|
For myself, I can tell, even without play-test, that a rule allowing characters to jump up from dying to 25% hit point total on a roll of 20 is a bad rule; it screws up the drama of dying. Characters at death's door are only likely to be in trouble now. The Radiant Servant doesn't need to get her butt over to the monk at -8 hp; he might spontaneously recover to a healthy hit point total.
He may recover, but with 3 rolls of 1-10 he will simply die. It seems that in 4E you need to get to a fallen comrade within 3 rounds or risk him kicking the bucket.
|
Some of the alternatives that folks have mentioned mentioned sound interesting but the 4E mechanic has actually been play tested.
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?
I would rather not jump to conclusions too quickly.
I would rather see sane responses to these articles, but I don't think it's going to happen. These are not conclusions being jumped to, they are emotions being vented. It's like trying to reason with a racist; despite what the KKK says, racism is not based on rational thought. Same goes for 4e hate.
Edit: To clarify the above is not directed to reasonable posters who dislike 4e and are capable of communicating displeasure (think: Aberzombie) without twisting simple statements into unintentioned and ridiculous slams (think: they said "all death is bad", but I can think of various contrived examples where death isn't bad and be willfully blind to the point of the article and the reality of most in-game deaths).
People who don't like 4th edition D&D are like the KKK? Hyperbole much? WTF, man?
People who don't like 4th edition D&D are like the KKK? Hyperbole much? WTF, man?
...in that neither use rational thought
NOT
...in that they are all racist
Not the best of analogies, because it could be misconstrued exactly how you misconstrued it. But he wasn't calling the anti-4e crowd racist.
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Characters at death's door are only likely to be in trouble now. The Radiant Servant doesn't need to get her butt over to the monk at -8 hp; he might spontaneously recover to a healthy hit point total.
He may recover, but with 3 rolls of 1-10 he will simply die. It seems that in 4E you need to get to a fallen comrade within 3 rounds or risk him kicking the bucket.
Okay. but I'm not speaking about 4th Edition. I'm talking about this "hey, try this in your 3.5 game" rule. Which I can say without reservation changes the dynamics of combat danger in ways I don't like.
(One reason I dislike it: under this imported rule, a 1st-level wizard dies at -1 hp, 1/4 his maximum hp; -4 is greater than -10.)
4th Edition reimagines hit points in fundamental ways. Healing means something new. (In 4th Edition, it means something like catching your breath. In current D&D, characters heal their level in hp each night.) Taking one piece of 4th Edition rules and trying to insert it into my D&D campaign makes as much sense as using RoleMaster criticals for spears, but only for spears.
|
|
Right. Ok. So we're just fanatics who are incapable of reason or logical thought. We can't read something, recognize whether we think it's good or bad based on what's written, and come up with an opinion. That's so much better. And I realize he wasn't directly calling us racists, but you have to admit that using that language is pretty inflammatory. I could say that the CEO of WotC is like Hitler because he's telling everyone what to do. I'm not calling him Hitler, but if I was in his place, I'd be pissed off. I was up until 2 this morning recreating a gay rights march in San Francisco with African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latinos, and Whites, so being compared to a racist this morning (even obliquely) is not only really off the mark, but really insulting.
Also, putting the verbiage aside, the basic statement is wrong. I have read pretty much every release WotC has put out about 4th edition. I have evaluated each on it's own merit. Some I like (the zombie article, more attention to Far Realms and Fey, increasing racial differences at higher levels, etc), but the majority I don't. That's because I can think, and make decisions rationally. Disliking 4th edition from what I've heard so far (including the Death and Dying article), isn't an ideology. It's an opinion. A reasoned opinion.
|
|
And back to the topic at hand- As much as I dislike the rule that lets you come back to consciousness with 1/4 of your HP when you roll a 20, the min-maxer in me can't help but want to make a character who utilizes the feats, alternate class features, spells, and magic items that will come out in all of the splatbooks released in the next few years to invariably let you come back to half HP when you roll a 15+. Because you know that'll be possible (or something in that ballpark). I can't decide if I want to call it the "I'll be back" build or the "Energizer Bunny" build. I'm thinking it should be some kind of warrior, so it'd have a lot of HP to work with.
Right. Ok. So we're just fanatics who are incapable of reason or logical thought. We can't read something, recognize whether we think it's good or bad based on what's written, and come up with an opinion. That's so much better. And I realize he wasn't directly calling us racists, but you have to admit that using that language is pretty inflammatory.
