D&D 4th

[NestorDRod]

Re: D&D 4th

 

We actually considered that (he has an anti-contruct crystal in that slot' date=' IIRC) but after discussion with the GM, decided that enough was enough. Even without magic weapons, he's dishing out an average of 17 HP per hit, when the usual buffs are in use, he's up over 20. We may be munchkins, but we're not [i']insane[/i] munchkins.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Heh. Mark, it's gotten to the point that whenever you throw out a MMO term (like "slot") I have to stop and ponder whether that's just you borrowing the jargon, or if WotC is actually using it in the game.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Heh. Mark' date=' it's gotten to the point that whenever you throw out a MMO term (like "slot") I have to stop and ponder whether that's just you borrowing the jargon, or if WotC is actually using it in the game. [/quote']

 

I think the MMO term you were looking for is "buffs". HERO has been using "slot" since forever.

[BlackSword]

Re: D&D 4th

 

We actually considered that (he has an anti-contruct crystal in that slot' date=' IIRC) but after discussion with the GM, decided that enough was enough. Even without magic weapons, he's dishing out an average of 17 HP per hit, when the usual buffs are in use, he's up over 20. We may be munchkins, but we're not [i']insane[/i] munchkins.

 

cheers, Mark

We went with being insane Munchkins, we are trying to figure out how to get my Half-Dragon Paladin/Vassal of Bahamut to over 50 Strength. Our characters are also up around 18th level, so we're quite a bit higher level than your game.

[NestorDRod]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I think the MMO term you were looking for is "buffs". HERO has been using "slot" since forever.

 

Yah, but the context that Mark used definitely fits the bill. At least in the couple of MMOs I've experienced, you have a number of limited "slots' in which to place active "buffs".

 

And he's already used "exploit" before.

 

I'll repeat my suggestion from another thread. New forum drinking game! Drink every time someone uses a MMO term when describing D&D 4e. Drink twice if it's actually used in the rules.

[CandidGamera]

Re: D&D 4th

 

First off, thanks for responding.

 

I don't see a 'Generic Fantasy feel' to be something that is impossible to reach with 4E (from what I've seen of it). Don't want Dragonborn or Teiflings? Don't allow them. Want a totally nonmagical game? Ban anything other than Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Warlords. Don't like the background given for Gnolls or Demons? Change it. And so on.

 

I wish it was that simple. Every damn character is a Jedi Knight, packed full of force abilities now. Sure, they claim different power sources, but it's really all the same thing. And then there's the abysmal lack of diversity. It's not just the mishmash of deities from other worlds, the Feywild, the Eladrin, the Dragonborn, the Warlocks, et al. The very system itself is no longer compatible with the feel I want.

 

I've never much liked Generic Fantasy worlds, so I guess I'm not sure why that's a sticking point for you. (It's arguable that D&D ever even reached 'Generic Fantasy', rather than having a specific 'D&D Fantasy' feel.)

 

Gosh, I guess the reason why it's a sticking point for me is because I have a different taste than you. Sorry to be sarcastic, but you should be able to understand my point of view even if you don't share it.

 

I can understand this, although I'm not sure I agree with it. From what I've seen/heard, the classes play differently enough, even if they are mechanically similar. And I appreciate the lengths that they have gone to balance the classes with each other, and with the game world around them. In my last D&D campaign, I went through three characters, each of which was somehow hamstrung by specific 3.5E rules interactions that made the characters not fun to play. If 4E can alleviate that (without causing a whole host of other problems), I'll be happy.

 

I can't imagine how they'd play all that differently. And god help you if you want to try to distinguish two rogues from one another.

 

Here's where you and I definitely disagree. Magic Items in 3.5 were lame - there were only a handful that everyone bought, because the game required you to have those bonuses to be competative. All the other cool stuff went unused, except for those stat boost items, rings of protection, and cloaks of resistance. With 4Es downshift on the number of truly required magic items (weapon, armor, and neck-slot), that opens up a lot more of the other slots for having cool little powers that won't unbalance the game.

 

To borrow an old chestnut from another messageboard, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Let's just say that my experiences with the (3.5) game differ vastly from yours.

 

Similarly, those high level magic spells tended to be broken beyond belief. I'm happy that they have been put in the background, where they can't cause arguements and headaches any more.

 

High level spells? Polymorph? It's not high level.. And they haven't been put in the background, they've been taken behind the barn and shot.

