I'm going to do something totally unexpected and say something poitive about 4E: The mechanics sound pretty good.
Yes, that's right, the "save vs AC, save vs Reflex, save vs etc" sound like a solid and simple rules system to me. So Rodney or Stephen or any other WotC designers out there that worked on the 4E system, allow me a moment to say, "Nice work."
Allow me to qualify my statements with the statement, "I still have no plans on changing editions." The mechanical changes were never my real problem. (I could go on and on about what is my real problem, but I decided to keep this thread positive and stop here.)
Again, nice work gents.
I wouldn't mind engaging you in discussion on why you won't be switching.. in a different thread.
I agree with you decision to keep this thread positive, because you have been a vocal opponent of 4th Edition, and you should be allowed to be magnimous if you choose.
Providing that when you do post your reasons (in another thread), that it isn't because you have too much invested in 3.5 and don't feel the money expenditure is warranted. That particular position I have no way of engaging in discussion (I just can't tell people how to spend their money).
|
Oddly enough, that was the breaking point for myself on not really wanting to dive into 4e other than any pathfinder books that come out.
I will say this though: I enjoy the trap mechanics, the death mechanics, the fact that the rules are alphabetized, and that the DMG is meant to be even better than the last. So yes, you can be Anti-4e and still enjoy some aspects. I too won't go into negatives here.
I still hate it all. I read the stuff shown on ENWorld and say to myself,"What have they done to these creatures!? They're just a bunch of stats...and they're not at all what they originally used to be!"
As for the mechanics, I still hate a lot of them. I don't like magic lasting only one encounter or being so easily resisted per round by simply rolling a Save of 11 or more no matter how strong the spell or the caster. It's just not D&D. I want spellcasters whose spells last for hours or days. How the hell can you face a creature with supposedly awesome charming powers and the damn charms last one encounter?
So much for its minions.
My impressions so far:
LIKE
Healing Surge and Second Wind
1st Level HP being so big
At Will Powers
QUESTION
Standard, Move, Minor actions -> no full attacks? > No iterative attacks?
* I'd prefer Spycraft/Stargate style with 2 actions = 2 attacks, 2 moves, etc, and eliminate iterative to speed things up.
DISLIKE
Movement in Squares
Durations (esp of spells)
Individual attack rolls against each enemy caught in an area of attack spell
the Roles
Saving Throws being a flat 10+ = success
Wizards as Blasters, losing the versatility
Wizard implements...though if only small bonus maybe ok.
Missing races and classes
All in all, I think it reads like a ok system, if a bit too skirmish like. I'd probably play in a game to try it out, but definitely want to continue the main campaign(s) in 3.5. There is too much untapped potential in the 3.5 library to leave it behind, IMHO.
So, yeah, there is some positives that I might lift for my 3.x games.
Unifying the mechanics for attacking people is a good idea. I just wish they'd actually did it.
The Ranger shoots for 22 points of damage on the first round of combat, and has less than 30 hit points. The Dragon attacks twice for d4+3 and has 280 hit points. Seriously man, what the heck is that? It takes a solo monster like 100 combat rounds to drop itself even before it uses second winds to make the combat last even longer. Meanwhile, a lucky roll could have a Ranger dropping a Rogue on the first combat round (or vice versa).
If you're going to go to all the trouble of making all the attack mechanics the same, you should put the math on the same page at the same time.
-Frank
The Ranger shoots for 22 points of damage on the first round of combat, and has less than 30 hit points. The Dragon attacks twice for d4+3 and has 280 hit points. Seriously man, what the heck is that?
You are aware that dragon was TPKing groups right and left? It's not the 2d4+6 claw damage that's scary about it, it's the 1d12+3 acid breath that keeps doing 5 points of damage to everyone and recharges and fires immediately if you get it bloodied, and the immediate 1d6+4 tail slap whenever the dragon gets missed in melee.
I don't necessarily see why high HP creatures should automatically hit harder, for that matter.
The judges may have been running that one wrong. As far as I know, only one immediate action a round (unlike AoOs).
Hard to tell without the rules. At the delve table where we fought a dragon, there didn't seem to be a limit on immediate actions, and that was being run by a developer.
The dragon's pretty nasty even with only one tail slap each round. Apparently the best way of taking out the black dragon was to have the paladin and fighter rush in and melee it, and have the ranger dancing around out of range of the breath weapon. If the front-line melee can get into a flank then their chance to hit really goes up, and the cleric can help with the occasional bonus if they hit.
The ice dragon I fought was easier in the delve, although with 240 hp and a freezing breath weapon (not to mention the kobold sniper hiding in a dragon's skull in the middle of the floor) it was far from easy. I thought we had given it all we had to give, and then the judge announced it had just been bloodied and we all got hit with frost breath again.
