to be a hero...or, in the case of D&D, live vicariously as one via your PC. To walk into a situation where you know you will face save-or-die consequences and stick around anyway to accomplish some greater good is something I think it's important to keep in the game. Don't do it frivolously, of course, or it loses its meaning. But don't strip it out simply because players can't cope with it. I believe they'll never learn to cope with it if we never expose them to it.
In 3e, auto-damage is king....High-level fights typically devolve to a simple comparison of damage output vs. hp and healing capacity since most meaningful attacks automatically hit and damage expressions are dominated by fixed terms or altered significantly by resistances and vulnerabilities....In 4e, auto-damage is rare and high-level characters of all stripes are dropping a fist-full of dice at a time. A damage expression is much more likely to be 5d8+12 than 1d8+27 in 4e.
I've never been one to favor the fistful-of-dice method of gaming. I'm okay with dropping several d6's to determine the blast effect of a 1/day fireball or similar spell-effect, but if it's part of the routine damage output of a sword-wielder, I don't enjoy it as much. Keeping things simpler in 3e by adding a single number to a single die-roll is preferrable to me in many ways. I realize it gets less realistic the higher PCs advance in level. But high-level play is less realistic across the board for me. Since I rarely reach that height with any of my characters, it's hard to sympathize when it's indicated as a major flaw in 3e.
In 3e, attacks rarely impose a condition or force movement. There is almost no ongoing damage....In 4e, conditions and forced movement are common. Ongoing damage is common.
I can work with ongoing damage effects. I think that's fine. But forced movement usually leads back to a miniatures-style of gaming. And I prefer most of the action to be in my head rather than having to determine squares of movement. So that aspect turned me off when 3e came out and I don't lay that problem solely at 4e's feet. But layering forced movement on top of everything ratchets up the miniatures dependency to a degree. And so I think that takes the game another step in a direction I don't prefer to go. Or at least, a direction that makes the game less enjoyable for me because it can bog down while everyone counts out squares of movement and positioning for "opportunity attacks" and so on.
In 3e, attacks drain levels - resulting in obnoxious paperwork, but little else....In 4e, attacks drain healing surges or massive amounts of HP making them just as dangerous, but much easier to book-keep.
I'm okay with where 4e is heading on this one. Draining a level in 3e is so much more complicated because of how interwoven all the various mechanics for skills, feats, ability-derived elements, etc. have become. In 2e, draining was more manageable because it didn't have quite as much bookkeeping invested in all those elements. If 4e wants to turn draining into massive damage or even ability damage, I'm okay with that. But having it "drain" healing surges, well, I'm already on record about how I feel on healing surges... ;-D
In 3e, there are iterative attacks (for what it's worth)....In 4e, there are no iterative attacks, though some creatures - especially solos and elites can make multiple attacks under certain circumstances.
This became necessary in 4e because they flattened out and made all the classes relatively equal in terms of abilities, powers, etc. In 3e, they weren't equal in abilities, so they had to delve into the mechanics for BAB advancement (and, by derivation, the iterative attacks gained by going up in level). This is what defined and separate a warrior from a rogue or wizard. He got the extra attacks in battle. And wizards and rogues carried their extra special abilities that made them different and relatively equal in power terms.
So, I can see why 4e went this direction. And for me, it's a wash. Iterative attacks are necessary in 3e to effect game balance between the classes. And 4e had to dispense with iterative attacks because they'd already achieved balance between the classes as a result of their other changes.
So clearly there is work to do to keep things on par. The PCs will be at a disadvantage if monsters are frequently imposing conditions on them and they are unable to respond in kind, so I will have to use that sparingly....However, the PCs have an advantage in that they still have access to auto-damage and iterative attacks.
From a design standpoint, I be real interested in seeing how this operates in play. As I said, I'm curious to see how things balance. In 3e, the CR/EL system lets you generally manage the "threat" level of any given encounter vs. a party of PCs. And you have to make adjustments here and there depending on whether it's a solo fight vs. a bunch of PCs or a gang-up fight of overwhelming numbers vs. the same party of PCs. To me, that makes for variety. The route you're going now, I'm unsure of how you'll know if things are balanced. It appears it's going to be a whole lot more touch-and-go for you. But, seeing as how there's already an element of that in the CR/EL system for 3e, it shouldn't be a major problem unless you err big-time on one side or the other.
I will have to keep monster ACs relatively on par with the party's ACs and will probably use 3e rules for save bonuses to keep that even with the party. Monster skill points will rarely impact the party in any significant way. I will just treat the monsters as fully trained in as many skills as they need to do their monster jobs.
This sounds like a good approach.
The big change will be rolling feats and special abilities together into a less precise amalgamation of "powers" that the monsters can use and balancing those powers against the party.
This is the part I'll be more worried about. Feats and special abilities are a lot less precise to manage. It's all going to have to be done by feel. And comparing feats/abilities between 4e and 3e, I already perceive a difference in power scale on most of them.