Well, I did say it wasn't the best of analogies, so yeah, I'm agreeing that it's a little out there. He could have found a better way to make his point.
Do I agree with Sebastien? Not completely. There is a lot of emotion involved in this debate. And quite frankly there are a lot of very vocal people who have admitted a profound hate for an iceberg they've only seen the very tip of. So there is some level of truth to what he's saying. Not everyone is over-the-top-hating on 4e. There are those that have simply said "I don't like this or that idea" that WotC has come out with. And that's fine. But I do think it's a tad odd to profess a profound hatred for something that has only barely been revealed.
Just my 2cents.
Greg
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Right. Ok. So we're just fanatics who are incapable of reason or logical thought. We can't read something, recognize whether we think it's good or bad based on what's written, and come up with an opinion. That's so much better. And I realize he wasn't directly calling us racists, but you have to admit that using that language is pretty inflammatory. I could say that the CEO of WotC is like Hitler because he's telling everyone what to do. I'm not calling him Hitler, but if I was in his place, I'd be pissed off. I was up until 2 this morning recreating a gay rights march in San Francisco with African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latinos, and Whites, so being compared to a racist this morning (even obliquely) is not only really off the mark, but really insulting.
Also, putting the verbiage aside, the basic statement is wrong. I have read pretty much every release WotC has put out about 4th edition. I have evaluated each on it's own merit. Some I like (the zombie article, more attention to Far Realms and Fey, increasing racial differences at higher levels, etc), but the majority I don't. That's because I can think, and make decisions rationally. Disliking 4th edition from what I've heard so far (including the Death and Dying article), isn't an ideology. It's an opinion. A reasoned opinion.
Huh. If only I had carved out reasoned opinions from my statement or said something like "to clarify, this isn't meant to apply to everyone".
Oh wait, that's right, I did.
But feel free to be insulted anyway. It's not like I posted it there with the intent of being friendly.
In any event, the basic statement was correct; there are people who get their panties in a knot regardless of the substance of any given WotC release.
|
The best thing is, it looks like you can change the feel of this pretty easily. Want a more grim-and-gritty feel? You could:
- Reduce the percent by which you can go neg to a quarter of your hit points;
- Make death come at 2 low recovery rolls; and/or
- Make the 20 on a recovery give less benefit (or only let you get your "second wind" if you haven't already during that encounter - the other place where I saw Second Wind discussed, it seemed like it was a once-per-encounter-per-recipient sort of thing).
If I recall, there may have been a clue to exactly this idea in the 'Shelley's Diaries' articles (I know; shock horror, some useful info in Shelley's Diary. Who'd have thought?).
In one entry, she describes using a Heal check on a fallen ally, which 'lets him access his reserve hp' (or words to that effect).
It's an innoccuous phrase, and it probably passed most people by, but it would imply that each character has a limit on how many hp they can be healed per day, or how many times they can be brought back from the brink.
If that is the case (a big if), it may not be as big a deal if everyone can heal themselves, or if the cleric can cast healing spells at will, if the maximum hp regained is capped as a proportion of a person's max hp.
One cleric could administer to a dozen PCs and cohorts, but eventually, they would still need to stop and rest, whether he still had healing available or not; the body can only take so much abuse. Having 2 clerics in the party would not provide double the healing, as it does now; it could simply be redundant.
|
|
And quite frankly there are a lot of very vocal people who have admitted a profound hate for an iceberg they've only seen the very tip of.
F@#$ing icebergs!!! I hate those damn things! All they do is float around and get in the way of boats! What good are they?!?
On the other hand....
f@%%ing icebergs!!! I hate those damn things! All they do is float around and get in the way of boats! What good are they?!?
Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce Mr. Aberzombie, Captain of the unsinkable Titanic.
I didn't mind the system, but I like the below idea as well. All Flesh must be eaten has a similar system. If you go below 0 you aren't dead, but you need to start making survival checks each round. The DC of the check is somewhat dependant on how far below you are, and it gets tougher each round. The problem with the Fort save logic is that at low levels they will have a lot of trouble making high DC fort saves and at high levels it will be real easy. I'm pretty okay with most of the proposed rules. I'm not sure I like the part where you come back at 25% of your hp on a 20.
I don't think the negative range would be too high in this system. A tough high level fighter might have 200hp, which would result in him being able to withstand up to -50 damage. I've had a lot of characters take enough damage in 3rd edition games to put them at well below -50. For example a character who is down to around 20hp is hit with disintegrate spell- that could easily put you down to -50 hp. It is also easy to put a cap on negative hp and say that -50 is the most you can have regardless of your hp total.