I'm going to do something totally unexpected and say something poitive about 4E: The mechanics sound pretty good.
Yes, that's right, the "save vs AC, save vs Reflex, save vs etc" sound like a solid and simple rules system to me. So Rodney or Stephen or any other WotC designers out there that worked on the 4E system, allow me a moment to say, "Nice work."
Allow me to qualify my statements with the statement, "I still have no plans on changing editions." The mechanical changes were never my real problem. (I could go on and on about what is my real problem, but I decided to keep this thread positive and stop here.)
Again, nice work gents.
I agree with you. The whole "Attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will" mechanic is, in a nutshell, great. It's elegant, simple, and has the potential to be as complex as you need it to be.
Since you've gone and posted one of the things that you like about 4E, let me return the favor and post one of the things that I HATE (as in loathe, despise, ridicule) about the whole 4E release:
The seeming direction of the GSL and the products we won't be able to see now.
Let me clarify. If the new license worked like the original, that would be great. As it stands now, it SEEMS as though they're going to try and eliminate the ability for 3rd party publishers to use their core mechanic for stand alone products. That SUCKS! I understand why they're doing it, but think it's a huge mistake for the industry. I would have LOVED to see what Green Ronin or Paizo could have done with the simple, easy, elegant mechanic they came up with. Could you imagine the possibilities? There could have been some really awesome products released, all using some of the 4E core mechanics and replacing the ones that didn't fit with their own. Man, I just can't get over this point.
I don't blame the R&D people for this. I'm not sure who to blame. Whomever it is that decided to take the new license in this different direction, though, is kindly invited nuzzle the sweat from my balls.
I'm not sure who to blame.
Lawyers and suits.
I'm with you on liking the consistency.
|
Yes, that's right, the "save vs AC, save vs Reflex, save vs etc" sound like a solid and simple rules system to me.
I've been playing M&M for awhile now, so I've gotten used to a more streamlined system. I kinda like this one too. Yeah, the players don't get to roll that saving throw, and I feel a twinge of nostalgia there, but one less roll is worth that twinge, I think. Streamlining various effects, such as spells, monster abilities and melee abilities, in this manner, also works for me.
Yeah, Magic Missle auto-hitting is a tradition, but it's also a special exception, and after awhile, those things tend to stick out as less desirable.
A *ton* of small individual changes like this sound really interesting to me, and I do hope to be able to cut-and-paste the best of them into 3.5 without having to adopt the less-desirable aspects of the new system.
3.75 is gonna be huge, with my group at least. Someone is probably going to pick up those 4E core books about six months in (after the reprints, we got burned on the 'early adopter' thing in 3E!), and we'll take a look at converting over the best aspects of the new class and race features to our games. A 3E Warlord might also make an appearance, since the *idea* of a Warlord appeals to me, in all the ways that Bards and Marshalls appealed to me, in theory, but utterly failed for me, in practice.
As for other stuff, I could care about how many 'squares' people move. We don't often use battlemats or miniatures, and when we do, we've been using hexes since the early '80s.
Squares are, like, totally square, y'know?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think 4th Edition will be a nice game. There ae vast amounts of the rules I don't understand ("marking" still doesn't make sense to me, for example) but then, I haven't seen a rules book.
But I grow grimmer in my opinion that any sort of "mixed-edition" version of Pathfinder adventures would make sense. For example, there doesn't appear to be any way for 4th Edition to simulate a 3rd Edition "1st-Level Sorcerer" with 4 hp and two spells.
My impressions so far:
LIKE
Healing Surge and Second Wind
1st Level HP being so big
At Will Powers
Well, I love 4e so far, but one of my misgivings has been the "at will" power- some minor trigger to refresh it would've been nice, just to give characters even more decisions to make. Then again, there is such a thing as decision overkill.
QUESTION
Standard, Move, Minor actions -> no full attacks? > No iterative attacks?
* I'd prefer Spycraft/Stargate style with 2 actions = 2 attacks, 2 moves, etc, and eliminate iterative to speed things up.
Every character gets a minor, move and standard action each round, and you can "trade down". Iteratives are gone. We don't yet know what replaces them, if anything.
DISLIKE
Movement in Squares
Meh... It's a shout-out to non-US customers. The players themselves can adapt the square to their most familiar measurement, whether that be feet, meters, hectare or whatever.
