I'm thinking of situations like a first level kobold foe having 26 hp and an 18th level attack power doing 4d6 damage. It'll probably kill the kobold after bonuses...probably. I'm just hoping that damage scales better because the high-level attacks in 4e did not impress me. Everything seemed to get even more hp and even less damage.As for monsters, A 20th level PC SHOULD be able to kill a 1st level Kobold on a roll of 2 or better and often does in 4E. What your seeing is the creation of monsters of above level that are Kobolds but they usually stop about low heroic tier (like 8th or 9th level). Besides, I like the idea of Trolls being scary regardless of level, because they are and should always be.
Well considering my 13th level Knight can deal 1d12+16 with a standard action and an additonal 1d12 if I use Power Strike and if one of those crit, it's an additional 1d12 damage on top.....they go splat. And also remember that it's not just one 4d6 power you have but 3 to 4 of them in addition to your mechanics that are designed to deal more damage. Example, A Rogue deals 2d6 damage from Sneak Attack. Now, this bonus doesn't change til Paragon tier where it goes to 3d6 BUT this is all maximized on a critical hit and it can be done every turn (If you have Combat Advantage against the target) against ALL monsters.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I want a game that makes at least one third of you people happy, and that's asking a ton
Lol.
I think one thing the designers of 5e should take away from people like me is this: You get the first three core books (or whatever the initial release is) to make us like your game. If what we want isn't there, we'll move on. The fact that the game eventually has all the things we wanted won't matter becasue we won't be buying any more books. I've realized that now that 4e has had time to mature, a lot of the things my friends and I thought were "missing" are now there, but it's too late. We shouldn't have had to wait a year and paid extra money in order to play a gnome or a druid.
I've seen too many Powers that boldly declare "Deal X damage and move opponent back 2 squares", and thought "Shouldn't that be dependent on the opposing expertise, size and Str of the combatants?".
Expertise of a Combatant: Definitively
Size and Strength of Combatant: In some situation perhaps, but a creature can be lured, tricked, scared or surprised rather than pushed or tackled. Sometimes size and strength aren't necessarily an advantage and I appreciate systems that takes that in consideration. I also appreciate systems that don't blatantly ignore the size and strength of an opponent...
|
I've seen too many Powers that boldly declare "Deal X damage and move opponent back 2 squares", and thought "Shouldn't that be dependent on the opposing expertise, size and Str of the combatants?".
Expertise of a Combatant: Definitively
Size and Strength of Combatant: In some situation perhaps, but a creature can be lured, tricked, scared or surprised rather than pushed or tackled. Sometimes size and strength aren't necessarily an advantage and I appreciate systems that takes that in consideration. I also appreciate systems that don't blatantly ignore the size and strength of an opponent...
I'm okay with their being options for trickery or panic, and that they should be able to bypass an opponent's size and Str advantage, but those options should then be dependent on such factors as Int, Wis, Sense Motive, Bravery, etc.
You face a mind flayer wizard, whose hobbies include playing grandmasters on multiple worlds in ten simultaneous games of 4-dimensional chess; he should be able to keep track of the positioning of 5-6 PCs, and not be taken in by cries of "Look behind you!", or "Your shoelaces are untied!".
Involuntary shift abilities should have a chance of working, that's fair to both sides. I actually believe that having them be auto-pass abilities serves to reduce the drama of encounters, by making participants too wary of standing anywhere but the most vanilla terrain.
Take an example of 'Hector defending the bridge to Rome'; an awesome mythic tale, but it won't happen in-game, since Hector (and his two cohorts) will take one look at the bridge, and think "Hmmm, only three squares wide...screw that. Someone's going to automatically send me for a swim in the Tiber. Back off, lads, we'll let them over the bridge and fight them on the flat.".