Gyah - board ate my reply...
So, in a nutshell:
3E's design philosophy of "same rules for everyone" was completely wrongheaded and
Rather than coming up with a simple fix that requires maybe a few die rolls, they want to use a silly system that gives PCs bucketsfull of level-adjusted irrelevant "negative hit points" so that low level characters still die in droves and high-level ones can only be destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon (and then only if they fail both the Reflex AND Fort saves).Why not just make the following changes:
1. Characters stop taking damage at 0 hp; no need to track beyond that.
2. A character at 0 HP has to make a FORT check each round with a DC of, say, 20 each round; if they take damage from any source during that round, the damage increases the DC.
2a. If they fail the FORT check, they suffer a cumulative penalty (I'd suggest -2 on a "normal" Fail and -4 on a Natural 1) on the all subsequent checks; fall three in successsion, you die.
2b. Pass the check, character remains "stable at 0"
2c. Roll a Natural 20 on the check, and awaken with hit points equal to your level.
3. Any type of First Aid stabilizes the character at 0 with no need for additional checks unless the character takes damage during the round.
4. Healing automatically restores whatever number of hit points are rolled.
I'm not sure how much I like these rules. I will have to try them out I think before I decide whether I like them or not. However, I'm hopeful the 'roll a natural 20 to get a second wind' will be more likely to keep the players of the downed characters attention at the table more than just hoping for a cure spell does.
The high negative value for death does seem kind of high, but at the levels I'm at in two games it is less beneficial since those games have a die at negative Con rule. And we have only just started reaching the levels where any members of the party would have a better chance of survival. So I think I'm fine with that total.
For those interested, in Chris' campaign these rules come up a lot. Since there are 7 players, he likes to throw big, bad stuff at us. So far we've had two deaths, and thus far no "pop up on a natural 20" rolls. While we may get a couple of nat 20's over the course of the session, we've get to have one during play. That's anecdotal, but I think it's something to think about. If I get only a few nat 20's per session (if that many), it doesn't make me feel like I've wasted a 20 when that comes up.
So far, I like the new death/dying rules, as they're kind of building off of the 3.5 rules but with a more flexible death window to account for increasing monster damage. Besides, every now and then it's good to have a "You though I was dead, but don't forget about me!" moment for your characters, a la Merry-stabbing-the-Witch-King..
|
|
f@%%ing icebergs!!! I hate those damn things! All they do is float around and get in the way of boats! What good are they?!?
Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce Mr. Aberzombie, Captain of the unsinkable Titanic.
Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week. And remember, the 5:00 show is different from the 10:30 show.
I'd be more then happy to have it so characters are harder to kill but death is final.
Oh my friend, I am fairly certain death won't be final. I am not trying to be cynical or bash 4th Edition now, but I'll likely succeed spectacularly anyway. Every MMO I have been a part of before it's release, and I would speculate every MMO period, has a vocal minority of people who clamor for what is called perma-death. Death is final. No matter how much the company patronizes these people and says they will consider it... The result is always the same. Death is un-fun for the majority, so there won't be perma-death.
I imagine 4th Edition is being designed under the same premise. Lets just hope WotC can avoid what I call SOEC. (Sony Online Entertainment Craptacularity, although it isn't exclusive to Sony - Sony has the longest line of Online games that have felt the effect of a company trying to fix aspects that where complained about as being "un-fun," thus causing the near instant death of the game.)
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?
I'm sorry, but I have to: Pig shit could cure cancer... But I'm not going to be the first to eat it and find out.
Jumping to conclusions isn't as bad as most people make it out to be.
I would rather see sane responses to these articles, but I don't think it's going to happen.
While we are at it, I'd rather see Designer comments that don't lump all the 3.5 players into the same group that suffers their games waiting for the D&D messiah that is 4th Edition to raise them from their own personal hell.
But to quote the philosopher Jagger -- You can't always get what you want.
Personally I'm more then willing to give up some 'tactics' in 4th edition if it means giving up this friggen accounting chore thats eating up around a 1/4 of every gaming session at this point and looks to do nothing but get worse as the players gain levels.
Well... To be fair... If you made the raising magic easier to attain again, you could cure your own problem. I'd much rather the perma-death game... But you kind of created your own cross to bear there.
I have this mental image of a hapless 4th Edition monster, hacking away for round after round at an 'unconcious and dying 4th edition PC' with its claws, unable to kill that character until it can reduce aforementioned character to -60 hp. Does that seem at all smurfy to anyone?