Durations (esp of spells)
The new list of wizard spells confirms that durations still vary quite a bit. I was afraid the save mechanic would dictate most offensive spell durations, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Individual attack rolls against each enemy caught in an area of attack spell
Now Players roll to-hit instead of DMs rolling saves. As a wizard-guy, I really like this change. As a DM, I really like this change too- shifting more of the burden onto the player is a good thing for keeping games running.
the Roles
I think these are being overplayed. Let's be honest- the fighter has always been a "defender" as they term it. The label only simplifies things.
Saving Throws being a flat 10+ = success
Yeah, this is weak. I would have preferred weak save (15+), standard save (10+) or strong save (5+) at least. Then again, this might be in the system already.
Wizards as Blasters, losing the versatility
Wizards aren't blasters- they're labeled as controllers, and they still have a ton of versatility if you read the two page spread of spells that got shown at DDXP. You have immobilization spells, Direct damage, area damage, invisibility, flight, resistance- all sorts of goodies in two pages.
Wizard implements...though if only small bonus maybe ok.
No clue about this. A proper implementation of a wizard's staff or wand, though, would be a refreshing improvement.
Missing races and classes
My absolute number one gripe. I don't miss gnomes or half-orcs, but I miss barbarian a bit, and druids a lot.
All in all, I think it reads like a ok system, if a bit too skirmish like. I'd probably play in a game to try it out, but definitely want to continue the main campaign(s) in 3.5. There is too much untapped potential in the 3.5 library to leave it behind, IMHO.
So, yeah, there is some positives that I might lift for my 3.x games.
|
|
the Roles
I think these are being overplayed. Let's be honest- the fighter has always been a "defender" as they term it. The label only simplifies things.
They've always been Strikers, in our games. Whether going for massive overkill Power Attack 2-Hander nonsense, or dual-Short-Sword stabby-mcstab builds, they've been all about pumping out damage. With one exception, the Spiked Chain (which we've since replaced with a Scorpion Chain-like lower damage option) Crowd Control builds that AoO anything on the board that looks at them funny...
I've never seen a 'Defender' build, barring the Knight class, which I've never seen played.
I've played tons of Online games (EQ, EQ2, WoW, DAoC, COH/CoV, etc) so I'm *very* familiar with the Tank / Tauntmonkey role, I've just never seen it used in D&D (or any tabletop game, actually).
I think, before the Knight class, the Kender from Dragonlance and the Taunt spell, neither of which I've seen used, are my only exposures to that sort of mechanic in tabletop RPGs.
Ironic that a spell from Unearthed Arcana, one that was situational at best and rarely used (and not even reprinted in 3rd edition), has become a cornerstone of 4th edition.
Makes me wonder if 5th edition will redesign the game around some other obscure 2nd edition legacy that didn't even make it into 3rd edition, such as the Firewater spell.
the Roles
I've played tons of Online games (EQ, EQ2, WoW, DAoC, COH/CoV, etc) so I'm *very* familiar with the Tank / Tauntmonkey role, I've just never seen it used in D&D (or any tabletop game, actually).I think, before the Knight class, the Kender from Dragonlance and the Taunt spell, neither of which I've seen used, are my only exposures to that sort of mechanic in tabletop RPGs.
And you won't see it used in 4e either, at least not until much higher level. The fighter's challenge mechanic is elegant and very flavorful- if a fighter decides to focus on an opponent ("mark" him), that opponent will pay a price for not dealing with the fighter. The fighter only distracts and punishes, he doesn't execute anything as hamfisted as a "taunt" mechanic.
Similarly, the paladin marks his opponent with the sign of his god, forcing the opponent to fight him or to be punished by divine forces for challenging that god's authority. Only at 27th level does the paladin get the ability to shut out his friends as targets, and that involves obvious deific intervention. What's the problem?
As for the fighter being a striker, well, he still is- he's capable of pumping out plenty of damage. All four of the abilities shown (cleave, tide of iron, passing attack and Brute Strike) focus on dealing damage and/or pushing the opponent around. Plenty of damage is dealt. In fact, of the six characters previewed, brute strike gives the fighter the single most damaging attack in the party.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And you won't see it used in 4e either, at least not until much higher level. The fighter's challenge mechanic is elegant and very flavorful- if a fighter decides to focus on an opponent ("mark" him), that opponent will pay a price for not dealing with the fighter.
I admit, the mechanic doesn't make sense to me. What if the fighter doesn't threaten the marked opponent? What if the fighter is hiding? What if the marked opponent fails a Spot check to notice her?
If there's three fighters in a little clump, why can only one of them mark an opposing Pit Fiend? What happens if I can't tell which of the opposing fighters has marked my character?
If my fighter marks a character, can I "unmark" him? Will I be able to mark an ally (thus removing an enemy's mark)?
