The Critical Hits site has updated some of their offerings.
One is a 4th Edition First (Level) Impressions article with some positive and negative comments.
(The other recently updated one is an interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse- interesting but your mileage may vary).
This link should get you to all their posts relating to the weekend
Discuss.
EDIT: There was a lot of formatting in the Impressions article, so I opted just to link to it.
A monster can be a little resistant to a type of attack, but we don’t need the laundry list of monsters immune to fire in 3e. How is that fun for the wizard throwing fireballs? Particularly in 3e where that might be his only fireball, and he threw it, and “well, that sucks.” We can afford to let people hit monsters more and do more cool things, and it doesn’t break the game. It’s more fun to let people hit a monster with a sword ten times, than “miss, miss, immune, no effect, miss, hit it once and it’s gone.” That’s like flipping coins. No strategy to that.
Wow! Of all the poor excuses for insults to 3.x, this has to be one of the worst. This is outright pathetic. When I get home, I'm going to go through all my books that Andy Collins had a hand in writing and never use them again.
Lets go through this, shall we.
"How is that fun for the wizard throwing fireballs?"
Use a different spell.
"Particularly in 3e where that might be his only fireball, and he threw it, and “well, that sucks.”"
Well, why didn't someone make a knowledge check on that monster to find out that he was immune to fire?!?
"It’s more fun to let people hit a monster with a sword ten times, than “miss, miss, immune, no effect, miss, hit it once and it’s gone.” That’s like flipping coins. No strategy to that."
If the fighter missed twice, why didn't the group change their strategy? 3.x has plenty of strategy in it. Nice use of a poor example to justify your job.
Yes, this is a troll post, but frankly its of a troll interview.
Wow! Of all the poor excuses for insults to 3.x, this has to be one of the worst. This is outright pathetic. When I get home, I'm going to go through all my books that Andy Collins had a hand in writing and never use them again.Lets go through this, shall we.
"How is that fun for the wizard throwing fireballs?"
Use a different spell."Particularly in 3e where that might be his only fireball, and he threw it, and “well, that sucks.”"
Well, why didn't someone make a knowledge check on that monster to find out that he was immune to fire?!?"It’s more fun to let people hit a monster with a sword ten times, than “miss, miss, immune, no effect, miss, hit it once and it’s gone.” That’s like flipping coins. No strategy to that."
If the fighter missed twice, why didn't the group change their strategy? 3.x has plenty of strategy in it. Nice use of a poor example to justify your job.Yes, this is a troll post, but frankly its of a troll interview.
I guess I have to chalk this up to the seeing insults where I don't category, but that quote seemed pretty harmless to me. Knowledge skills don't always make sense (for example, you're fighting a unique critter) and wasting a high level spell DOES suck. As an example, I finished SCAP just last week and in it the party's Wizard only had 1 polar ray remaining. He fired it off, but 'ole Ady is cold immune. Should I have somehow let him determine that? Sure, maybe. But that isn't really dealt with in the rules.
Resistances are one thing, but blanket immunities are another, and I hope nearly nothing is immune anymore. Hell, I'd go all the way and say I hope immunity is gone entirely but I know that hope would be smushed. Poor little hope. :(
Edit: It never had a chance. :(
|
It’s more fun to let people hit a monster with a sword ten times, than “miss, miss, immune, no effect, miss, hit it once and it’s gone.” That’s like flipping coins. No strategy to that.
What I don't understand is how it's more fun to let a guy hit with a sword ten times. Does he mean "hit, hit, hit, hit, hit it's gone" is better in some way? Isn't this just as boring and is like a coin flip - where both sides are labeled heads?
And what does this do for narration of the combat? I love adding color to my fight scenes. Misses are explained by ducks, dodges, axe heads crashing on shields, glancing blows directed away by armor... what do I tell my players now? I am going to have to read up on finding ways to say "you hit" tens time in a ten swing sword fight and still find a way to make each blow memorable.
I don't get it.
I dunno David, I have to agree that DmMcCoy is being a little hard on him.
It's all good and well to have knowledge checks and change spells... particularly at low levels, discovering you didn't pack the correct spells that day can lead to a bit of metagaming.
RuneLords Spoiler as an example
Always being able to be marginally effective does minimize the need to memorize the Monster Manual in order to make sure you don't feel screwed by the situation.
Of course, I anticipate the counter-argument will be "this doesn't encourage intelligent play." Maybe so, but there's a balance to be struck here somewhere.