I know that 3.5 has 'coup de grace' rules, but on current form, I really wouldn't expect monsters to be allowed to do that in 4th Edition- I suspect that if there is a 'coup de grace' option in 4th Edition, it will be PC only.
Monsters are supposed to be able to dole out larger amounts of damage than currently. I imagine that against said character, the monster would only need to hit once or twice to finish off the character.
Of course, you never know: versus unconscious creatures such attacks might be automatic criticals, which would be a very simple and easy to utilize rule.
I have this mental image of a hapless 4th Edition monster, hacking away for round after round at an 'unconcious and dying 4th edition PC' with its claws, unable to kill that character until it can reduce aforementioned character to -60 hp. Does that seem at all smurfy to anyone?Hey, you don't want some poor player to lose his character just because he happens to lose a fight to a deadly opponent, do you? That would be un-fun.
I know that 3.5 has 'coup de grace' rules, but on current form, I really wouldn't expect monsters to be allowed to do that in 4th Edition- I suspect that if there is a 'coup de grace' option in 4th Edition, it will be PC only.
I don't know where players will find a sense of accomplishment when the rules so egregiously stack the deck in their favor. It's like "winning" a marathon by being carried across the finish line. Glory and rewards without accomplishment.
And this applies not only to nonhuman monsters, but to human or humanoid opponents as well. Opponent warlords, wizards, etc. also drop dead at 0 hp. So, PC's effectively have 50% more hit points, automatically, than their opponents of the same level.
It brings to mind those "big-game hunts" they have for rich tourists in Africa. Get driven out a few miles into the jungle where you will have the chance to shoot a "big game" animal that's been raised in captivity, declawed and defanged, and drugged ten minutes before being released for the Great White Hunter to shoot.
"Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: Because You're Entitled To Succeed."
In my campaigns I run them with the intent that my players ARE going to succeed. D&D isnt just about "winning", its also a kind of collaborated story. Sure, as a DM you can lay out a foundation of a plot or story, but its really just a foundation until the players start f****** it up. The end result might be completely different than what you imagine.
However, in the end I dont care what gets built, I just want it to get DONE, so I challenge them, but I dont try to kill them.Generally the battles leading up to the BBEG arent terribly tough: they are challenging, and can be really bad if they dont actually try, but they arent designed to be deadly, thats what the last battle in the adventure is for. In those battles, they generally resolve them with almost no resources left at all. Its hard and its fun.
I think the problem is that people are equating the fact that while its harder for characters to randomly die, that the game will somehow become less challenging. I think that the new rules will actually better reward tactical thinking and strategy over lots of luck (change in critical hits, removal of save-or-die). Sure, luck remains a factor, but its not as big of a deal. Players will win or lose combat based on decision making, which makes the game more fun.
|
|
The result is that first one player writes out all the buffs out on the battle mat including duration and game effects. Then the players take turns including their personal buff spells, everyone works out what their new stats are like, making sure that things like personal buffs are not stacking with party buffs illigally and then we move on to the combat. The problem is that working out this buff spell list takes about 50 minutes. So, prior to every combat we burn up nearly an hour of game time just prepping for battle.
I think that's more a problem with the players than the rules.
Do they seriously go through this merry-go-round before every battle?
If it's standard procedure, it should be second nature. It might take 50 minutes (maybe more), but it only needs doing once, and not even during the game It only takes one player, who knows what the other PCs can do, and what gear they use, he can e-mail the list to the others. Then call out 'Plan A!' or suchlike, and everyone adds their personalised '+x to hit, +y to damage, +z to AC', etc.
We have a sheet with spaces for all our major scores, with all the bonus types. You can tell at a glance how a spell affects you (if at all).
The game sessions are too short to waste on things that could have been done at home.
|
|
I'm all-in-all satisfied with this, though I've long since stopped requiring my players run around and stab fallen enemies, "just to be safe".
The increased negative hit points is a good idea, as is the randomized roll to determine if you die (three strikes and you're out), because otherwise you would have people saying stuff like, "Oh, Renji's only at -13, we got 44 rounds to save him."
Having a random roll adds tension and unpredictability, which are both great during combat (which should have high tension).The "healing tax" is also a good idea, otherwise you could end up having to burn maximized cure critical wounds spells just to get higher-level characters OUT of the negative.
I think I'm going to introduce these rules to my current games and see how they pan out.