How many times do I have to use this terminology before it stops sounding like a dog peeing on an opponent?
But so far, we've only seen snippets of the rules. I'm sure that the full 4th-Edition manuals will explain all this.
And you won't see it used in 4e either, at least not until much higher level. The fighter's challenge mechanic is elegant and very flavorful- if a fighter decides to focus on an opponent ("mark" him), that opponent will pay a price for not dealing with the fighter.
I admit, the mechanic doesn't make sense to me. What if the fighter doesn't threaten the marked opponent? What if the fighter is hiding? What if the marked opponent fails a Spot check to notice her?
If there's three fighters in a little clump, why can only one of them mark an opposing Pit Fiend? What happens if I can't tell which of the opposing fighters has marked my character?
If my fighter marks a character, can I "unmark" him? Will I be able to mark an ally (thus removing an enemy's mark)?
How many times do I have to use this terminology before it stops sounding like a dog peeing on an opponent?
But so far, we've only seen snippets of the rules. I'm sure that the full 4th-Edition manuals will explain all this.
I think, for the Fighter, you treat it more like an Intimidate mixed with an open Threat. I'm not sure how far away they can Mark a creature, but I think it's basically melee range. So, the enemy gets some penalties for targeting other PCs because he's so busy keeping an eye on that scary Fighter. The Fighter is the most frightening enemy in the party, to the Marked creature.
Another Fighter Marks him and now he's the most threatening. Do it enough and your monster has permanent neurosis.
Oh, and you can Mark your party members, but why would you want to? You waste your own perfectly good actions that round, Penalize your poor teammate if they don't attack you, and probably did damage when you Marked them. Not exactly bailing them out.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Oh, and you can Mark your party members, but why would you want to? You waste your own perfectly good actions that round, Penalize your poor teammate if they don't attack you, and probably did damage when you Marked them. Not exactly bailing them out.
Depends. Can I un-mark a character? Then I've erased the mark that someone else placed on her.
Depends. Can I un-mark a character? Then I've erased the mark that someone else placed on her.
Oh, and you can Mark your party members, but why would you want to? You waste your own perfectly good actions that round, Penalize your poor teammate if they don't attack you, and probably did damage when you Marked them. Not exactly bailing them out.
Yeah, I think they said you can Mark a party member, and thus WOULD erase a monster's Mark (I'm house ruling this, but that's okay).
The thing is, it still isn't very wise, under most circumstances (I would say every circumstance, but you never know).
For one, you just hurt your friend. He doesn't have the monster's Mark anymore, but he has YOURS. So, now he has to attack you or be penalized, if he isn't too hurt from your attacking him to put the Mark up. So, he's penalized, hurt, and you used up your actions for the round. And for what?
The Monster's Mark will be penalizing the player for attacking anyone other than that specific monster. You penalize him right back unless he only attacks YOU. At least if you left the monster's Mark on he could have attacked that monster with no penalty. Now he's penalized when attacking all of them. And what does the monster do next turn? Attack your friend and put his Mark back on.
I admit, the mechanic doesn't make sense to me. What if the fighter doesn't threaten the marked opponent? What if the fighter is hiding? What if the marked opponent fails a Spot check to notice her?
This is definitely the case of not having access to the full rules. Clearly, the intent is that the fighter is a distracting presence, and makes the marked creature less likely to hit other targets because it has the fighter to deal with.
If there's three fighters in a little clump, why can only one of them mark an opposing Pit Fiend? What happens if I can't tell which of the opposing fighters has marked my character?
This is an interpretation issue- the sheet says "no more than one mark per creature," but I believe it means "this character may not mark a specific creature more than once," which means that all three fighters probably WILL be able to mark the poor widdle pit fiend.
If my fighter marks a character, can I "unmark" him? Will I be able to mark an ally (thus removing an enemy's mark)?
All of this will hopefully be delineated in the PHB. Obviously, it wasn't important in DDXP, so it didn't need to be explained.
How many times do I have to use this terminology before it stops sounding like a dog peeing on an opponent?
I wish they had use "challenged" instead of "marked."
But so far, we've only seen snippets of the rules. I'm sure that the full 4th-Edition manuals will explain all this.
I expect it to, yes.
They've clarified that only one Mark can be on a creature at a time. Any new Mark takes the place--overwrites--the old Mark, no matter who did it. Also, they clarified that you could, indeed, Mark your party members but then the WotC guy described why it would be a horrible move. Oh, and they had fixed the paladin Marking ability but couldn't get the sheets updated for the convention in time.
Yes, Challenged would have been a much better name. Hell, I might just steal it. :) Good one.
The thing is, it still isn't very wise, under most circumstances (I would say every circumstance, but you never know).