Well, the point is, that many of them ARE avoidable - they are built as attacks that go against your defense, which is much like rolling a save vs. fixed DC, just someone else rolls the dice. The problem you probably see is that the attack doesn't take into account the strength, but really the defenses are contructed from one of two abilities each Fort stems from either strength or constitution, so on fail the target was either stronger or could maintain the push longer than you. Similar things could be applied to the other defenses. The designers apparently wanted to keep the game flowing by reducing the amount of rolls you make, so attack includes the push/slide whatever and makes the attack on appropriate defense when the damage is less important IMO...
|
Take an example of 'Hector defending the bridge to Rome'; an awesome mythic tale, but it won't happen in-game, since Hector (and his two cohorts) will take one look at the bridge, and think "Hmmm, only three squares wide...screw that. Someone's going to automatically send me for a swim in the Tiber.
Just so you know, in that instance Hector would get a Saving Throw to stop himself going over the edge (admittedly I would prefer a good old Reflex save, rather than the 4e save, but it is something).
Catching Yourself: If a power or a bull rush (page 287) forces you over a precipice or into a pit, you can immediately make a saving throw to avoid going over the edge. This saving throw works just like a normal saving throw, except you make it as soon as you reach the edge, not at the end of your turn.
Lower than 10: Failure. You fall over the edge.
10 or higher: Success. You fall prone at the edge, in the last square you occupied before you would have fallen. The forced movement ends.
That is more than you get in PF if you're bullrushed over a cliff.
Also, if the Bridge has decent sized walls or barrier that would normally prevent someone simply walking over the edge then Hector couldn't be pushed off either.
Clear Path: Forced movement can’t move a target into a space it couldn’t enter by walking. The target can’t be forced into an obstacle or made to squeeze into a space.
Defenses do advance (along with bonuses to hit) in 4E.
4E doesn't increase one and leave the other behind. It all goes up at rates +1/2 level, ability boosts are less common and the amount of save increasers and attack increasers is IMO also similar. Since the attacks usually rely on strong ability score of the character (wizard attacks through intelligence and uses an enchanten implement in place where fighter would use an enchanted sword - the numbers are pretty similar, especially with level-based access to magic items) and the defense can choose one of two abilities the numbers are not so distant from each other. It usually matters more whether you have an attack that has some advantage against known weakness or tactical advantage.
I want it to be a great game that entices many new people to pick-up and start playing P&P RPGs (again).
You know, what D&D has always been.
Try to remember, if 4th edition didn't happen, Pathfinder probably wouldn't have happened. Nothing bad can come out of the guys over at WotC trying to expand our little hobby, regardless of weather you support them or not. It really is a win-win.
More gamers = more people eventually discovering and playing PF. Competition is only bad in a fully saturated market, and right now, P&P RPGs have exponential potential in this regard.
All I want is for 5e to be good, and succeed. It doesn't matter if I use it - I still reap the benefits.
At the same rate as bonuses to hit?
Well it's not a flat scale - you can plough all your resources into boosting one or two defenses at the expense of others and you'll be hard to hit in those areas but easier in the "neglected" ones. The advance is broadly comparable though (given expected equipment and/or inherent bonuses).
We're level 24 at the moment. Occasionally we run into something which can hit one of us with a roll of 2 but only if it happens to target our "weak defense". I don't recall ever fighting something we'd hit with a two.
Come and Get It is without any save and causes all to move*. It's a limited thing and causes less damage than other encounter powers available at those levels however (well it requires a lot of foes around to be effective).
*I'm working with 4E core book without the latest errata though. That may be pretty signifcant difference.
Yes, NST. I said many of the powers are vaoidable, not all ;)
"Effect" things are those that happen no matter what.
I read the rules when they first came out, but have never played them, so i cannot claim any familiarity.
However, I used to play a lot of large-scale tabletop miniatures games, including WH and WM, and the rules had that kind of feel (more like Warmachine then Warhammer, though).
I can't say it played that way, but thats the impression I got, having experience with those games.
And WM had 'powers' like that, where you can force moves, etc. 4e may have been an amalgam of Miniatures and WoW-style play (not being insulting, just going by a lot of what others have said, and my experience with similar rules).
I am also not saying that is a bad thing unto itself - it just wasn't what I was looking to get out of the game. I have played other squad-based tactical games, and have enjoyed them. It just seems odd to me to marry an RP element to them, but obviously it found an audience, so its all good.