Agreed. My only problem is, as already raised, the "All healing puts you back up from 0" rule. I think that this might need a fix, but just having normal heals is a bit high of a healing tax if your fighter is at -80 (though 200hp Mass Heals have a way of fixing this). Perhaps all healing counts double on negative hp damage because the character is in a comatose recovery state and less resistant to foreign magic...
|
|
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?I'm sorry, but I have to: Pig s&~# could cure cancer... But I'm not going to be the first to eat it and find out.
LOL I love it.
But your in luck - this rule has actually been tested and people actually liked it. I can't tell you the number of gamers at my local that looked at the 3E preview and even the PHB when it came out and said something similar ... though not as wonderfully evocative.
I think the system is good only if it's going to be alomst impossible to revive a dead character. You get plenty of chances to save him, but if he dies, he's gone for good....or you're gonna have to personally ask Bahamut to revive your dead buddy there.
If not, it's still good esxcept for the 1/4 hit point recovery, that can be nerfed.
But your in luck - this rule has actually been tested and people actually liked it.
At this point, that is an assumption made by you. A likely correct assumption, but an assumption none the less. Just because a rule makes it through playtesting doesn't mean people like it. It just means they couldn't prove it broken enough to get it changed.
I can't tell you the number of gamers at my local that looked at the 3E preview and even the PHB when it came out and said something similar ... though not as wonderfully evocative.
And I say more power to them. The difference is, I wasn't trying to coerce them to like, play, or even try 3rd Edition back then. Even if I was around them at the time, I wouldn't have tried.
But I am glad you enjoyed my turn of phrase. I do have my moments.
Contributor
|
So I've been thinking this article over a lot, and reading a lot of people's comments on it.
It's interesting that my initial reaction was somewhat neutral, as in, "This is not a mechanic I would have come up with, but it might work."
My attitude has been pushed more towrds liking it, partly as I consider and discard people's opposition to it.
I've noticed that several peple have said something like "WTF? monsters do less damage and PCs get more HP?" This baffles me a bit because I'm pretty sure the article says that monsters do more damage. Fewer attacks, true, but in a lot of cases (like low-level) that really isn't a factor.
Anyways, two things a lot of people object to are that healing magic starts from a base of zero if you are already down, and that if you roll a 20 to recover you get so many HP (I'm dealing with this issue seperately from theissue of whether you should come back at all).
While I get these objections, I disagree with them simply for the same reason that they are extending the negative HP range in the first place. If you are healed by whatever means, and brought back to 1 or 2 HP, it is not a boon at all. All that has happened is that you now are a potential threat to the monster that is likely to be taken all the way to DEAD in a single hit. Especially if monsters are doing more damage per hit.
As to whether they should come back at all, I have played other games with similar mechanics and really enjoyed them. It does create a more cinematic flavor which some people may not like, but this part seems easy to ignore if it doesn't suit your taste. I do wish the recovery roll was somehow affected by the character's stats (like some kind of Con check), but I think that could open the door to abuse (like people building their characters around always making that roll)
Another complaint is that the same rules don't apply to PCs and monsters. However, there is a provision even in the preview article that you can apply it to important monsters and villains. There is no reason why you can't apply it accross the board, and it doesn't require coming up with a new mechanic. Personally, I have mixed feelings, but in 3E I usually assume that monsters are dead when they go down anyways, unless it's an importaqnt character, and if the players ask if anyone is alive at the end of the battle I use my judgement. Kind of like what they say to do here. How many DMs actually track monster bleed once they are down?
And then there's the complaint that once someone is down the monsters can beat on them until the cows come home and it doesn't do anything. where does it say that? I don't see anything to suggest that the monsters can't do further damage to knock them down past their negative damage capacity and kill them. Probably not the monster's priority, but it can happen as far as anything the article says.
Now just to be clear, I'm not 100% sold on 4E, and I totally support anyone who doesn't have a problem with their 3E game and wants to keep playing it. I'm going to wait and see, although I'll probably stick with 3E just because most of my players don't want to change.
But this article DOES point out a flaw in the 3E mechanics, discusses how they have addressed it in 4E, and even gives you a way to adapt it to 3E (Hi to all you "I'm going to take the best bits from 4E and put them in my 3E game" folks).
I think this is probably the best preview article they've done yet.
|
|
But your in luck - this rule has actually been tested and people actually liked it.At this point, that is an assumption made by you. A likely correct assumption, but an assumption none the less. Just because a rule makes it through playtesting doesn't mean people like it. It just means they couldn't prove it broken enough to get it changed.