Well, the Paladin's Mark causes damage if you don't attack the Paladin, and the Fighter's Mark does not. So if you get marked by a Paladin, and you aren't going to attack that Paladin, then if the Fighter marks you it saves you 8 hit points per turn. The penalty for not attacking your own party Fighter is no worse than the penalty for not attacking the enemy Paladin. And neither penalty is as big as the bonus AC that the enemy Paladin has over the enemy Ranger.
So if you can threaten an enemy Paladin and an enemy Ranger, and the Enemy Paladin marks your character, the optimal solution for right now is for the party Fighter to mark you and for you to attack the Ranger. This aint rocket science.
-Frank
They've clarified that only one Mark can be on a creature at a time. Any new Mark takes the place--overwrites--the old Mark, no matter who did it. Also, they clarified that you could, indeed, Mark your party members but then the WotC guy described why it would be a horrible move.So we're like 5 pages and a couple of days into the rules and we already have clarifications and errata?
Strong start. :)
Yeah, they needed clarification to run the DnDXP characters.
As to the Paladin Mark doing damage, they say they've changed it, though they didn't say how. They said the 8 damage, run away strategy was something they had already fixed from playtesting.
The thing is, it still isn't very wise, under most circumstances (I would say every circumstance, but you never know).Well, the Paladin's Mark causes damage if you don't attack the Paladin, and the Fighter's Mark does not. So if you get marked by a Paladin, and you aren't going to attack that Paladin, then if the Fighter marks you it saves you 8 hit points per turn. The penalty for not attacking your own party Fighter is no worse than the penalty for not attacking the enemy Paladin. And neither penalty is as big as the bonus AC that the enemy Paladin has over the enemy Ranger.
So if you can threaten an enemy Paladin and an enemy Ranger, and the Enemy Paladin marks your character, the optimal solution for right now is for the party Fighter to mark you and for you to attack the Ranger. This aint rocket science.
-Frank
It's not rocket science, you're right. Still, I don't see the advantage in your strategy.
A paladin Marks you and you're afraid of the 8 points of damage. So your party Fighter Marks you, which he does with an Attack. So you've now taken damage from the party Fighter, and are still at a penalty to hit AND your Fighter wasted his turn. He didn't do anything useful. You took damage, you're still penalized (even against the paladin now) and your party Fighter loses an action. It doesn't sound like a win win situation to me.
It's not rocket science, you're right. Still, I don't see the advantage in your strategy.
A paladin Marks you and you're afraid of the 8 points of damage. So your party Fighter Marks you, which he does with an Attack. So you've now taken damage from the party Fighter, and are still at a penalty to hit AND your Fighter wasted his turn. He didn't do anything useful. You took damage, you're still penalized (even against the paladin now) and your party Fighter loses an action. It doesn't sound like a win win situation to me.
Who said anything about taking any damage? Not only does the Fighter not have to hit to cause a Mark, but his original attack can be something non-damaging like a Bullrush.
The fact is that the presented Defenders have Armor Classes which are more than 2 points higher than the ACs of other classes like Clerics and Rangers - and the Defenders have more hit points and do less damage. So Mark or no mark you are better off attacking another target in almost all cases.
So you have to ask yourself if the Fighter spending an action to heal 8 damage per turn is a good investment - and very often it is (remember that the Fighter's attack is just a chance to inflict an average of 10.5 damage once - if you miss on a 1-5 you actually average more healing by remarking a party member than you average damage by attacking). Very very often, considering that the sample Fighter has a +6 to-hit and almost all enemies have an AC of 11 or more. In fact, the way the Marks are set up (negligible attack penalty + additional effect depending on the original Marking ability), it's going to be worthwhile marking your own marked party members all the time.
-Frank
More seriously, I've liked a fair bit of the mechanics I've seen. The "fluff" has never been the point for me, I've had to change large amounts for my homebrew with every previous edition. So they can write anything they want about how halflings are river dwellers and gnomes hang upside down in caves through the day only coming out at night to feed without it bothering me - I'm changing whatever comes out anyway.
You know what bothers me... and this dates back prolly to the beginnings of D&D itself... why do drow,or dark elves.. have black skin if they are underground dwelling? In my kit bash realm they're albino... save some them have fiery red hair. I see them with really, really white skin and pink eyes.
You know what bothers me... and this dates back prolly to the beginnings of D&D itself... why do drow,or dark elves.. have black skin if they are underground dwelling? In my kit bash realm they're albino... save some them have fiery red hair. I see them with really, really white skin and pink eyes.
