General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Gamers Online Now: 1,020
159 members and 861 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 05:04 PM.
This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
Encounter powers tend to match fiction much better than at-will powers frankly.
For example, you don't see in fiction OR real life for that matter, people spamming the same attack. It just doesn't work that way even though technically they CAN but it would never be successful. You don't see Jacky Chan constantly trying the same attack every time which is what 3.5 IMPROVED Trip was like.
Encounter powers IMO much better match the scenes from fiction and real life where the protoganist pulls off a special move and then gets an advantage.
Ironically, if anything, at-will spamming is a VIDEOGAME trait that doesn't really exist.
My players rarely describe the same at-will identically every use...(they would miss out on situational benefits if they did) and the narrative is different. The powers are incredibly generic / abstract the specific use can be very distinct. And article on reskinning the fighter and one on using the wizards powers this way to demonstrate the point. http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...ic_Missle_pfah
But here is an example you like jacky chan? His characters usually have an at-will move that could be called "using there attacks against themselves".. but exactly how he pulls off that move is incredibly variable... the exhaustion he induces in his attacker is hit point loss... just like a sword stroke.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
- Lazarus Long via Robert Heinlein - or the other way around -
Last edited by Garthanos; 3rd November 2009 at 02:33 PM..
Anyways, that minotaur is strong enough to easily kneel down and swing a long polearm around his head, hitting groups of enemies around him (if they are tall enough).
While I can't say it would satisfy the player in question, that's easy enough to model using 4e. Replace one of the PC's at-wills with a STR vs. AC [1W] Close Burst 1 attack. You could even season to taste w/a minor rider effect. Done!
Quote:
That same character, charges forward, gore ssomeone and tramples them, picks up another person, and tosses them behind him, leaving him ripe for the rest of the party to use their "powers" on it. Thing is, against regular huamnoids, the thoradorian does more damage sometimes without using powers based on what he tries to do. But in all cases, he is alot more interesting...more savage, etc..like he should be.
Every edition of D&D I'm familiar with would require a significant amount of on-the-spot DM rulings to make the above work (ie no edition does this right out of the box). Therefore, you could do it just as well in 4e, should you chose to do so .
Quote:
My players love it.
It's cool stuff.
__________________ "You should probably put your bandit hat on now. Personally, I- I don't have one, but I modified this tube sock." - Ash, Fantastic Mr. Fox.
No, they are not. In the superman stories he uses the powers when they fit the need. In 4E the characters use them when the rules permit.
Disagree. Superman definitely uses the powers when they "fit the need," but when they fit the need is when the story says they do. So both Superman and 4e use powers when the "rules permit." However, in a Superman story the rules are the rules of storytelling. In 4e, the rules are encounter/daily/at-will. Different means but for the same end result. Producing a good story.
If players could use their dailies and encounters until they're blue in the face, they would do just that. Encounters and dailies would lose their specialness and at-wills would likely never get used. Actually maybe not even encounters would be used. But if you want a good story, you can't use these powers all the time or it's just uninteresting.
It makes no more sense that a rogue can't tumble through an entire fight than it does that Superman doesn't just heat vision the crap out of all his foes before getting close to them. But neither case is about simulating the "real world." These things are done sparingly so when they occur they are meaningful.
If the Superman example doesn't do it for you, think Karate Kid and the Crane Kick. That's a daily power at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarFyre
<minotaur stat stuff>
However, if he does that, 4E purists would argue that's not fair; it detracts from them using a power that may allow forsome damage to allthose around him, etc. However, it makes perfect sense for the Thoradorian.
My players complain if I don't allow "realistic" things like that;stuff that makes sense.
To be honest, I don't think this is a system specific concern at all. Being able to whip around a polearm and hit all adjacent enemies would be akin to the whirlwind feat in 3.x. If you're doling that out for free in a 3.x game, you could do the same in 4e by inventing a power to replicate the effect.
Anyway you slice it, the minotaur is unbalanced. If you and your players are cool with it, there's no issue. But it's unfair to presume its somehow more balanced in one edition of D&D vs. another. I'd argue that 3e "purists" would argue that the minotaur and his abilities aren't fair as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzlewump
Good post. There's something funny about encounter powers indeed. If you imagine elements of an RPG going on a slider that goes between "GAMIST" and "NARRATIVIST" where exactly does an encounter power fall? Thinking about it, these seem like poor descriptors of what the real dichotomy is, but I can't put my finger on what better terms would be. Something like "Narrative Story" versus "Gritty Physics." One corner is that the mechanics are around to help tell a story, and the other corner is that the mechanics model some of kind of physical framework. 4E I would say fits into Narrative Story, as it gives every character class the ability to effect the narrative near equally, though in different ways, but at nearly all times. 3E I would say fits into Gritty Physics. Not every player is going to be useful at every second, and that's how it should be in Gritty Physics. Instead of everyone all being useful at once, it's like everyone takes turns, in a well planned adventure.