[incrdbil]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I'll repeat my suggestion from another thread. New forum drinking game! Drink every time someone uses a MMO term when describing D&D 4e. Drink twice if it's actually used in the rules.

 

Can I read up on first aid for fatal levels of intoxication first?

 

I can see how quickly creating a D&d character coudl lead to alt-itis. As people explore for the newest power combo, the fad of the month character type wll be bandied about, and people will quicky roll up a new alt to explore it.

 

Ok, Drink !

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: D&D 4th

 

. Sure' date=' they claim different power sources, but it's really all the same thing.[/quote']

 

Not to trying to be personal, but I always felt that argument from someone who plays Hero is just a little.... non-sensical

 

"You can have different special effects for your Energy Blast, but it's all really the same thing"

 

That is really all power sources are, Special effects for your abilities.

 

I can't find the thread but someone renamed all of the fighter abilities like:

 

Hit them so hard they stumble

Hit them so hard it scares their friend into fleeing

Smack them so impressively your teammate is impressed

 

And so on. No jedi flavor - more a Conan like feel for everything.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: D&D 4th

 

The very system itself is no longer compatible with the feel I want.

 

That of course, being the telling and true point. If a system can't give you the game you want, then you don't use it. I've left many game systems behind for just that reason.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

So far from the preview stuff it appears that D&D has inflated slightly: you do more damage with weapons (and to more targets) but the bad guys have many more hit points (the goblins had over 30, for example, when in previous editions they had 5 or 6). This has the effect of making fights last longer, but they kind of had to do it because of all the healing that's been thrown around.

[incrdbil]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Not to trying to be personal, but I always felt that argument from someone who plays Hero is just a little.... non-sensical

 

 

Well, if D&D were like Hero, and not a class based game, it would be.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

At the risk of starting a weird off tangent, bows and crossbows are incredibly deadly and most certainly are at least as lethal as hand-to-hand weapons, the "balance" assuming any such thing exists in real life is the difficulty of training and ammunition (plus you can't really dodge or block while firing and it takes longer per shot than a hand weapon.

 

I don't much worry about balance in weapons, I want them to as closely simulate what they do in real life without being too complex and complicated. Who cares if that stone age orc tribe can only make stone spears and I can make a crossbow, there's no balance between them and there ought not be.

 

What, realistically, should a 75' lizard's fire breath inflict for damage as compared to a crossbow?

[Markdoc]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Well' date=' if D&D were like Hero, and not a class based game, it would be.[/quote']

 

To be fair, they have clearly been very hero-influenced: the idea of "special effects" is now an integral part of the game. There are multiple cases where you have the exact same combat effect described in different ways, and this is clearly intentional. They don't explain it very coherently, but they do make an attempt.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: D&D 4th

 

What' date=' realistically, should a 75' lizard's fire breath inflict for damage as compared to a crossbow?[/quote']

 

I think the word you are looking for is "lots"

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Yah' date=' but the context that Mark used definitely fits the bill. At least in the couple of MMOs I've experienced, you have a number of limited "slots' in which to place active "buffs".[/quote']

 

That's clearly where they've gone with this: every class has the same number of "powers" - essentially slots - into which you can put slightly different things, and the powers come in three flavours of decreasing strength: "once per day", "once per encounter", or "as often as you like".

 

And he's already used "exploit" before.

 

Actually "exploit" is the official term for the combat-related powers. It is easy to mock, but in this case I wouldn't because an MMO style effect - right down to language - is clearly exactly what they were aiming for. I don't think it's fair to tease them for achieving exactly what they set out to do.

 

I am thinking it's a good thing Gary Gygax went to another plane when he did, though.

 

cheers, Mark

[Curufea]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Kiinda reminds me of the computer game company motto for Origin: "We Create Worlds".

 

To me, this is what roleplaying enables.

 

This slogan, is exactly the phrase you could NEVER use to describe 4th edition D&D.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

What, realistically, should a 75' lizard's fire breath inflict for damage as compared to a crossbow?

 

I always hate this kind of post because it's not productive or any attempt to join in the discussion, it's just bitter snark in lieu of an argument or suggestion.

 

Crossbows and swords exist in real life, so we have some metric and conceptual basis to compare the two. Dragons exist in fantasy, so they are whatever the GM decides them to be. But then, I suspect you already knew that.

 

I try to avoid the word "realism" when I talk about fantastic settings, preferring the term "plausibility" or "consistency." Fantasy is inherently unrealistic to a certain degree, but once you set certain rules and boundaries down, everything within that setting should be internally consistent and reasonable, based on the presuppositions. If you want a game where crossbows do hardly any damage, feel free - nobody would even bother making them, but you can say that if you want. I just was pointing out that in practical terms, a crossbow does terrible damage, it does not do less than a sword.