I will not make mechanics between monsters and PCs so different as to be unfair. However, you should expect less concordance between attack bonuses, HD, and hit points than 3e typically has. This will only be a "problem" if you are metagaming encounters and acting based on presumed game mechanics instead of in-game descriptions.
I've found that regardless of how much we all strive not to metagame, there's still always going to be an underlying understanding and set of assumptions based on the rules that govern combat. And since combat plays a fairly defining role in how a story progresses, it's a pretty key thing to focus on. If a particular mechanic for...say, grappling...is problematic and unlikely to ever succeed, a player intuitively senses those odds and opts never to take that kind of action when a particular battle has taken on major significance. We all do this...we have to really. Once we figure out a certain beast can't be hit within anything other than a cold iron or blessed weapon, that's all we'll use. To do otherwise would unhinge the whole story by threatening the survivability of the characters as they stumble about using less-optimized solutions.
But the world hates the full-blown metagamers who always opt for the perfect solution in every fight. If you're unwilling to let your character stumble through at least some of the discovery process around a creature's weakness (one which he's probably never encountered before), then you're stretching the credibility of story. And so I think that's detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, as a result. Basically, there's a balance you have to strike between metagaming and just plain gaming. When the rules are important for how they define certain actions which may play a key role in the story, both aspects collide with one another.
Anyway, apologies for the lengthy response. I just had some time to ponder a lot of stuff and thought I'd share my perspective for any willing to read it.
My two-cents,
--Neil
I'm a 100 % for what you want to do JSL, as a DM I completely understand where you're coming from. I would advocate a complete switch to 4E but I know that won't be possible, so all that sounds fine.
Heheh, Let me say that ultimately, I am for anything that keeps THIS game going! And that is going to be entirely up to JSL~. So, I am basically for anything that makes HIS life easier, and enjoyable, (For both him & us!), and apt to continue this particular game.
I am also willing to try anything at least once. (I think I've mentioned my propensity for getting myself into trouble? And YOU thought it was just my CHARACTER!) ;P
So, minor changes, major changes, adapting rules,... etc. I am all good with. One thing I enjoy about JSL, he listens to the players! And then goes to a great deal of trouble to see if he can help make better whatever it is we talked about. (Point in case, I asked if it was possible to use creature parts as a substitute for XP to help make Item creation cheaper for the wiz, and he gives us Craft Points! I luv this guy!) So I say lets try it. None of us seem too shy about expressing our opinions, so we will definitely have feedback to work with. Who knows? We may come up with what is (for us at least), the ideal game system! Enough of the (admittedly over-complicated at times) 3E system to make those of us who like parts of it happy, and enough adapted from the 4E rules set to make the DM's life easier!
For the first time in my life, I think I may be involved a win-win situation! :)
Couple of more thoughts I had:
Re: Dying at -10HP vs dying at -1/2 Total HP:
When I first read this, I got very excited, I thought 'this might be great'. Then I realized it IS great,...
For everyone except the d4 HD casters! :P
Case in point-Everyone's favorite manic mage. Currently as a third level caster with a small HP bonus from a decent CON Sli is sitting at 14 HP. And I think I've managed to roll 3's or 4's on all his HP dice. (I really should keep records of that kind of level up stuff!) SO at 3rd level, the best he can hope for is to make it to -7hp before calling in the replacement mage.
I do like the way that PFRPG helped that situation by making the caster HD all d6, that helps. And once you get to higher levels (again, not something I get to do much) It seems like even though at LOW levels there won't be a large HP spread between the D6 Wiz, the D8 CLeric/rogue, and the D10 fighter, as you progress in levels that small gap in HP will get bigger, and that seems like it works for me.
I first applauded because being able to go PAST -10hp means that (at least after a few levels) you have a chance of surviving the hit from the creature that PUT you at neg HP to begin with! But seeing that a 1st lvl caster can now only survive to -2hp, (-3hp if he has a decent Con, not something that a lot of casters usually have) Means that the caster usually won't survive the initial hit that dropped him to get any help.
Re: Adapting 4E Combat rules, I have a few thoughts, but again, I HAVEN'T read the 4E system, I only know what I read from the WotC website. So my Ideas are either going to right on or WAY off! So, dangit, I 'm gonna have to scam a copy of the PHB-4 if I'm going to contribute meaningfully to this part of the discussion.
Re: Using Craft Points for Feats- Since not all feats are created equal, I'm ok with JSL making up the prices for an extra feat in CP's. And I'm interested in buying some that will complement my hopefully cool PRC powers!
-I was thinking that a Meta magic feat would cost the same # of CP as the +level it gives to the spell when applied? (Ex- If Heightened Spell is +2level, it costs 2 CP.) Minimum of 1CP since there are Meta-magic feats that add +0 to the spell level. (This doesn't help with pricing the non-meta-magic Feats though)
-Question, can we by off the Flaws we started out with? If there is no 'Standard' flaw to feat cost, perhaps we can base the cost of buying off the flaw on the cost of the feat that it purchased?