I think what you're trying to pinpoint it the third part of the triangle. It's not a slider actually. Folks refer to it as GNS theory - Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist.
To take a quick stab at it (and likely produce a bevy of angry people :-P), I'd say 4e does Gamist and Narrativist and mostly ignores Simulationist. 3e would probably be pegged as Gamist and Simulationist with nods to Narrativist.
I think that the missing part of the "triangle" can vary in difficulty regarding how easy it is to bring into the game based upon what part is missing. For example, I don't really see 4e supporting aspects of Simulation. By it's fundamental design it just doesn't support it.
On the flip side, putting Narrative into a 3e game is clearly simple to do. I would argue that 4e can produce some interesting Narrative scenarios that 3e can't unless everyone at the game table is sold on the concept of playing their characters at a meta-level to build a great story. Great narrative moments, in my experience, in 3e games come from doing the unexpected or scoring a timely crit, etc. Whereas the encounter/daily power structure provides some built in tools to engender great narrative moments.
A lot of the above falls into the "to each his own" category of course. And I'm certainly not trying to sell one edition over the other. I'm just trying to tell it like I see it and hopefully adjust misconceptions. Both editions get panned for countless reasons, many of which are likely valid. But I'd argue that a lot of other complaints out there should be debunked.
__________________
"I mean, being a bard is pretty silly. You walk into dungeons and SING at people. Who could take that seriously." - Elan, Order of the Stick
THe realism I meant is that, have you ever swung a hockey stick, etc over your head? You physcially can do it. If i thus walked up to you, i could get hit in the face or neck with that stick, etc.
Physically you CAN do it. In our group, the Thoradorian IS a barbarian...but again, there are stuff that as the other poster said, don't really have mechanical equivalents...the charge thing i mentioned. (the barbarian is level 1 btw..so my party is starting out new campaign)
It is house ruling or making your own simplified way to do it.
For us, the swinging around the head thing, was done via a hit with a small penalty against one target, then we thought for a few seconds, would his strength allow the weaponto keep going? we figure yes since his str is so high, so human's won't stand a chance. Then it's partial damage (half) on all other targets around him and then add str bonus and any magical weapon bonuses (none in this case).
But the way we do it...i'm too busy to make up powers for stuff officially..instead, i have a 2 or 3 max roll limit. if you want to do something, i'll make it work for you in 2 d20 rolls max (rarely 3)...it's "yes, you can" gaming, as people have described before.
The grab is a grapple, then the throw is obvious (with such a strength, its obvious he could throw a human), and a warhammer scatter dice to see where the body lands. Done.
The thing is, do you allow stuff that the powers, etc don't account for?
it's correct that no D&D system really supports stuff like this really well...so which system supports it the best? Ie. there are rules for similar stuff so it's not all adhoced..(may be slower, but it's 'official').
But then again, who cares? friends have tons of fun with it, and since they are more hardcore roleplayers, simulation style players...details like this they want, and make sense and it doesn't bother them....
Just imagine, our dark sun encounters are even more brutal.... (spines being ripped out of alive foes, climbing up creatures backs via blades into the creature's, players and enemies being cut in half, etc)...
it's correct that no D&D system really supports stuff like this really well...so which system supports it the best? Ie. there are rules for similar stuff so it's not all adhoced..(may be slower, but it's 'official').
Obviously a matter of opinion. But 4e does give a damage table for use in situations like this and making up powers that model complex actions is a breeze.
Having them balanced against existing powers isn't going to happen unless you are a savant with an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the 4e powers, but I'd ague that it isn't necessary, if it works for your group more power to ya.
__________________ Pablo El Vagabundo
"Mercy!? You want MERCY? I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!" One of my rituals is soon to be published in Goodman Games's Book of Rituals... Yey...
By what standard is the minotaur unbalanced? The standard gamer who's experience in D&D is run to this room, kill this, do the next room, roll a dice to see if i can negotiate with him, then go kill the next monster?
yes, sure...if all you do is fight and alltheplayers want is kill count, then sure..the minotaur will kill most close combat humanoids faster.
We've been using custom races/classes since 2E planescape and never had an issue with it.