It's a misuse of the Norse Svartalf or Germanic Dunkalfar, which lives underground in Helheim and has black skin. But despite being Alfar and thus literally Elves, they are a lot more similar to Dwarves. Indeed, they are also used as the mythic inspiration for the Derrow.
D&D does this a lot. Consider the fact that the Medusa, the Gorgon, and the Catoblepas are three different monster entries in the Monster Manual.
-Frank
D&D does this a lot. Consider the fact that the Medusa, the Gorgon, and the Catoblepas are three different monster entries in the Monster Manual.
-Frank
Frank,
Thanks for the mythical history on the drow... yeah, I've noticed this with the Medusa, Gorgon, and Catoblepas... also the basilisk and the cockatrice (female and male in other mythology of the same beast).
More seriously, I've liked a fair bit of the mechanics I've seen. The "fluff" has never been the point for me, I've had to change large amounts for my homebrew with every previous edition. So they can write anything they want about how halflings are river dwellers and gnomes hang upside down in caves through the day only coming out at night to feed without it bothering me - I'm changing whatever comes out anyway.
You know what bothers me... and this dates back prolly to the beginnings of D&D itself... why do drow,or dark elves.. have black skin if they are underground dwelling? In my kit bash realm they're albino... save some them have fiery red hair. I see them with really, really white skin and pink eyes.
Because that's how Gary Gygax made them. Nuff said!
Don't worry, I'm not really peeved. I'm just yanking your chain.
And that is not a euphemism for something else. ;)
Who said anything about taking any damage? Not only does the Fighter not have to hit to cause a Mark, but his original attack can be something non-damaging like a Bullrush.-Frank
Here's the explanation on why it's usually a bad idea to Mark your party members. There's also other explanations for various effects relating to Marks. It was posted by Rodney Thompson. The link to the original post is HERE.
Ninja WotC Employee Attack! 4th Edition Anime Thunder Dragon Tail Golden Wyvern Cut Slash Strike!
To address some concerns in a totally informal way:
Concern 1: Hey, can't the paladin just mark the target and just run away?
Answer 1: Gee, that does seem like the kind of thing the ability should take into consideration. Last I checked...it does. If a paladin calls upon the power of his god to lay his divine vengeance upon any who are to cowardly to face him...he'd better be ready to face them.
Concern 2: Can't you just mark an ally to remove another mark?
Answer 2: Last I checked, you can. I have serious doubts you'll want to. Lets see, I can damage my ally with my attack and impose a penalty on attack rolls...or let the monster impose the exact same penalty on attack rolls. Also, I've wasted a precious action in doing so. Possibly a standard action. Also, I'm no longer actually defending my allies, and the monsters are now in no danger of being targeted by any of my powers that deal with marked foes. Yep. That was a good decision.
Concern 3: What kind of in-world sense does marking make?
Fighter marks someone: The fighter's stance and attacks keep an opponent's attention focused on him; that foe knows that if he wavers his attention for just a second, it might give the fighter the chance to strike, and strike hard. Even when attacking someone other than the fighter, that foe keeps looking out of the corner of its eye at the fighter, wary of another incoming attack.
Paladin: A surge of divine energy flows from the paladin to the enemy, giving the weight of the gods to the words of his challenge. As a sanctified agent of that god, the paladin acts as a representation of that deity's power, and when the paladin has given his word that he will challenge that foe his god makes sure all know that his word is law.
Concern 4: What kind of in-world sense does "no overlapping marks" make?
Answer: Aside from the fact that sometimes a game rule has to happen for balance reasons and rationalization concerns come second, let's look at the two possible explanations:
Paladin overwrites fighter: The enemy has been keeping a wary eye on the fighter, not daring to give him an opening. When touched by a power flowing directly from the gods, that foe has bigger things to worry about; the power of the divine is not to be trifled with.
Fighter overwrites paladin: A divine challenge has been issued, and the gods have backed the paladin's challenge. With the fighter's intervention, the sanctity of the challenge is tainted, and the paladin must once again seek out an enemy to challenge directly without he fighter's intervention.
As an aside, overlapping marks is a tactical choice, and in practice not one made lightly. After all, if the fighter and paladin take turns marking the same target, there are likely other foes out there who *could* be being marked, but aren't, reducing the party's effectiveness as the defenders waste important resources.
Rodney Thompson
Associate Designer, Wizards of the Coast
Webmaster, SWRPGNetwork
And that statement is completely invalid. The Fighter can mark multiple creatures simultaneously (hell, in the article introducing the idea, the Fighter had two such Marks on two different enemies). And there are attacks that don't do any damage.