-Is there a limit to the number of feats/level we can buy? It is believable (for me at least) that a caster could hoard craft points to save them up for a level or 2 and then build that uber-item he's been drooling over. But a warrior suddenly waking up the next day with 4 or 5 new feats/abilities,... You get my point.
Re: Magic items I'm considering/wanting for Slidell:
OK, I'm going to admit it. SInce it's no secret where I got most of my inspiration for the character anyway,...
I thought about creating a Rod, with several sound/sonic spells in it, and maybe even the ability to open locks like a Chime of Opening.
YES! I confess! I want to make Sli a Sonic Screwdriver! THERE! I said it!
(Sue me, you won't get much!) ;P
I'm going to put on my "outsider" hat for a minute. I'm doing my best to follow the 3.x/hybrid/4e discussion, and here are some interesting things I've noticed.
It's interesting to see where the emphasis is -- both in the game rules and for individual players. What's more important --
- Skill or chance?
- Number of spells/powers or how they're used?
- Simulationism or estimation?
- Uniformity or variety?
- "Fairness" (as perceived by players) vs. "balance" (as determined by rules/DM)?
- Limitations (forcing choices) or permissiveness (allowing freedom)?
- Tabletop or Play-by-Post?
- Numbers or what they represent?
- Gaming/playing along or metagaming/trying to beat the DM or system?
- Combat or character development?
- Dice rolls or role-play?
Certainly, one value or emphasis is not necessarily "better" than another, but it does affect what we're comfortable with.
A few months ago, I got a new job, doing essentially the same thing I was doing for the 3 1/2 years before that. But they did things a little -- differently: Where one agency put a big emphasis on getting new clients in the door, the other was focused on retaining old clients. Where one agency had a single point-of-contact for all new intakes and scheduling, the other spread that among everyone who saw clients. One was very concerned with setting policies and protocols that reflected laws and regulations, the other placed more emphasis on discussions about ethics and safety.
Better? Worse? Some things I prefered about one, some about the other, and either way it was an adjustment.
The other interesting thing I've noticed is where the line is drawn for "realism." Certainly, we want the rules of the particular universe to be internally consistent, but we are playing out stories about wizards, demons, and magic.
- Does magic really come out of memorization?
- If someone prays hard enough or regularly enough, should they be able to heal themselves or others?
- Is the power in the equipment or the person weilding it?
- Spellcasters get depleted (how? why?). Do fighters and rogues get depleted as athletes do in real life? If so, how should it be represented? How should they be revived/refilled?
It's ALL made up! But some people seem to get really dogmatic about what's OK and what's not in game land.
Then, regardless of the edition used, it needs to be adapted to the PbP format. Some things work better in real time, others can actually be more enjoyable in writing.
The last interesting observation comes from looking at parallels between the debut of 3e and 4e. For about a year, Dragon put a lot of energy into selling the 3e idea, hyping up the new rules, abilities, classes, illustrations, etc. Even so, there was a lot of resistance and skepticism around adopting it. It was a change, and it was pretty abstract (stat blocks galore!). I think it took the Eberron setting to really get people excited about adopting it, because the Eberron book was exciting and people could read the adventures and descriptions and finally say, "Yes, this is something I could play."
Again, outsider here, but it seems to me that WotC did not/could not put the same degree of salesmanship into unveiling their new system. The buzz wasn't "this is exciting," it was "this is different" (a fact) or "this is better" (an opinion). As with anything billed as "new and improved," the improved part is a matter of taste and values (Why did they fix A and not B? B was bugging me more than A...). For me, 4e is still pretty abstract. And admittedly, this game, by its nature, is abstract. HP, ability scores, healing surges, spells, skills, bonuses, etc. do not and cannot have 1:1 real-life correlates. They are used to model concepts or aspects of a character. It's up to the players' RPing to translate the numbers into characters and narrative.
I freely admit that the "abstractness" is a stumbling-block for me at this point. I don't have something to look at and hang onto and say, "Yes, this is something I could play." (I know how to play monsters in 4e, but that's kind of discouraging because ultimately they're supposed to lose.)
HOWEVER, I trust JSL on the rules and where they go from here.
I know he has the best interest of this campaign and its players at heart. There are improvements to 3e he has wanted to see for a long time, and I believe he wants to share the benefits of those changes with his players in order, ultimately, to make a more enjoyable game for all. Finally, for anyone concerned about fairness and balance, JSL has an amazing knack for systems and numbers. He has played this stuff out on the table and in his head, and knows what the numbers mean, where they come from, and how they play out. He gets it. And he knows how to change it if there's a problem. 4e or its hybrid may be different, but it's not going to break our game. JSL wouldn't allow that to happen.