How does the "Come and Get it" Fighter Level 7 Encounter Exploit work? Does it force all targets to move automatically, or is there some sort of save to resist it?
The original version of the power did not require an attack to force the movement ("saves" in 4e are sort of reversed so that the attacker always rolls; they're now called "defenses" and the term "saving throw" is now used to describe the roll you make to shrug off an effect). The power was later updated to require an attack against the target's Will defense to force the movement, and the damage was made automatic if the Will attack hit.
|
|
That is more than you get in PF if you're bullrushed over a cliff.Catching Yourself: If a power or a bull rush (page 287) forces you over a precipice or into a pit, you can immediately make a saving throw to avoid going over the edge. This saving throw works just like a normal saving throw, except you make it as soon as you reach the edge, not at the end of your turn.
Lower than 10: Failure. You fall over the edge.
10 or higher: Success. You fall prone at the edge, in the last square you occupied before you would have fallen. The forced movement ends.
Thanks for the clarification, and also to Zmar.
This is the kind of cross-cultural exchange we should have more of.
I wonder, how much the misconceptions of 4E are exacerbated by the difficulty of finding out the true picture?
If someone were to inaccurately post "You can't DO X in PF!", a rebuttal (with links) would be posted in seconds. A PF-curious gamer would also be able to perform their own research, with the answer no more than a few clicks away.
If someone unfamiliar with 4E hears a similar accusation about that game, they would need to find an already-invested gamer who owned the physical books, or had a subscription to the DDI.
Does the more closed nature of the game hinder getting the word out to the masses?
You people don't know what you want. THey can't adjust to everyones wants and needs or the game will just be a mess. It's best to sit back let them make it, and leave them feedback where feedback is utilizable instead of wasting time here.
Well, I have only passing knowledge of 4E, but I looked on the structure at least for a while. I find powers somewhat irksome and keep thinking that they could be constructed in way similar to LEGO brick from much fewer building blocks, which is what gives the game the ballance and feeling of same-ness. Essentials already started to srtucture the classes a bit different, but core 4E? Can't really blame people for feeling all the same sometimes untill the additional materials came out :)
|
To be honest though, I'm happy in Paizo land.
I don't want 5E to fail, but I'd rather see the things I like in Pathfinder (or PF2E if it comes to that). I love Paizo products (art, editing, formatting, content, design, etc.)... I want to be a 'one system guy' right now, as I don't get as much time to play as I'd like.MSG
To be honest, though when younger, we played MANY different systems simultaneously without issue, I would prefer to use one system now (getting old, you know).
However, I think it is important to the industry as a whole for D&D 5e to be a success (name brand recognition alone is vital to the industry).
And MORE importantly, I think it imperative for D&D to advance and improve the underlying design issues. I imagine, for example, WOTC studying Pathfinder and analyzing its strengths and melding them to 4e's strengths (yes there WERE some) and evolving the game into a superior product than 3.x, 4e or even Pathfinder.
Why do I want that (especially stating that on Paizo's own boards! How rude!)?
Because once 5e comes out, it really should not be THAT long before Pathfinder will be due a facelift. Then Paizo can study 5e's strengths and weaknesses and meld them to Pathfinder 2.0's strengths to improve again.
Call it evolution. WOTC and Paizo (and to a lesser extent White Wolf and others) leap frogging one another to hurl their systems ahead with leaps and bounds. I imagine this as a 5-10 year cycle of improving the core design principles of the industry, thus improving the quality of play for everyone.
|
|
You people don't know what you want. THey can't adjust to everyones wants and needs or the game will just be a mess. It's best to sit back let them make it, and leave them feedback where feedback is utilizable instead of wasting time here.
lol
No, I think we all know what WE want. WOTC will have to decide what THEY want.
BTW not wasting time at all. I'm learning a great deal and find the dialog quite interesting.
Let me just say that I am not a fan of Hasbro and feel that 3rd party publishers made the best Dnd books even back in the 3.0 days, so I am a biased party.