What I don't understand is how it's more fun to let a guy hit with a sword ten times. Does he mean "hit, hit, hit, hit, hit it's gone" is better in some way? Isn't this just as boring and is like a coin flip - where both sides are labeled heads?And what does this do for narration of the combat? I love adding color to my fight scenes. Misses are explained by ducks, dodges, axe heads crashing on shields, glancing blows directed away by armor... what do I tell my players now? I am going to have to read up on finding ways to say "you hit" tens time in a ten swing sword fight and still find a way to make each blow memorable.
I don't get it.
But Lich, he's speaking in shorthand to illustrate a point about Damage Resistances and Immunities. That example is just to demonstrate how frustrating it is to miss a monster a couple times in a fight, finally hit them, and only then discover they're immune, or that you have no effect because you didn't do enough damamge.
There's nothing saying that the Players and GM can't be descriptive in their narration. He's using a shorthand way of describing things in a spoken interview.
We don't have to like 4th Edition, but we should be fair and keep it in context.
When I get home, I'm going to go through all my books that Andy Collins had a hand in writing and never use them again.
I hope you don't play 3.5. I know people who call it "Andy's house rules"...
He has always been pretty dismissive, especially during the 3.5 changes.
...is cold immune. Should I have somehow let him determine that? Sure, maybe. But that isn't really dealt with in the rules.
No maybe about it, it's a Knowledge check.
And watch your spoilers...
When I get home, I'm going to go through all my books that Andy Collins had a hand in writing and never use them again.I hope you don't play 3.5. I know people who call it "Andy's house rules"...
He has always been pretty dismissive, especially during the 3.5 changes.
...is cold immune. Should I have somehow let him determine that? Sure, maybe. But that isn't really dealt with in the rules.No maybe about it, it's a Knowledge check.
And watch your spoilers...
Sorry if that spoils anyone. I'll go and try to attach some spoiler tags after this posts, but generally I figure past a certain date spoiler tags are uncalled for.
Note that the Knowledge skill says "one piece of info is gained" not, "the most relavent". I believe a Knowledge check was made and either I didn't give out that info or the check wasn't really high enough to know anything (the combat itself took two whole nights, 8 HOURS of play time to complete, so its fuzzy on what happened the first few rounds).
Edit: Forgot you can't edit after a few minutes over here! Whoops!
|
|
But Lich, he's speaking in shorthand to illustrate a point about Damage Resistances and Immunities. That example is just to demonstrate how frustrating it is to miss a monster a couple times in a fight, finally hit them, and only then discover they're immune, or that you have no effect because you didn't do enough damamge.
I think I understand the point but I was being oblique in my response and the two together can be taken too literally. Let me put it another way.
Recently my group faced a trio of intellect devourers. These things have blindsight 60 ft., damage reduction 10/adamantine, immunity to fire, power resistance (SR) 23, and resistance to electricity 15. My uber 11th level PCs tried beating on these things, they tried magic, nothing was working. Meanwhile their sense of self was being slashed away by the devourer's charisma-damaging attack. It caused a great deal of tension at the table as the group battled to overcome their defenses. It took a few rounds before the psionisist and wizard happened upon powers/spells they could use that bypassed SR and finally defeat the creatures. The group had a great time, even though the normally combat-master barbarian was unable to fight because of his dangerously low charisma and the sneak-attack loving rogue was a pile of mental jelly on the floor. It gave these well-prepared players a chance to shine. In another adventure (The Amarantha Adgenda - Dungeon 123), the party faced an Ironmaw with DR 15/slashing magic, immune cold and electricity, resist acid and sonic 10, plant traits, and SR 30. At AC 25 and 126 hp plus a 60ft CON-damaging reach, the plant was a horrifying opponent for my 7 11th level characters. They tried blasting it, they tried melee damage, they tried everything and two players very nearly died. How did they defeat such an awesome, un-fun foe? They flew away, en mass, to a tree fort that was nearby. The 20ft tall, barely aware creature couldn't see where they went nor reach their perch. Later they walled the thing in and left it to rage as they went about their business.
The point is, not all monsters should be beatable by a swinging sword or spell. Sometimes the party can be clever and resourceful and beat their foe. This doesn't make the game less fun, it made for a very memorable and important learning encounter for my party's PCs. I dread the day when it is swing-hit, swing-hit, swing-hit and autoloot.