Re: Dying at -10HP vs dying at -1/2 Total HP: When I first read this, I got very excited, I thought 'this might be great'. Then I realized it IS great,...For everyone except the d4 HD casters! :P
I agree that PFRPG helps offset that problem with d6 hit dice for wizards and sorcerers. You can also benefit from taking the Toughness feat since it adds 3 immediate hit point plus 1 extra hit point every Hit Die thereafter. But, if you also noticed, there are a couple other methods in PFRPG to boost your hit points above the regular Hit Die + CON modifier mechanic.
First, everytime you take a level in your Favored Class, you earn an extra hit point.
Secondly, there are variant rules that add a set amount of starting hit points to your character. If you go by race you get an extra 4 hp for halflings, gnomes, and elves...an extra 6 hp for humans and half-elves...and an extra 8 hp for dwarves and half-orcs...to reflect the hardiness of each species. If you go by Constitution, you get an extra amount of starting hit points equal to your CON score. If you go by the flat method, everyone just gets an extra 6 hp at 1st level. Or, if you go the doubling route, you simply start at 1st level with twice your normal amount of hit points derived from Hit Dice, then add your CON modifier, etc.
If JSL implemented a combination of those solutions, Sli's hit points would increase enough so that half would let him keep at least the -10 threshold he enjoys now. But outside of that, you're right. Sli's pitiful hit point spread won't even give him until -10 hp to survive if he goes swimming with wrathspawn in acid pools again. ;-D
--Neil
...I trust JSL on the rules and where they go from here.....I know he has the best interest of this campaign and its players at heart. There are improvements to 3e he has wanted to see for a long time, and I believe he wants to share the benefits of those changes with his players in order, ultimately, to make a more enjoyable game for all.
I believe I said this before, but I want to repeat again in case it didn't come across strongly enough...or my feedback so far left an over-critical impression...
I totally trust JSL as DM. He's got sound judgement which is readily apparent to everyone...even me as the "new" guy in this game. Anything...and I do mean anything...that I've brought up so far is totally meant as constructive criticism or fruitful debate...not an attempt to strongarm anything with regards to how this game is run. It's just an effort to serve as a sounding board, a crucible, or what-have-you for JSL to use at his discretion.
Finally, for anyone concerned about fairness and balance, JSL has an amazing knack for systems and numbers. He has played this stuff out on the table and in his head, and knows what the numbers mean, where they come from, and how they play out. He gets it. And he knows how to change it if there's a problem.
I believe you. And I'm not trying to color myself as an expert on game system design. However, I do have experience with RPG game design, so I feel confident enough in my own knack for systems and numbers to believe I can volley ideas back and forth with JSL...not to quibble with every little idea or houserule he's considering...or to defend 3e/3.Paizo...or attack 4e...but rather to hopefully refine whatever he's considering.
It's just me trying to be helpful in the process. Nothing more. And even if I eventually disagree with any particular decision he makes around the elements of 3e/4e he chooses to weave together, I'm still willing to try it out. In game design, playtesting is paramount. And I'm fully open to engaging in it.
It's interesting to see where the emphasis is -- both in the game rules and for individual players. What's more important...?
Everything you've listed here, and the debate over what's more important, has raged throughout the history of RPGs. I tend to never land at the extreme edge of any one of those items. I recognize there are times when elements of all those things are important in an RPG. It's all a matter of finding the right blend. And quite often, that's an entirely subjective exercise that has to be tailored between a specific DM and his players' tastes. I believe that's what we're engaging in by discussing this stuff here.
--Neil
|
Holy crap, Batman! I leave for a few hours, and everyone decides to write a book. With all of this going on, how am I to get work done? Not to mention Vesh's hijinks.
BTW, I playing Vesh as an addict, here. When I was counseling, I had the opportunity to work with the families of addicts--pretty scary/heartbreaking for family members. Especially parents.
With the 4e stuff, I'm not getting bogged down in the rules; I'm just trying to take a step back and put it into terms I can understand, and see if I really get what's going on.
And I'm glad that there are those of you playing who have spent enough time studying and thinking about different aspects of the game that you can offer intelligent feedback and real concerns to the discussion in order for our group to have a system that works for us. ("Yeah, but it just doesn't feel right" doesn't leave much room for constructive discussion or adaptation. Unfortunately, that's about the best I can offer when I have a concern.)
I'm enjoying the discussion. I think it is beneficial to have reasoned discussions with people who have different opinions and/or experiences. Much of the 3e/4e discussion is pretty unreasoned and hostile. I'm glad we are able to keep the atmosphere we have.
I completely agree. I intentionally avoid the 3e/4e debates. They're rarely constructive at all. Meanwhile, it's very worthwhile to hear you articulate very clearly which elements from 4e improve the game from your perspective, because it helps me re-evaluate the things I like about 4e or dislike about 3e.