Having been a part of play testing in the past I can say that the companies I worked with did not use such a high bar for negative feedback. They tended to look at the negative feedback to figure out why it did not work. If the negative feedback had merit then things changed.
So yes, it is an assumption on my part. But my assumption comes from a reading of WotC's "making of" articles and my own experience as a play tester (no - not for 4E).
I can't tell you the number of gamers at my local that looked at the 3E preview and even the PHB when it came out and said something similar ... though not as wonderfully evocative.And I say more power to them. The difference is, I wasn't trying to coerce them to like, play, or even try 3rd Edition back then. Even if I was around them at the time, I wouldn't have tried.
But I am glad you enjoyed my turn of phrase. I do have my moments.
I don't want to coerce anyone into playing 4E. I just have this allergic reaction to knee jerk, emotional, irrational rejection of 4E.
|
|
We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters —this is just another example of the game escaping that trap.
FALSE DICHOTOMY WARNING!
If the options are PCs or "foes to kill" then you're sucking endless options out of the game.
My PCs do a lot more to opponents than just killing them. And I like monsters that can be protagonists, not just walking combat scenarios.
This is the first time WotC have made me thow my hands up in despair. I don't mind different rules for monsters, but i do mind monsters that are reduced to "foes to kill" and nothing more.
I don't want to coerce anyone into playing 4E.
Then you should be careful what you type:
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?
(Emphasis is mine) Either that, or you are a liar. Your choice.
I just have this allergic reaction to knee jerk, emotional, irrational rejection of 4E.
Why? Why do you care so much what others think? Does it stem from a deep rooted desire to fit in? Or do you just enjoy the confrontationism? Or is it something else?
I think this is probably the best preview article they've done yet.
I agree. It's definitely the most candid to date.
I think I'm going to like this mechanic. Some people seem to have a kneejerk reaction to the potential size of negative hitpoints. However, this actually doesn't have a whole lot of impact; healing assumes a dying character is at 0 hp, thus the only difference between -1 and -60 is the ability for opponents to finish off the dying character. So while it may make it harder for this kind of thing to happen, I don't think that it is such a bad thing. The character is still in bad need of attention.
Well written Rambling Scribe. I like your perspective. I am gonna rip this rule and throw it in my 3.5 game. Just like I ripped a bunch of stuff from Saga edition Star Wars. I hope my players have fun with it.
We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters —this is just another example of the game escaping that trap.FALSE DICHOTOMY WARNING!
If the options are PCs or "foes to kill" then you're sucking endless options out of the game.
My PCs do a lot more to opponents than just killing them. And I like monsters that can be protagonists, not just walking combat scenarios.
This is the first time WotC have made me thow my hands up in despair. I don't mind different rules for monsters, but i do mind monsters that are reduced to "foes to kill" and nothing more.
If you read the article, you can see that as a DM you are totally within your right to allow the monster to survive after dropping, especially if you want him/her to be a persistent villian.
However, the majority of adventures would seem to indicate that yeah, monsters exist to be fought (hence all the combat stats), so shaving away the stat blocks and leaving us with only the combat bits is actually a GOOD thing, since thats what they are used for almost exclusively.
Of course, nothing is stopping you from using various monsters as good guys, but I dont see why you would need combat stats if you want us to talk to "this good kobold" or that "sociable orc". If you want us to interact with your NPC (and NOT kill it), then you really dont need combat stats at all (you might need some social skill bonuses, maybe).
|
Contributor
|
We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters —this is just another example of the game escaping that trap.FALSE DICHOTOMY WARNING!
If the options are PCs or "foes to kill" then you're sucking endless options out of the game.
My PCs do a lot more to opponents than just killing them. And I like monsters that can be protagonists, not just walking combat scenarios.
This is the first time WotC have made me thow my hands up in despair. I don't mind different rules for monsters, but i do mind monsters that are reduced to "foes to kill" and nothing more.
He doesn't say that this is the ONLY option for monsters, only that sometimes this is all monsters are, and yet under 3E, they are treated as PCs in terms of how they are built and run (at least by the RAW)
4th Edition shot JFK from the grassy knoll. But I'm going to play it anyway. You will too, if you don't want to be assassinated by the CIA.
IMO.
4th Edition shot JFK from the grassy knoll.
Don't you mean "grassy gnoll"? :-)
Well, actually that's a typo too. You see, it was a GASSY gnoll, and they shot him with a burrito (the cause of the gassiness) not a "magic bullet"...4th Edition shot JFK from the grassy knoll.Don't you mean "grassy gnoll"? :-)
gassy gnolls... anyone have a template for that?!?!