I think what should happen is WoTC should split Dnd into two properties:
Get like half your writers to keep refining and publishing 4th edition and call it "DnD Tactical (4.5)", then get the other writers together and have them go at 3.5 with a blowtorch and pliers and cobble together "Dnd Next (3.75?)".
Then publish two lines of books and some conversion guides so you can take a character from Dnd tactical and translate it to dnd next and vice versa.
There, you just pleased more people than just releasing 5.0 would.
|
|
Thanks for the clarification
Not a problem, I have often found that some of the issues I had with 4e actually weren't as bad as I originally envisaged once I got the full rules pointed out to me.
If someone unfamiliar with 4E hears a similar accusation about that game, they would need to find an already-invested gamer who owned the physical books, or had a subscription to the DDI.
I agree that this is true, luckily I have the PDFs of the Deluxe PHB, DMG and MM to also call upon :)
However the Catching Yourself rule is also mentioned in the free D&D 4e Quick Start rules available on the WotC website here. That PDF does a fairly good job of giving you the very basics of 4e and worth a read for those who haven't had a chance or desire to read the full 4e rules.
|
|
I think what should happen is WoTC should split Dnd into two properties:
[...]
"DnD Tactical (4.5)"
[...]
"Dnd Next (3.75?)".
[...]
Then publish two lines of books and some conversion guides so you can take a character from Dnd tactical and translate it to dnd next and vice versa.There, you just pleased more people than just releasing 5.0 would.
I really don't agree, first of all you can't possibly know how many people releasing 5.0 will please and so cannot possibly say that what you are doing would please more.
Your suggestion only tries to please 3.x and 4e players whereas D&D Next is also hoping to please 0e, 1e, 2nd players too, so it could well please more if successful.
Also, your suggestion results in two potentially competing lines of the game within the same publisher, not a good idea IMHO, better to have a single core game that can be tweaked any which way using modules than have a choice of 4.5 or 3.75.
I think what should happen is WoTC should split Dnd into two properties:
[...]
"DnD Tactical (4.5)"
[...]
"Dnd Next (3.75?)".
[...]
Then publish two lines of books and some conversion guides so you can take a character from Dnd tactical and translate it to dnd next and vice versa.There, you just pleased more people than just releasing 5.0 would.
I really don't agree, first of all you can't possibly know how many people releasing 5.0 will please and so cannot possibly say that what you are doing would please more.
Your suggestion only tries to please 3.x and 4e players whereas D&D Next is also hoping to please 0e, 1e, 2nd players too, so it could well please more if successful.
Also, your suggestion results in two potentially competing lines of the game within the same publisher, not a good idea IMHO, better to have a single core game that can be tweaked any which way using modules than have a choice of 4.5 or 3.75.
Based on WoTC's track record I can predict that a single system that attempts to feed everyone's desires is destined to fail.
Take an example of 'Hector defending the bridge to Rome'; an awesome mythic tale, but it won't happen in-game, since Hector (and his two cohorts) will take one look at the bridge, and think "Hmmm, only three squares wide...screw that. Someone's going to automatically send me for a swim in the Tiber. Back off, lads, we'll let them over the bridge and fight them on the flat.".Another poster has pointed out that there'd actually be a saving throw, but I'd just like to mention that Hector is the Trojan War; Horatius Cocles is the person you're thinking of. He's probably higher level than his opponents, and quite plausibly in some sort of defensive stance, so that would also make him hard to hit and push around.
Yay... end of my pondering why would Hector defend some bridge to Rome :)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yay... end of my pondering why would Hector defend some bridge to Rome :)
Our hobby has a proud tradition of slightly or not-so-slightly mangling history and myth. I say go with it.
The hanging gardens of Rome are under attack! Can Hector rally the Immortals to defend them in time?
|
|
Based on WoTC's track record I can predict that a single system that attempts to feed everyone's desires is destined to fail.
Cool, I imagine quite a few people share that prediction.
Personally I predict they will create a very flexible system that may for many capture the essence of all editions, but many people will continue to play the edition they prefer due to existing system mastery or not wanting to buy new books. I.e. I predict D&D Next will be successful, but not as successful as I hope it will be.