--Neil
Vesh: LOL! Yeah, we might have gotten a little carried away, but I think it's worth it! I enjoy seeing the different sides and reasonings. Good luck catching up! (I read very quickly, if only I could TYPE as fast as I read!) ;)
Dreamer: I totally trust JSL! At this point, If I didn't I wouldn't still be here! I can tell how good he is with numbers, Unfortunately I'm not nearly as good, (Though I can build a decent character in the Hero System, which involves buying EVERY aspect of your character with points!) So I don't even bother to question him on numbers anymore, if he says he's done the math, I take his word for it!
JSL: Thanks for the info on buying new feats, it makes sense. And the fact that it goes up the higher level you are makes a sort of sense to me. At least I agree with it! Thanks,...
-Question, I have always had a problem with the 'can never miss' syndrome that seems to happen at higher levels. Have you done the 'to hit' math between the two systems? In 4E is it still truly random even as you gain levels? Is it possible (In either system, even if we have to 'tweak' it to happen) to have the same hit/miss chance with a 15th level boss as it is with the 1st level boss?
Re: multiple dice vs few dice + big static bonus; As player who has 'grown up' (As much as I ever will!) on games based on the D6 mechanic (Specifically the ORIGINAL Star Wars RPG and the Champions/Hero system) I have NO problem with dropping a handful or two of dice on the table when it comes my turn. (Though my friends got so tired of waiting for me to add them all up, they started doing it for me!) But I find that multiple dice means a more random number generated. In the games I mentioned, it was entirely possible for a 'low lvl' good guy to trash a 'moderate lvl' bad guy with a lucky roll for him and a low roll for the DM. It wasn't LIKELY, because the medium lvl guy has more dice, but it was POSSIBLE. (The reverse is also true, we had several battles where we 'should' have easily beaten the opponent, but we kept rolling one's and two's on ALL 10 dice of damage we were dropping on him each turn!) ;P
SO, in short, switching to a 'more dice+lower static bonus' works for me if you want to try it.
That's all for now,...
4E's maths is much more robust than 3.5's Rags, so the element of chance remains a factor.
Thank you for the information and examples, that helps clarify a few things.
I am DEFINITELY going to have to participate in a couple of scenarios to see how it all works out though. Because looking at your examples, it seems like the fighter and the monsters stay even-ish on 'to hit bonuses' and AC, (Which is good, Facing something on your lvl should be even footing),
But, Please correct me if I'm wrong, if 2- 25th lvl fighters square off against each other, both with 'to hits' of about +35, and AC's of about 40, doesn't that mean that they only need a 5 or better on the D20 to hit each other? Unless there's some other factor which I'm missing here, (and I'm sure there is, I REALLY need to scam me a copy if I'm going to continue to participate meaningfully to this part of the chat!) Then that seems to be where we're about at NOW with 3.E in higher lvls? I mean regarding chance as still being less of a factor in combat at higher lvls?
I have no problems with a higher level character squishing multiple low-lvl 'minions' (1HP? I mean C'mon! What's the point?) But shouldn't 2 characters (even if one is an NPC) have a more difficult time striking each other? Anybody who's ever watched a martial arts contest knows that most of the punches thrown never hit, it's the ones that do get through that get the points.
OK, here is where I sound like I'm fence -sitting on my "real-vs-fantasy' position, but I'm not, bear with me a sec,...
I've played with people who LOVE the skills and the warrior's abilities in D&D. They have NO problem with a strong fighter wielding a greatsword one-handed (Yeah, RIGHT!) and wading through a horde of lesser monsters like kobolds or goblins with Great Cleave. All. Day. Long.
BUT, They don't like the fact that a wizard can cast a fireball and take out every goblin in a 20' radius. Once. A. Day. They call it 'unrealistic'. (Yeah, when your done laughing I'll continue)
I happen to like my fantasy 'Fantastic!'. You want your character to wield a greatsword one-handed like in the movies? Great! (Even if, according to your drawing, the sword is bigger than you and would have to weigh 150lbs at that size, [al la Anime] it's fantasy! Go for it!) I want my mage to be able to shoot flames from his fingertips at will, fireball a orcish horde before they get within bowshot, and curse his enemies with his 'evil eye' if they get too close!
It's not that I want 'realism', far from it! (I get enough of THAT every day, believe me!) I want to see 'realistic consistency' across the board in my fantasy world (If possible!) IN short, I would LIKE it to be just as random for a 25th lvl character to have as much of a miss % vs a 25th lvl monster as a 1st lvl character has vs a 1st lvl monster.
Look at the 'epic' spell-battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort, (the book or the movie, I thought both were good) or between Gandalf and Sauruman in the LotR movie. There are examples of what I would like to be able to participate in. Epic casters blasting away at each other, but so closely matched in skill that they really did very little dmg to each other. (Though, in both cases, the 'stronger' one technically won the battle.)
This is possible in 3.5, though as it has been pointed out, it is really more of an endurance contest, or in the case of a Wiz who can cast 9th lvl spells, who wins initiative. (I won init? Cool, Time Stop. I win!)