Really, it comes down to the players and party dynamics.
We play a very RP heavy/low combat game...and the world is very dark, gritty, and brutal. When there are fights, they are harsh. Due to that, even stuff like the minotaur has drawbacks that can get exploited. He has hooves, which make it harder for him to move on some surfaces, for one. Wizards have to use magic to shrink him to make him reach some areas etc (we've done entire dungeons with a centaur and minotaur..that was interesting..trying to get them thru hatches, etc..hehe)
In 3.5E, it wasn't as big a deal i think cause of the racial levels, etc. It was built into the simulationist system.... (granted, we modified that as well)
in 4E, again, we haven't had complaints or issues. Everyone does get to participate (some of that is due to how i do encounters....what i call the 'logical method'!) and that really makes everyone important.
Granted, I don't do encounters how the DMG, etc suggest/plan them out and maybe that is why we don't see these issues...
That said, anyone can do funky stuff like that. Others can jump and swing on stuff that heavier characters wouldn't be able to. They can sneak under things, etc. Climb in rafters, and snipe. There are tons of stuff my players do/have done, mainly cause they think of what CAN be done in real life...and apply it to their character and then expand it with their superhuman abilities or magic in terms of the casters. And all of it works well as each person can do different things based on their strengths/weaknesses..
THe realism I meant is that, have you ever swung a hockey stick, etc over your head? You physcially can do it. If i thus walked up to you, i could get hit in the face or neck with that stick, etc.
Physically you CAN do it. In our group, the Thoradorian IS a barbarian...but again, there are stuff that as the other poster said, don't really have mechanical equivalents...the charge thing i mentioned. (the barbarian is level 1 btw..so my party is starting out new campaign)
It is house ruling or making your own simplified way to do it.
For us, the swinging around the head thing, was done via a hit with a small penalty against one target, then we thought for a few seconds, would his strength allow the weaponto keep going? we figure yes since his str is so high, so human's won't stand a chance. Then it's partial damage (half) on all other targets around him and then add str bonus and any magical weapon bonuses (none in this case).
But the way we do it...i'm too busy to make up powers for stuff officially..instead, i have a 2 or 3 max roll limit. if you want to do something, i'll make it work for you in 2 d20 rolls max (rarely 3)...it's "yes, you can" gaming, as people have described before.
The grab is a grapple, then the throw is obvious (with such a strength, its obvious he could throw a human), and a warhammer scatter dice to see where the body lands. Done.
The thing is, do you allow stuff that the powers, etc don't account for?
it's correct that no D&D system really supports stuff like this really well...so which system supports it the best? Ie. there are rules for similar stuff so it's not all adhoced..(may be slower, but it's 'official').
But then again, who cares? friends have tons of fun with it, and since they are more hardcore roleplayers, simulation style players...details like this they want, and make sense and it doesn't bother them....
Just imagine, our dark sun encounters are even more brutal.... (spines being ripped out of alive foes, climbing up creatures backs via blades into the creature's, players and enemies being cut in half, etc)...
Sanjay
No houserulling really required.
4e has a section in the DMs guide to help you do stunts. If your group likes to do stuff like above, instead of powers, why not?
After a few times of using that section, I am sure you will be able to not reference the book too much.
I know some people seem to have a problem with that page, but really, this is the section that was made for your goup. Examples, and guidelines on how to accomplish things that are not in the rules.
We have used it, and we encourage it's use.
__________________ Don't believe the excuses....
ISP caps effect everyone. Fight for a CAP FREE internet. http://stopthecap.com
Good post. There's something funny about encounter powers indeed. If you imagine elements of an RPG going on a slider that goes between "GAMIST" and "NARRATIVIST" where exactly does an encounter power fall?
You forgot the part where it's a triangle, not a line, the three corners being gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. What you call "gritty physics" is precisely that third corner: simulationism. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether encounter powers are more gamist or more narrativist, but I think we can all agree that the one thing they definitely are NOT is simulationist.
As in, if you ask "why do encounter powers work this way?", valid answers include "because it's makes a better story" and "because it's more balanced," but generally not "because it's a approximation of how the world works."
__________________ 'Imaginary' universes are so much more beautiful than this stupidly constructed 'real' one.
I know that at 15 pages it's a bit late to bring this up, but since this thread has been necro'd, I think it may be appropriate: what's the point of the whole thing?
Every time I see a thread like this I'm tempted to start one titled "3X is totally dead to me, and no, before you ask, Pathfinder didn't help." If I did that, I expect that a lot of the other posters (and likely the mods as well) would channel the late Chris Farley and say, "well la-de-fricken-da!"