I've read the justification on how Marking friends to supersede marks given by enemies is a dumb idea. The justification does not hold up. At all. If the sample party were fighting a mirror match against NPCs with the same character sheets it would frequently be mathematically justified for the Fighter to spend his action pushing the Warlock or Ranger around so that they could attack the NPC Ranger without suffering damage for doing it.
The fact that the actual WotC people seem to think that self marking will never come up is a sad statement on the level that they are playtesting this at. They are playtesting assuming that the players will use abilities as intended - and we all know that abuses like Phoenix Duplication and the Free Vacation on the Negative Energy Plane (no save) come from using abilities in ways that they were not intended to be used.
If they can't see that having Fighters set marks on friends via Bull Rushes is a solid tactic in many circumstances, then there's a real problem.
-Frank
And that statement is completely invalid. The Fighter can mark multiple creatures simultaneously (hell, in the article introducing the idea, the Fighter had two such Marks on two different enemies). And there are attacks that don't do any damage.
I've read the justification on how Marking friends to supersede marks given by enemies is a dumb idea. The justification does not hold up. At all. If the sample party were fighting a mirror match against NPCs with the same character sheets it would frequently be mathematically justified for the Fighter to spend his action pushing the Warlock or Ranger around so that they could attack the NPC Ranger without suffering damage for doing it.
The fact that the actual WotC people seem to think that self marking will never come up is a sad statement on the level that they are playtesting this at. They are playtesting assuming that the players will use abilities as intended - and we all know that abuses like Phoenix Duplication and the Free Vacation on the Negative Energy Plane (no save) come from using abilities in ways that they were not intended to be used.
If they can't see that having Fighters set marks on friends via Bull Rushes is a solid tactic in many circumstances, then there's a real problem.
-Frank
You can't Mark anyone with a Bullrush. Bullrush is a Complex Combat Maneuver, not an Attack. Attacks are either made with your weapon or say 'Fighter Attack 1' next to them on your character sheet.
|
|
As to the Paladin Mark doing damage, they say they've changed it, though they didn't say how. They said the 8 damage, run away strategy was something they had already fixed from playtesting.
But it shouldn't have ever needed fixing, at any point of playtesting, since it should never have been written down for a playtester to read.
I hear an ability like that, and the 'mark, run away, come back to kick the corpse' strategy is the first thing I think of.
As to the Paladin Mark doing damage, they say they've changed it, though they didn't say how. They said the 8 damage, run away strategy was something they had already fixed from playtesting.But it shouldn't have ever needed fixing, at any point of playtesting, since it should never have been written down for a playtester to read.
I hear an ability like that, and the 'mark, run away, come back to kick the corpse' strategy is the first thing I think of.
I completely agree with you. The Paladin's Mark should have been thought out. I mean, it takes the average gamer all of 2 seconds to come up with that strategy and I really don't know how they could miss it.
But at least they fixed it. So, somewhere out there, a playtester's comments were heard and a problem avoided. I don't doubt there are others in the system. I just hope they listened enough to fix the majority.
Hell, there was an ability, I hear, that let a person Hide behind a party member and jump out for Combat Advantage, but the playtesters quickly got that fixed to avoid "halflings in your backpack" scenarios.
I don't expect the system to be perfect--they never are. But I want it to be a close to balanced as possible, since that's been their design focus. And coming back with enough errata to justify a 4.5 is a deal breaker for me. I'd go back to my 1E and MERPS and never look back. :)
|
|
I've read the justification on how Marking friends to supersede marks given by enemies is a dumb idea. The justification does not hold up. At all. If the sample party were fighting a mirror match against NPCs with the same character sheets it would frequently be mathematically justified for the Fighter to spend his action pushing the Warlock or Ranger around so that they could attack the NPC Ranger without suffering damage for doing it.
The fact that the actual WotC people seem to think that self marking will never come up is a sad statement on the level that they are playtesting this at. They are playtesting assuming that the players will use abilities as intended - and we all know that abuses like Phoenix Duplication and the Free Vacation on the Negative Energy Plane (no save) come from using abilities in ways that they were not intended to be used.
If they can't see that having Fighters set marks on friends via Bull Rushes is a solid tactic in many circumstances, then there's a real problem.
-Frank
If the marks in question are identical (let's say both enemy and ally give -2 to hit), then Rodney's comments are totally valid, ie, the PC playing 'piggy-in-the-middle' is no better or worse off, regardless of whose mark is on him, and the ally has wasted a mark (and possibly an action, to put it there).
The complications arise when one mark is obviously so much better than the other, that you would rather suffer the latter over the former. And for most people, taking ongoing damage is a total pain, whereas suffering a penalty to hit is something that many PCs (especially higher-level PCs) can live with. I can't speak for 4E, but in 3.5, the bonuses to hit accrue at a far faster rate than bonuses to AC, so most warriors have a bonus far in excess of what they need. That's why Power Attack and Combat Expertise exist; to give the fighters something to do with their unused attack bonuses.