The point is, not all monsters should be beatable by a swinging sword or spell. Sometimes the party can be clever and resourceful and beat their foe. This doesn't make the game less fun, it made for a very memorable and important learning encounter for my party's PCs. I dread the day when it is swing-hit, swing-hit, swing-hit and autoloot.
That's quite a worthwhile argument. Let's hope for the sake of 4th Edition, whether we choose to adopt it or not, that they don't entire remove those sorts of unique and difficult experiences.
I can't back this up with any certainty, but perhaps they only mean to make them rarer?
Note that the Knowledge skill says "one piece of info is gained" not, "the most relavent".
On the contrary. Link.
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.
For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
Knowledge is the skill that allows you to identify monsters and their vulnerabilities.
It's all good and well to have knowledge checks and change spells... particularly at low levels, discovering you didn't pack the correct spells that day can lead to a bit of metagaming.
How many monsters are immune to fire at low levels?
It's all good and well to have knowledge checks and change spells... particularly at low levels, discovering you didn't pack the correct spells that day can lead to a bit of metagaming.How many monsters are immune to fire at low levels?
Fair enough then. :D
TAKE TWO
It's all good and well to have knowledge checks and change spells... but discovering you didn't pack the correct spells that day can lead to a bit of metagaming.
A monster can be a little resistant to a type of attack, but we don’t need the laundry list of monsters immune to fire in 3e. How is that fun for the wizard throwing fireballs? Particularly in 3e where that might be his only fireball, and he threw it, and “well, that sucks.” We can afford to let people hit monsters more and do more cool things, and it doesn’t break the game. It’s more fun to let people hit a monster with a sword ten times, than “miss, miss, immune, no effect, miss, hit it once and it’s gone.” That’s like flipping coins. No strategy to that.Wow! Of all the poor excuses for insults to 3.x, this has to be one of the worst. This is outright pathetic. When I get home, I'm going to go through all my books that Andy Collins had a hand in writing and never use them again.
Lets go through this, shall we.
"How is that fun for the wizard throwing fireballs?"
Use a different spell."Particularly in 3e where that might be his only fireball, and he threw it, and “well, that sucks.”"
Well, why didn't someone make a knowledge check on that monster to find out that he was immune to fire?!?"It’s more fun to let people hit a monster with a sword ten times, than “miss, miss, immune, no effect, miss, hit it once and it’s gone.” That’s like flipping coins. No strategy to that."
If the fighter missed twice, why didn't the group change their strategy? 3.x has plenty of strategy in it. Nice use of a poor example to justify your job.Yes, this is a troll post, but frankly its of a troll interview.
Sometimes the best spell a wizard (or a sorcerer for that matter) has got is a fireball and a Knowledge check isnt a guaranteed success.
So if a 5th-level party is fighting a 5th-level monster that is immune to fire, then hopefully your wizard has stuff that isnt fire-based lower than that (and also has it prepped).
It's all good and well to have knowledge checks and change spells... but discovering you didn't pack the correct spells that day can lead to a bit of metagaming.
True. But why would anyone pick all of one kind of spell? I mean yea, fireball might be a wizard's signature spell, but if all you took was fire damage spells, that's pretty poor. I'd be like a fighter that only carried a long sword and came up against a skeleton. Well, duh, why didn't he pack a hammer?
What I'm basicly getting at is: Which is worse? a)being able to use low level spells infinitely but being identical to the other thousand wizards that do exactly the same or b) running the risk of not having the exact right spell but having the character memorable because he was original? A is worse IMO.
The spell list is going to be reduced. We know that. How do we know that? The PHB is approximately the same size. They said there are going to be hundreds of feats in the PHB. We know the racial section is expanding. Fighters have "spells", so do warlords (or whatever their name is). That difference page count has got to come from somewhere. We also know that Necromancy, Transmutation and other spell school are pretty much written out of the book. With that many less avenues for a character to choose from, how much less memorable is said every character going to be?
Note that the Knowledge skill says "one piece of info is gained" not, "the most relavent".On the contrary. Link.
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.
For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
Knowledge is the skill that allows you to identify monsters and their vulnerabilities.
Two notes. First, it says "in many cases" right there as the first three words. I'd think a unique monster would require some pretty specific research to figure this stuff out. Not even getting into that though brings us to ...
Second, beating a DC of 10+HD gives a bit (just a bit!) of useful information. Resistant to one element, or resistant to regular weapons, would be a bit. Every 5 points you beat the DC gives another, so, while my paraphrase is playing pretty loose and fast with the rules, I'd say its correct. You get one piece of info (a bit, if you will) but not absolutely the most relavent piece, nor the one you always want to know.