(Sigh) Is the OGL for the 4E out online yet? I really don't want to spend money on the book if I'm never gonna use it! But READING it is the only way I'm ever going to see all the pro's and con's for myself without you guys typing the equivalent of 4 books to explain it to me! ;P
Thanks for reading!
A PC has a bonus equal half his or her level, plus any stat bonus. There are no stat boosting items anymore so... you won't be looking at +35 to hit I shouldn't imagine.
It would be something like [+12 (level) +6 (stat) +5 weapon)] = +23 perhaps vs an AC of 22 (before any magic plus, armour, stat) probably taken to something like 35 or something.
Rags:
It really sounds like we've got your interest piqued on 4E.
Well,... Maybe a LITTLE,...
OK, I'll confess, I am a 'Game System Junkie!' I enjoy learning/playing games of all sorts and stripes. (I've even developed one or two of my own!)I have Played D&D, Hero System, (Champions & Fantasy Hero, where Rags was born!) Talislanta,(Still no elves!) Gamma World, Boot Hill, Car Wars, Star Trek (ORIGINAL system, many moons ago!) Start Wars (Original D6 system,) and a whole host of other games that I tried on a one-shot basis that I can't even remember. And I have a few books I was given as gifts or won as prizes that I haven't even unwrapped yet!
Yes, I have no problem with trying 4E, and will happily do so! My 'problem' is that all of the previous editions of D&D, while they obviously changed from one edition to the next, still 'felt' like D&D! (Sorry Dreamer, but that's the best description I got right now!) While the changes I have read that they have made to the new system changes too much, too fast. (I detest the original WotC video short with the bad french accent, (I'm an actor, I KNOW bad accents!) that kept insisting 'The game remains the same!' NO, it's NOT the same! Please don't insult my intelligence!) It may be a good system, and I may even enjoy playing it,(I've yet to meet a game system I HATE, And I played a 2 year campaign in Fantasy Hero as Rags and loved every minute of it, but it was never D&D) BUT I doubt I'll ever think of it as D&D. There's just too much difference, you can't actually translate characters into the new system. Yadda yadda,... (/ramble) ;)
Tell you what, this weekend, I'll whip up a 4E version of Slidell as a 4th level wizard with the warlock multi-class feats to represent whatever deal with the devil he made in his past. I think it will give you a good idea of how your 3e and 4e abilities compare. I'll freely admit, the wizard loses some flexibility in 4e. But I think his entertainment value is still there.
I confess to being curious, and that's very generous of you given how busy you obviously are. (4 Kids! I'm still shivering,...) ;)
Thank you, and it doesn't have to be THIS weekend if your busy, whenever you get around to it will be fine. Thank you. I look forward to seeing actual stats/powers/etc for a comparison.I need to check out the Dragonborn article on WotC, I confess they sound cooler than Warforged, and I thought THEY were cool when they were introduced! (Annnnnd,... I have a weakness for dragons!)
IN the interest of NOT slowing down the game anymore than I have (I know I know, 'stoopid casters!') I am moving my discussion of the SLEEP spell to this thread,...
Right, but the target is "One or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst" (Copied from the Online SRD)
Also from the online SRD- "Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. (Bold mine) Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted."I am reading this to mean that the spell is targeted like any other spell, (Bursts can be targeted anywhere you want within range) but moves 'outward' affecting as many targets as it can up to 4HD. I am NOT seeing 'affects target closest to the caster first'
So if I target the burst on Vesh, (or Orc A), doesn't that mean the spell affects THAT target first, and then, if there are any 'levels' left over to affect another creature, it moves outward to them?
NOTE-NOT trying to be argumentative, just trying to clarify for the next time, (And you KNOW I'm gonna use it again!) because if it affects the 'closest target to the caster', then it may as well be a TOUCH range spell, because THAT is the only way you would EVER be able to target it accurately!
What really got my attention was the brief couple of sentences on when dragonborn go bad. I don't recall exactly what it said, but after reading countless Paizo products about "unspeakable atrocities" and "heinous acts too vile to describe" and what not, it was nice to see a different representation of evil; i.e., not the chaotic- eat, kill, and rape (often in that order) -evil, which is starting to get a bit stale.
Amen - QFT and all that. I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this tired trope in their work.
Nic is a really talented writer, as well, so I guess he just has themes he likes to return to again and again like a Jacobean playwright. His article on the Wolves of Malveen was top-notch - really showed the other side of the coin, one of unalloyed heroism. More please!
Nice, that's exactly how I pictured a dragonborn villain. He's the black knight, the foe who with a nod allows you to live another day as you have impressed him with your skill. He sees no dichotomy between this and leading his troops into certain death, or killing innocents who are 'in the way'.
"You have been weighed, you have been measured... and you have been found wanting." *sheathes sword and walks away, leaving the PC in an unconscious heap*
Nice. Will have to try Ehlissa (in whatever form).