Seriously: 4E is out there, and you can play it or not as you like. 3X and Pathfinder are still there, as are 2E, 1E, OE and a host of compatible games Like C&C, OSRIC and so on.
Telling me why you don't like 4E, especially if your reasons for hating it are precisely some of the things I think improved it over 3X is meaningless as we approach three years of the game being out.
I play in a 4E game, and run two others, and each week the system lets me bring the awesome in those games in ways that 3X simply didn't for me, and for my groups as well. Why is that hard to understand?
I have no problem with anyone who hasn't jumped onto the 4E bandwagon (as I said before, when 2E came out I jumped ship and discovered this game called Champions, so I know what you're going through). The only thing I simply won't tolerate, and neither should you in reverse, is the notion that somehow your editions way of pretending to be an elf is better than mine in an objective fashion. It may be for you (I'm sure it is!), but trust me, I've looked at all the details, played the game for thousands of hours, and it isn't for me.
--Steve
__________________ Be a rebel...order your coffee in one of these three radical sizes: small, medium or large.
"Sure as I know anything, I know this. I aim to misbehave."
--Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
I play 4E, and it's every bit as much Dungeons and Dragons as any other edition, including the one(s) you play. No more, and no less.
Telling me why you don't like 4E, especially if your reasons for hating it are precisely some of the things I think improved it over 3X is meaningless as we approach three years of the game being out.
You have a strange fascination with this meaningless thread.
As in, if you ask "why do encounter powers work this way?", valid answers include "because it's makes a better story" and "because it's more balanced," but generally not "because it's a approximation of how the world works."
Good point. Thanks for the correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryonD
Oh yes, and a good DM should certainly toss the rules out on their ear and use this kind of system to correctly respond to the narrative flow of the game any and every time it is appropriate. But if the main rules of the game must be thrown out on their ear as a regular part of quality play, then maybe a different system should be considered
Definitely agree here, but if the next line is 'go to 3E'-- then- what? Since when is 3E rules light and narrative focused? Like I've been saying, fair criticism against D&D in general, but to criticize the choice of 4E alone makes it seem like you're either your ignoring what I thought was your system of choice, 3E, or you actually are arguing from the stand point of White Wolf Games. (I'm actually ignorant here, White Wolf Games are generally more narrative focused right? If not, insert better example here.)
You have a strange fascination with this meaningless thread.
As it's my first post to it, I'd say perhaps not. When stuff like this gets necro'd, after a well deserved trip to the back pages of the forum, and we get to do the timewarp all over again, it sometimes makes sense to me to question why. What are we going to accomplish by doing this all over again for the n+1 time?
__________________ Be a rebel...order your coffee in one of these three radical sizes: small, medium or large.
"Sure as I know anything, I know this. I aim to misbehave."
--Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
I play 4E, and it's every bit as much Dungeons and Dragons as any other edition, including the one(s) you play. No more, and no less.
What are we going to accomplish by doing this all over again for the n+1 time?
You seem to be under the impression that the conversation must necessarily lead to some outcome, as opposed to merely being a conversation for its own sake.
Which makes your own late-breaking and meaningless commentary unusual.
Unless the goal you are attempting to accomplish is to shut down the conversation for the n+1th time, the best way for to avoid such meaninglessness is to avoid the thread.
Am I wrong? I mean, we're 3 years into the new edition, as you astutely pointed out. What are you trying to accomplish by asking folks what they are trying to accomplish?
I have a serious simulationist streak, so things like encounter/daily martial powers bug me. The common explanation is that they're 'activated crits,' but then why does my character strategize around supposedly random events? I mean, if they were really random within the game world why do 75% of the same line-up of 2-8 crit effects happen during the first few rounds of every fight, and only against strategically advantageous foes?
This is one of the reasons I like using the Exalted setting to run 4e. It has a built-in explanation for all of D&D's wackiness: all PCs and serious foes are made of magical awesomeness. Which is why they can all do wacky stuff a certain number of times per 5 minutes/day: it's magic!
Anyway, even without Exalted, 4e's elegant balance far outweighs its marginally lesser focus on simulation than other editions. As always, YMMV.
__________________ Proud gamer of Sullivan, New York.
Death is not the end, but yet another journey--one that we all must take. The gray rain curtain of this world parts, everything fades to silver glass and then you see it--the white shore and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.
--Everything that I'd like to believe about the afterlife.
Gamers Online Now: 1,020
Linear Mode