Two notes. First, it says "in many cases" right there as the first three words. I'd think a unique monster would require some pretty specific research to figure this stuff out. Not even getting into that though brings us to ...
How many unique monsters can you have before they're common? If everything you run into is unique, scholars of the world compensate for that by grouping monters into things like "magical beast", "animal", "abberation", "dragon", and so on. From there players would be able to make an educated guess based on commonalities. In game terms, players should ALWAYS be allowed a roll. Unique monsters should just a higher DC to the roll.
Second, beating a DC of 10+HD gives a bit (just a bit!) of useful information. Resistant to one element, or resistant to regular weapons, would be a bit. Every 5 points you beat the DC gives another, so, while my paraphrase is playing pretty loose and fast with the rules, I'd say its correct. You get one piece of info (a bit, if you will) but not absolutely the most relavent piece, nor the one you always want to know.
Beating the DC, gives you a useful piece of information. Useful meaning something it can do or something you should do against it. I'd call all of that relavent and as a player I want to know everything I possibly can about something. Because if I know what it can do, I have a better change at making a reasonable guess as to what it is vulnerable to.
Two notes. First, it says "in many cases" right there as the first three words. I'd think a unique monster would require some pretty specific research to figure this stuff out. Not even getting into that though brings us to ...How many unique monsters can you have before they're common? If everything you run into is unique, scholars of the world compensate for that by grouping monters into things like "magical beast", "animal", "abberation", "dragon", and so on. From there players would be able to make an educated guess based on commonalities. In game terms, players should ALWAYS be allowed a roll. Unique monsters should just a higher DC to the roll.
Second, beating a DC of 10+HD gives a bit (just a bit!) of useful information. Resistant to one element, or resistant to regular weapons, would be a bit. Every 5 points you beat the DC gives another, so, while my paraphrase is playing pretty loose and fast with the rules, I'd say its correct. You get one piece of info (a bit, if you will) but not absolutely the most relavent piece, nor the one you always want to know.Beating the DC, gives you a useful piece of information. Useful meaning something it can do or something you should do against it. I'd call all of that relavent and as a player I want to know everything I possibly can about something. Because if I know what it can do, I have a better change at making a reasonable guess as to what it is vulnerable to.
The exact monster that my original example was, WAS indeed unique (it was the end-boss of SCAP). I'd say more but I've already been asked not to give spoilers. And I don't think we're absolutely disagreeing here. The info SHOULD be relavent, but what was useful at the start of a fight might not be what is useful at the end, and the only way to know what would have been the MOST relavent is with hindsight. The players had some ideas of what resistances to watch for but were not aware of the cold immunity. I'm sure they'd have wished they had known after Polar Ray-ing him though.
Sometimes the best spell a wizard (or a sorcerer for that matter) has got is a fireball and a Knowledge check isnt a guaranteed success.
Personal bias: My current wizard and the one before him both had Evocation as a forbidden school. I don't see fireball as particularly useful to begin with. Damage, that's for the dumb fighter. Give me Baneful Transposition (2nd level). Or Extended Cause Fear (2nd level). Or Reverse Arrows (3rd level). Or Ray of Dizziness. Or Suppress Breath Weapon. IMO, these spells are much better then Fireball.
And I don't think we're absolutely disagreeing here.
I don't think so either. I just like the mystery and the ability to problem solve every monster. I love the victory of guessing the right spell based on limited information. I love the trial and error of figuring out a monster. And while I like beating a monster, I LOVE beating a monster, because I WAS RIGHT! That's so much of a better tasting victory and more memorable encounter. Take away the chance of failure and you never know the victory of success.
And I don't think we're absolutely disagreeing here.I don't think so either. I just like the mystery and the ability to problem solve every monster. I love the victory of guessing the right spell based on limited information. I love the trial and error of figuring out a monster. And while I like beating a monster, I LOVE beating a monster, because I WAS RIGHT! That's so much of a better tasting victory and more memorable encounter. Take away the chance of failure and you never know the victory of success.
That is the best argument ever!
And I don't think we're absolutely disagreeing here.I don't think so either. I just like the mystery and the ability to problem solve every monster. I love the victory of guessing the right spell based on limited information. I love the trial and error of figuring out a monster. And while I like beating a monster, I LOVE beating a monster, because I WAS RIGHT! That's so much of a better tasting victory and more memorable encounter. Take away the chance of failure and you never know the victory of success.