:-)
|
|
I don't want to coerce anyone into playing 4E.Then you should be careful what you type:
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?(Emphasis is mine) Either that, or you are a liar. Your choice.
I see why you may think that but the sample rule was presented for people to use in their current 3.5 game. I was suggesting to follow that advice and try it with 3.5 to see how well it works.
I just have this allergic reaction to knee jerk, emotional, irrational rejection of 4E.Why? Why do you care so much what others think? Does it stem from a deep rooted desire to fit in? Or do you just enjoy the confrontationism? Or is it something else?
Well - I came here to talk about 4E. I was hoping to actually talk about the new crunch in a communal way. You know, people talking about things to form opinions and evaluate ideas. I was hoping for group analysis of the facts and not this we hate WotC and everything it touches kind of thing.
When I go to my local shop and talk 4E we actually talk about the new stuff, compare it to the old stuff, talk about the way other games handle it, and we do it all in a very civil manner. We learn a whole lot from each other's perspectives.
Here its all about hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and polarization ... with a few exceptions.
I try to ignore the noise to focus in on the signal but it ain't easy.
Well - I came here to talk about 4E. I was hoping to actually talk about the new crunch in a communal way. You know, people talking about things to form opinions and evaluate ideas. I was hoping for group analysis of the facts and not this we hate WotC and everything it touches kind of thing.
When I go to my local shop and talk 4E we actually talk about the new stuff, compare it to the old stuff, talk about the way other games handle it, and we do it all in a very civil manner. We learn a whole lot from each other's perspectives.
Here its all about hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and polarization ... with a few exceptions.
I try to ignore the noise to focus in on the signal but it ain't easy.
I sympathize 100%.
|
|
Well, actually that's a typo too. You see, it was a GASSY gnoll, and they shot him with a burrito (the cause of the gassiness) not a "magic bullet"...4th Edition shot JFK from the grassy knoll.Don't you mean "grassy gnoll"? :-)gassy gnolls... anyone have a template for that?!?!
:-)
hehe...you said "gassy gnolls".
I see why you may think that but the sample rule was presented for people to use in their current 3.5 game. I was suggesting to follow that advice and try it with 3.5 to see how well it works.
Huh. Well. Let me see. It is a 3.5 variation of a 4th Edition rule. A variation that I don't feel 3.5 needs.
Why in the world would I want to try it unless you are trying to coerce me into trying 4th Edition, even a 3.5 variation?
Well - I came here to talk about 4E. I was hoping to actually talk about the new crunch in a communal way. You know, people talking about things to form opinions and evaluate ideas. I was hoping for group analysis of the facts and not this we hate WotC and everything it touches kind of thing.
No you didn't. Well, maybe that is what you meant to do. What you did do was come here and piss all over my, and many other peoples here, game.
If you came here to talk 4th Edition, then perhaps you should stick to the 4th Edition stuff, and not worry about what those of us who enjoy 3.5 think or say.
We learn a whole lot from each other's perspectives.
How can you learn from any one else's perspective? You are too busy telling them they are wrong.
Here its all about hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and polarization ... with a few exceptions.
Yes, I am tired of those people who assume 4th Edition has to be great too. But we all have our crosses to bear.
Who knows, maybe in a few months those that create all the hyperbole and polarized conspiracy theories that 4th Edition is the savior of D&D will be proven right.
Then again, maybe not...
Well, actually that's a typo too. You see, it was a GASSY gnoll, and they shot him with a burrito (the cause of the gassiness) not a "magic bullet"...4th Edition shot JFK from the grassy knoll.Don't you mean "grassy gnoll"? :-)gassy gnolls... anyone have a template for that?!?!
:-)
Gassy Gnoll is much more threatening, true. :)
|
|
Huh. Well. Let me see. It is a 3.5 variation of a 4th Edition rule. A variation that I don't feel 3.5 needs.
Why in the world would I want to try it unless you are trying to coerce me into trying 4th Edition, even a 3.5 variation?
Well, how else will you know if it works? You can guess based on reading it, but to know for sure if he has a point, trying the rule may not be such a bad thing.
Well - I came here to talk about 4E. I was hoping to actually talk about the new crunch in a communal way. You know, people talking about things to form opinions and evaluate ideas. I was hoping for group analysis of the facts and not this we hate WotC and everything it touches kind of thing.No you didn't. Well, maybe that is what you meant to do. What you did do was come here and piss all over my, and many other peoples here, game.