After reading through Sli4e, the mind boggles at what Zieke's at-will, encounter, and daily powers would look like. He too is a bit of a Swiss-army knife kind of warrior. I purposely crafted him that way with the 3e feats I chose and multiclass options with the monk route. I've skimmed 4e so far and I never really completed a full rendering of a Zieke4e in my mind.
Great work on Sli4e, though. I agree he mimics the current version in most ways and makes a stronger connection to the more *pow* side of Sli's magical aresenal.
--Neil
Zieke would prob work as a Fighter multi-classed into Rogue or Ranger.
Pretty much settled on Ehlissa as Fighter with Paladin multiclass feat.
1st level version of Ehlissa (going by 1st level 4E characters being the rough equiv. of 4th level 3E characters).
She has a number of powers that affect several opponents, reflecting her history of felling several foes a fight, as well not one but two marking abilities to reflect her challenges.
Thanks for the peek at the possible "New&ImprovedSli4E" JSL, It certainly seems like he doesn't suffer for lack of firepower!
I'm wondering if there are any Rituals that would allow him to be more flexible when NOT in combat? Today One of my student workers came in and was talking about the fun he had last week playing D&D 4E last week. (He's never played before, but he IS an online game person) He was kind enough to loan me his books. SO I will be perusing them to figure out how things work in 4E, and to see what I might have done differently.
Thanks again JSL~! I've already confessed to being interested in how the new system works. But for switching? Weeeeeeeel,... let me read a bit, and maybe NOW I'll be able to contribute to the conversation, instead of just asking questions about it! ;)
|
|
Sorry for the hasty post this weekend; I think I've patched us up and moved us forward. Apologies for not catching the grapple and for moving Ehlissa for fabes.
I'm amazed at how complex things can get in 3e combat if one isn't attentive. Case in point, I rolled Mal's opposed check for Vesh's counter-trip attempt as a STR check. Should've used Mal's Dex. Not a biggy in that Mal's roll was high enough to win either way, but I could see where one or two points could make the difference between success and failure.
Not to ruin anyone's suspension of disbelief, but if you all continue down the subdual road with Vesh, it'll probably take two more decent hits to drop him. I'm thinking that if he doesn't drop by Mal's turn on R3, Mal would probably draw steel...interesting thought...
Just when you thought it was safe to DM a minor encounter, suddenly you have to deal with Grapple rules and Sleep spells -- and they're aimed at your own PC! Somehow, that just doesn't sound fun. I hope we get through this soon, and as unscathed as possible. :)
That said, I'm not going to post until tomorrow.
Ok,...
I have been perusing the PHB Mark 4E, and I have come to one conclusion.
Whoever claimed that building a character was easier with this version was full of $#!% !!! ;P
Now, before you get all mad, that comment was mostly joking, because I'm sure that after building a few, it would be just as easy as making a character in any other system is for me now, but first run through it is HARDLY what I would call 'intuitive', which is what WotC has claimed.
Am I the only one who is thoroughly confused between the number of At-wills/Encounter/Daily you can USE per day, and how many you KNOW, (Or in the case of a Wizard, have in your spellbook)?
While I thought at first glance that the 'level up' chart in the PHB was cool because it had most of the info in one spot, it labels the powers USUABLE per day as 'powers KNOWN', which confused me until I re-read the Wiz entry for the second time.
For example, If I am reading it correctly, 'Sli4E' has one too MANY at-will powers. (?!?)
Again, If I read it right, (I was reading FAST today!) I have the right number of Encounter powers, (3= 1 for Wiz, and 1 each for both of the 2 Warlock feats?)
EDIT- After re-reading your build notes JSL~, I think now I have too MANY encounter powers? Doesn't the Warlock feat allow me to SWAP a Wiz encounter power for a Warlock encounter power? It doesn't ADD to the list, right? OR~ Am I misunderstanding, and I have BOTH powers, but can choose each encounter WHICH ONE of the two I wish to use? (I think this may need clarifying.)
For Rituals, Sli should only have the 3 1st lvl he learned at first, and won't gain more until he reaches 5th? (Or are the extra Rituals listed indicative of the extra spells that Sli has been buying off of scrolls and adding to his spellbook as we adventured?)
<Sigh> It's late, and I probably sound like I'm being a jerk, (Sorry if I do), but I'm REALLY just trying to make sense of it all. I think most of this is just misunderstanding the info listed. They simply need to make a list for each character class that resembles the generic 'level up' list that they DO have, and this would probably make perfect sense at first glance. (I mean c'mon, if they can make the Sorcerer's 'Spells Known/Spells per Day' charts make sense, this can't be that hard!) ;)
Overall first impression, having speed-read through the Warlock, and scanned the Wizard twice,...
PROS; At 1st level it looks pretty cool. Wiz has basic, decent attacks that never run out, and multi-classing feats look as though they may be cool, will have to read them in more detail to see if they are as cool as they look.