These are things I enjoy as well, and luckily 3E (and I suspect 4E) serves these puzzles up in droves. We're lucky to have games so good! :)
When I get home, I'm going to go through all my books that Andy Collins had a hand in writing and never use them again.
Mona asked that we keep attacks against personnel at WotC down. In the spirit of that, I redact this comment.
I think it interesting to note that Andy Collins personally came in a few years back to change the DR rules to make overcoming DR more difficult. In third edition a Vampire's DR is overcome by a weapon which is silver or magic. Thus if you want to stake a vampire through the heart you need a wooden stake upon which someone has cast magic weapon, bless weapon, or shillelagh. When Andy Collins rewrote the DR rules for 3.5 the Vampire now required a weapon which was Silver and Magic - so to stake it you needed a magical silver wooden stake (and no, I don't know how that works either).
But I do think that it is disingenuous for Andy Collins to tell us that he is solving a problem that we didn't even have until he created it with the 3.5 revision.
-Frank
But I do think that it is disingenuous for Andy Collins to tell us that he is solving a problem that we didn't even have until he created it with the 3.5 revision.
I find it disingenuous for Andy Collins to tell us that he's solving problems to stuff he wrote.
I'm sorry, but wizards can't have it both ways. Either 3.5 was a crappy product and past performance being the best indicator of future performance, we can assume that 4E is a crappy product or we can expect 4E to be a great product because 3.5 was a great product, but if 3.5 was so great, there's no reason to change.
I'm sorry, but wizards can't have it both ways. Either 3.5 was a crappy product and past performance being the best indicator of future performance, we can assume that 4E is a crappy product or we can expect 4E to be a great product because 3.5 was a great product, but if 3.5 was so great, there's no reason to change.
Oh, they could be throwing down the gauntlet that 3.5 was a great product and 4e was even better. That would be the angle I would try to take marketing. Things like "There comes a time when you can no longer add any more awesome to the game without going back and integrating some of that into the base game engine, and that means that it is time for a new edition."
But yeah, they aren't saying that. Like, at all.
-Frank
|
But Lich, he's speaking in shorthand to illustrate a point about Damage Resistances and Immunities. That example is just to demonstrate how frustrating it is to miss a monster a couple times in a fight, finally hit them, and only then discover they're immune, or that you have no effect because you didn't do enough damamge.I think I understand the point but I was being oblique in my response and the two together can be taken too literally. Let me put it another way.
Recently my group faced a trio of intellect devourers. These things have blindsight 60 ft., damage reduction 10/adamantine, immunity to fire, power resistance (SR) 23, and resistance to electricity 15. My uber 11th level PCs tried beating on these things, they tried magic, nothing was working. Meanwhile their sense of self was being slashed away by the devourer's charisma-damaging attack. It caused a great deal of tension at the table as the group battled to overcome their defenses. It took a few rounds before the psionisist and wizard happened upon powers/spells they could use that bypassed SR and finally defeat the creatures. The group had a great time, even though the normally combat-master barbarian was unable to fight because of his dangerously low charisma and the sneak-attack loving rogue was a pile of mental jelly on the floor. It gave these well-prepared players a chance to shine. In another adventure (The Amarantha Adgenda - Dungeon 123), the party faced an Ironmaw with DR 15/slashing magic, immune cold and electricity, resist acid and sonic 10, plant traits, and SR 30. At AC 25 and 126 hp plus a 60ft CON-damaging reach, the plant was a horrifying opponent for my 7 11th level characters. They tried blasting it, they tried melee damage, they tried everything and two players very nearly died. How did they defeat such an awesome, un-fun foe? They flew away, en mass, to a tree fort that was nearby. The 20ft tall, barely aware creature couldn't see where they went nor reach their perch. Later they walled the...
Wow that sounds great!
We have had similiar fights and that is what makes them fun if all you have to do is find monster/smash monster it gets boring fast.Resistances and DR make the monster challenging and players think.
I know my great sword weilding fighter learned to carry a war hammer as a back up for monsters resistant to slashing. It's called character development, and I find it to be one of the best parts of D&D.
In our age or worms game our PC's we deathly afraid of Kyuss's worms until they had tome to research and learned how to kill them, and from then on the cleric was armed with the right spell to do so. The close combat fighter and cleric soon became "best friends".