If you came here to talk 4th Edition, then perhaps you should stick to the 4th Edition stuff, and not worry about what those of us who enjoy 3.5 think or say.
Well, this is the 4th edition section of the boards - correct? So when I came here with the expectation of discussing 4E it seemed to me that the great majority of the threads were about how badly 4E sucks, how evil WotC is, and how dumb you would have to be to buy into 4E.
If you enjoy 3E and want to revel in its awesomeness then why bother posting in the 4E section? If you don't want to even consider trying it out - not even a 3.5 version of a 4E rule - then it seems to me that it really you that is taking a piss in my cornflakes by increasing the noise and disrupting the signal.
Maybe Paizo should create a whole new 4E Resistors section of the board so that the folks that came here to actually explore the potential pros and cons of 4E can do so without fear of reprisal from a grognard with an axe to grind.
Because at my local I don't have people that spout the kind of stuff I mention ... here >>>We learn a whole lot from each other's perspectives.How can you learn from any one else's perspective? You are too busy telling them they are wrong.
Here its all about hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and polarization ... with a few exceptions.
Yes, I am tired of those people who assume 4th Edition has to be great too. But we all have our crosses to bear.
Who knows, maybe in a few months those that create all the hyperbole and polarized conspiracy theories that 4th Edition is the savior of D&D will be proven right.
Then again, maybe not...
...and that is my point. A board about 4E is a place to explore just that. If someone just wants to be a naysayer in regards to 4E then why clutter the board? Unless the 4E Resistors do not want to see people actually talking about the game in a semi-positive to positive way?
Well, how else will you know if it works? You can guess based on reading it, but to know for sure if he has a point, trying the rule may not be such a bad thing.
Since you seemed to miss it: I don't care if it works. I even stated that I believe it will work well in the new edition.
So I ask you again, why would you be trying to coerce me into playing it?
So when I came here with the expectation of discussing 4E it seemed to me that the great majority of the threads were about how badly 4E sucks, how evil WotC is, and how dumb you would have to be to buy into 4E.
Then you should stop projecting your expectations into other peoples posts.
The "great majority" of the threads are about how the designers keep spitting on those that like 3.5. The "great majority" of the threads are about how the revealed changes don't seem to accomplish the goals that were claimed as the justification of the new edition. The "great majority" of the threads, at worst, question if WotC actually expects people to buy into their kool-aid one more time. Well before the next time that is.
There are exceptions of course, but they are hardly the majority.
Now, if you want to talk about the uncivilized behavior of a few posters... I probably won't be able to fault you for that.
Maybe Paizo should create a whole new 4E Resistors section of the board so that the folks that came here to actually explore the potential pros and cons of 4E can do so without fear of reprisal from a grognard with an axe to grind.
When did any one get a reprisal for discussing the Pros or Cons of 4th Edition - without crapping all over 3rd Edition in the process?
And that is where the biggest problem lies. Most of the "pro 4th" camp think it is perfectly fine to spew their trash about 3.5 to promote or justify 4th Edition. But Heaven forbid if a "grognard" might take exception to a new rule.
If you wish to see what you dislike most about these boards, I would suggest you start by looking in the mirror. That is, if you can stand it.
If someone just wants to be a naysayer in regards to 4E then why clutter the board?
That could just as easily be reworded to say "If someone just wants to crap all over 3.5, then why clutter the board?" But you don't seem to care about your clutter, so how can you expect the rest of us to care about ours?
|
Having a "death-and-dying" window all the way down to half your hit point total sounds like an awfully long way, though. At least, when applied to 3.5.
Honestly, this is just another issue that causes me to shake my head and did my feet in a little deeper in 3.5. I was all prepared to see WotC adopt Star Wars Saga Edition's condition track, which is a nice vehicle to assessing the toll of damage.
|
|
And that is where the biggest problem lies. Most of the "pro 4th" camp think it is perfectly fine to spew their trash about 3.5 to promote or justify 4th Edition. But Heaven forbid if a "grognard" might take exception to a new rule.
This is the heart of the matter. I do not go to the regular 3E section and tell people I am tired of 3E and that they should drop it too. I would never do that or say that. I don't want anyone to be coerced into trying 4E but if the haters insist on categorical naysaying then I will push back.
4E detractors do come to the 4E boards to tell people how dumb they are for "drinking the kool aid". I can't even begin to count the number of "I CAN"T BELIVE THIS CRAP" posts and threads.