The hanging gardens of Rome are under attack! Can Hector rally the Immortals to defend them in time?
All kinds of awesome!
Based on WoTC's track record I can predict that a single system that attempts to feed everyone's desires is destined to fail.Cool, I imagine quite a few people share that prediction.
Personally I predict they will create a very flexible system that may for many capture the essence of all editions, but many people will continue to play the edition they prefer due to existing system mastery or not wanting to buy new books. I.e. I predict D&D Next will be successful, but not as successful as I hope it will be.
I think even if the system is really great it's going to take it a while to get some traction. Of course, since this is the only message boards I spend much time on, I'm probably getting a rather biased view. I wish them all the success of 3e and more.
To be honest though, I'm happy in Paizo land.
I don't want 5E to fail, but I'd rather see the things I like in Pathfinder (or PF2E if it comes to that). I love Paizo products (art, editing, formatting, content, design, etc.)... I want to be a 'one system guy' right now, as I don't get as much time to play as I'd like.MSG
To be honest, though when younger, we played MANY different systems simultaneously without issue, I would prefer to use one system now (getting old, you know).
However, I think it is important to the industry as a whole for D&D 5e to be a success (name brand recognition alone is vital to the industry).
And MORE importantly, I think it imperative for D&D to advance and improve the underlying design issues. I imagine, for example, WOTC studying Pathfinder and analyzing its strengths and melding them to 4e's strengths (yes there WERE some) and evolving the game into a superior product than 3.x, 4e or even Pathfinder.
Why do I want that (especially stating that on Paizo's own boards! How rude!)?
Because once 5e comes out, it really should not be THAT long before Pathfinder will be due a facelift. Then Paizo can study 5e's strengths and weaknesses and meld them to Pathfinder 2.0's strengths to improve again.
Call it evolution. WOTC and Paizo (and to a lesser extent White Wolf and others) leap frogging one another to hurl their systems ahead with leaps and bounds. I imagine this as a 5-10 year cycle of improving the core design principles of the industry, thus improving the quality of play for everyone.
Well, if they surprise us and make 5E and OGL game again, maybe Pathfinder 2 could be basically straight-up compatible with it. Then I could play 5E with Paizo's APs. Best of both worlds! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our hobby has a proud tradition of slightly or not-so-slightly mangling history and myth. I say go with it.
The hanging gardens of Rome are under attack! Can Hector rally the Immortals to defend them in time?
"Excelsior!"
<straps on his winged Viking helmet>
- "Your katana and wall shield m'lord. Your camel has been armoured, as you requested..."
I want 5e to not be obsolete in 4 years AND would prefer if they avoided making another tabletop battle system with a few RPG rules attached to it.
Honetsly, we played 4e a few times and it felt just like War Machine or Warhammer (and worked ok in this regard).
Hopefully we won't see a lot of fluff rules just for the sake of prodiving fluff rules. They could make it feet or squares and it really doesn't matter, one side is going to have to do conversions UNLESSS they put it in both forms such as Fireball, Range: 50 ft (10 squares); Area: 10 ft. diameter (burst 1).
And, they need to implement the Warlord. 'Nuff said.
Hopefully we won't see a lot of fluff rules just for the sake of prodiving fluff rules. They could make it feet or squares and it really doesn't matter, one side is going to have to do conversions UNLESSS they put it in both forms such as Fireball, Range: 50 ft (10 squares); Area: 10 ft. diameter (burst 1).
And, they need to implement the Warlord. 'Nuff said.
I'll second the love for the warlord. One of my players ran the Tome of Secrets PFRPG warlord adaptation in my last campaign and I rather like the concept, both in PF and in 4E.
I prefer measurements given in squares rather than feet, but I guess that's because I always use a battle grid and dry erase markers. And it seems easier to say that 1 square scales to 5 feet, rather than converting the other way around most of the time. *shrug*
I hope I hate it. I hope it has all the traditionalisms that irritate me about previous editions. I don't have a grudge; I just have an edition that I already love, and would rather have an easy decision to make come 5e. :)