CONS; Wizard's flexibility is seriously nerfed! Taking multi-class feats adds to your ATTACK powers and can possibly make a character concept a reality in game terms, but gone are the wizard's 1st through 3rd Editions defensive and 'Utility' Spells, Where is the Mage Armor? the Stoneskin? There are SOME that made it through, but almost NO defensive spells, and things like Spider climb, Shield, Jump, Feather Fall and the rest are nerfed to heck and back! Feather Fall is a DAILY power? and you can only use ONE daily until what, 5th or 6th lvl? (Seriously, even a hard-core RP'er will be hard pressed to choose Feather Fall over Sleep!)
Also, If I read it right, your spells don't increase in damage as you increase in level anymore? (So a 15th level Wiz casts the same fireball as 5th lvl?) Which is 'fixed' by allowing the character to 'trade up' powers at certain level?
Some of the changes are OK, (Meaning I don't really feel about them one way or the other,... yet.) Like 'Detect Magic' being an 'Arcane' Skill action now. (remember I have only skimmed the Skill section so far,...) But I'm guessing that with a BASE DC of 20+ Spell Lvl, it won't be getting much use from 1st lvl characters!
OK, ok,... So before I degenerate into a rant,... (Too late?!?) ;P
I'll go back and re-read a few things. and hopefully get to the parts I didn't get to today! Then I'll re-visit it. AND probably be back with more questions.
Any comments/clarifications on the above? Am I just not understanding it because I was in a hurry and maybe skipped over the one paragraph that might make everything to do with At-Will/Daily/Encounter Powers make sense? Or am I just being dense even though I am trying to keep an open mind? Remember, I am not a game system novice, compared to some I've seen this character building is as clear as crystal, (TRAVELLER anyone?!?)
Has WotC posted the Errata on their website yet? There's BOUND to be some by now! ;)
I just can't help but wonder, knowing myself as I do, If I wouldn't be 'getting it' if I was taking my time and not speed-reading, and looking at building a fun character from scratch instead of having 'Can I translate THIS into THAT' in the back of my mind?
That's all for now, nighters all! :)
It started fun...but now we're a few rounds in, and I find that it is actually easier to receive than give (damage, I mean). I really didn't anticipate a multi-round battle. But then, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Heheh, for casters, It's ALWAYS easier to receive than to give (Dmg), at least in Melee! ;)
I think that this little episode will make for interesting conversations, (once we get out of here!) And nice RP'ing by the way Sant! It's not every player that can basically invite his fellow players to wallop on his character! Even if he is (fairly) sure that they'll try not to do any 'permanent' damage! ;P
Whoever claimed that building a character was easier with this version was full of $#!% !!! ;P
I don't think character-building will ever be simple in this game. :(
I haven't read 4e yet, so blind leading the blind here...For Salome, as a cleric, there's already a difference between the number of choices on the spell lists and how many spells she can cast each day. I wonder if wizards are getting that kind of set-up: more total options, but a limited number of slots in which to place them?
I also wonder if, while you're speed-reading all this, you're also asking yourself, "What does this mean for Sli? How does that affect Sli?" Would it be helpful to create an expendable character step-by-step as a practice and illustration of the process before you start hammering out the real thing?
Something else I've found helps me learn something new is to try to explain it to someone else. Frequently in the process, my own questions are answered or else it slows me down long enough to get it right.
Start at the very beginning (a very good place to start as, Julia Andrews taught us!), forget all you know or think you know (as the old fella said to Willow) and you killed my father, prepare to die! (oh no, wait...)
My key advice would be - don't skip ahead, go through it as if it's a completely new game (in some ways it is). We're all playing humans so review the human benefits before even looking at a class.
Have a look at the class your character currently is (if applicable) - again, don't try to read too much into it. Merely look at what is available at 1st level, don't even think of looking at higher levels. You don't need to (yet).
As an example, I looked at Paladin and saw that it was too flashy for Ehlissa, and since she has no Wis bonus most powers were useless. I looked at Warlord, but Ehlissa doesn't really inspire the others so much as she kicks butt herself. So I went back to Fighter and chose 1st level powers that fit her actions and theme. Paladin needed to be in there but multiclassing solves this by giving her the divine challenge, which is Cha based not Wis based.
My tuppence. :D
Regarding our situation in the evil Lamashtu shrine:
I believe Salome cast protection from evil on herself, so I think that ought to block evil mind-affecting influences such as the statue...which should mean she can stay in the room indefinitely without facing continuous Will saves on every failed skill check to consecrate the site.
Presumably, the only assistance she can provide beyond that would be a resistance or guidance orison, which she can cast on any of us. Zieke will have the better STR check for toppling the statue, but only marginally better than Ehlissa. Still, if someone can aid her effort, she could get a +2 bonus from the Aid Another action.
I'm not trying to play rules-lawyer, just looking to maximize our chances if we're going to realistically survive this place without tearing one another apart.
--Neil
Aid Another will still be useless ("ah the goggles do nuzzing!") with my terrible roll.
Will rack my brains to think of something better for her to do..