 

The slots and buffs thing is actually a pretty handy mechanism if the game is magic heavy, it's useful to control how powerful characters get from multiple enchantments by items, locations, and casters.

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

To be fair, they have clearly been very hero-influenced: the idea of "special effects" is now an integral part of the game. There are multiple cases where you have the exact same combat effect described in different ways, and this is clearly intentional. They don't explain it very coherently, but they do make an attempt.

 

cheers, Mark

And check out movement rates. One of the few things I queued in on was that Movement rates for humans is now 6 squares. Sound familiar?

[Dr. Confoundo]

Re: D&D 4th

 

And check out movement rates. One of the few things I queued in on was that Movement rates for humans is now 6 squares. Sound familiar?

 

Sure - 3.5E of D&D, where the normal human had a movement speed of 30 feet (aka 6 squares).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I always hate this kind of post because it's not productive or any attempt to join in the discussion, it's just bitter snark in lieu of an argument or suggestion.

 

Crossbows and swords exist in real life, so we have some metric and conceptual basis to compare the two. Dragons exist in fantasy, so they are whatever the GM decides them to be. But then, I suspect you already knew that.

 

I always hate posts that get too hung up one realism at the expense of playability, so there you go. If I want realism, I have reality. Realistically, it is possible for a normal human being to fall two feet and be killed, and to fall from an aircraft and survive. Show me the game system which duplicates this wide range of possibilities.

 

I try to avoid the word "realism" when I talk about fantastic settings' date=' preferring the term "plausibility" or "consistency." Fantasy is inherently unrealistic to a certain degree, but once you set certain rules and boundaries down, everything within that setting should be internally consistent and reasonable, based on the presuppositions. If you want a game where crossbows do hardly any damage, feel free - nobody would even bother [i']making[/i] them, but you can say that if you want. I just was pointing out that in practical terms, a crossbow does terrible damage, it does not do less than a sword.

 

Looking at the 3.5 Ed Players Handbook, a Longsword does 1d8 damage, double on a critical. A light crossbow does exactly the same, with the same odds of a critical. A heavy crossbow does 1d10. A longbow does 1d8, but triple on a critical. Looks like the crossbow already does not do less than a sword - where is the perceived problem?

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Sure - 3.5E of D&D' date=' where the normal human had a movement speed of 30 feet (aka 6 squares). [/quote']The last time I played it was like 12 Squares. Mind you, it has been an awful long time since I picked up a D&D book. In fact, while I once owned D&D 3 PHB and DMG, I only tried to play once and everybody at the table was so frustrated that we quit and reverted to mindless chatter. I tried to organize a HERO game on the spot, but I lost a lot of "street cred" with the whole D20 fiasco.

 

So the last successful D&D game I played was 2nd edition circa 1995.

 

And your example only shows that Wizards tried to see the Light even earlier than I gave them credit for.

[Fitz]

Re: D&D 4th

 

My two cents, for what it's worth:

 

I've had a week or so to absorb the new edition of D&D. Underwhelmed. very, very underwhelmed. I'd go into details as to why, but frankly there's no point.

 

When 3e came out, I found it quite an exciting progression in the development of D&D and I ended up spending hundreds of dollars on rulebooks, splatbooks, monster books, and even an adventure or two. I won't be spending a cent on this edition.

 

It's not 100% made of fail, but it's boring - and that's unforgiveable.

[teh bunneh]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Here's a dumb question for those who have finished reading the book (or played). What is the whole "2[W]" notation? Is that a multiplier on the amount of damage you inflict, or what?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Here's a dumb question for those who have finished reading the book (or played). What is the whole "2[W]" notation? Is that a multiplier on the amount of damage you inflict' date=' or what? [/quote']

 

It's my impression from context that [W] refers to the weapon's base damage, and that 2[W] would be twice that. That's just a guess, though.

[Dr. Confoundo]

Re: D&D 4th

 

It's my impression from context that [W] refers to the weapon's base damage' date=' and that 2[W'] would be twice that. That's just a guess, though.

 

As far as I know, This.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

As far as I know' date=' This.[/quote']

 

It's my impression from context that [W] refers to the weapon's base damage' date=' and that 2[W'] would be twice that. That's just a guess, though.

 

Yup, that's exactly it.