Now; the devil is in the details here. How much effort needs to be made to plant a mark? Is it an attack action? If so, what constitutes an attack? Do I have to cause damage? How much damage? Do I have to hit, or is it enough to be making an attack attempt? Do I have to use my best attack? Do I have to use my favourite weapon? Do I have to use a weapon at all? Can I pull my punches, or do I have to swing like I mean it? Can I simply slap someone, or give them a kick in the pants? Can I throw them a dummy feint, to keep them off their guard?
Without knowing all of this, it's hard to judge, but it may be that given space to do so, it would be better for the ally to simply step round and smack the enemy paladin himself, marking him so he is less likely to go for his original target, but this simply moves the problem around. He could smack a different enemy, and mark them, drawing their attention, so the original ally can ignore that enemy and focus on the enemy paladin. In a large sprawling combat, there could be an attack at one side of the room, which causes a ripple effect, changing everyone's attack priorities all the way across to the other side of the room, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I wonder if the designers have been playing a lot of Blood Bowl? It reminds me of the rules for 'assists' aiding the tackler or cancelling each other out. Get a slow-moving, hard-hitting game between Dwarves and Orcs, and it's not unusual to see all 22 players involved in a single brawl...until one crucial player goes down, and one team goes down like a stack of dominoes.
Depending on what it takes to plant a mark, I can actually see situations where it could be justified to 'waste' one's action on an ally, and that is if there's a bottleneck, such as a doorway or narrow crossroads, where only one ally can engage the enemies anyway. In these cases, it could be argued that the second mark is being planted 'through' the ally, to distract the first enemy into cancelling their effect. The effect of this jostling is to free the original marked character, to make a wild swing at his intended target.
Enemy Paladin: "Challenge me, and taste my wrath!"
Ally 1: "Damn it! I want to get that caster!"
Enemy Paladin: "Bwah, Hah, Hah! Turn your eyes from me, and I shall cut you down!"
Ally 2: "Don't worry! I've got your back!" <attempts to force his way through door, plants mark on Ally 1 with a non-damaging shove>
"I'd like to see you try! He goes for you, he'll drop his guard against me!"
Enemy Paladin: "Rats! Get back, you infernal nuisance!" <takes eyes off Ally 1>
Ally 1: "Ooof! Watch it! Ah, sod it!" <stumbles forward a foot, wildly swings at surprised enemy caster>
Enemy Caster: "Glurk!"
|
|
Hell, there was an ability, I hear, that let a person Hide behind a party member and jump out for Combat Advantage, but the playtesters quickly got that fixed to avoid "halflings in your backpack" scenarios.:)
Damn! There goes my Master and Blaster tag-team-up!
"The Thunderdome! Two men enter; one man leaves!"
|
|
You know what bothers me... and this dates back prolly to the beginnings of D&D itself... why do drow,or dark elves.. have black skin if they are underground dwelling?
Ah, but they aren't humans. They're elves.
The elves who live in the dark are black skinned.
The sea elves, who live in the water, are blue or green skinned.
The elves who live deep under the forest canopy (wood elves) are described as 'nut-brown.'
The elves who live in more temperate forests and get regular exposure to sunlight are caucasian skin toned.
The elves who live in the high mountain peaks, always in the sun (grey elves) are pale, almost albino in color.
Elves pigmentation reflects the amount and color of light around them. They don't get dark in sunlight, they dark in the shadows, and lighter skinned under lighter conditions.
You know what bothers me... and this dates back prolly to the beginnings of D&D itself... why do drow,or dark elves.. have black skin if they are underground dwelling?Ah, but they aren't humans. They're elves.
The elves who live in the dark are black skinned.
The sea elves, who live in the water, are blue or green skinned.
The elves who live deep under the forest canopy (wood elves) are described as 'nut-brown.'
The elves who live in more temperate forests and get regular exposure to sunlight are caucasian skin toned.
The elves who live in the high mountain peaks, always in the sun (grey elves) are pale, almost albino in color.
Elves pigmentation reflects the amount and color of light around them. They don't get dark in sunlight, they dark in the shadows, and lighter skinned under lighter conditions.
This totally destroy my sense of disbelief! I won't accept it! (Hehe, just kidding!)
Interesting conclusion. I had never really thought of it that way before, but suddenly I want to base an adventure of a strange "glowing" elf, perhaps mad or unable to speak because of dehydration/disease/what have you. Where has he been? What has he seen?
Cheers! :)