+ Log in or register to post
Results 51 to 57 of 57
Thread: Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
Thursday, 21st June, 2012, 02:33 AM #51
My concern isn't about whether or not WotC keeps publishing a Nentir Vale setting with gnolls living in whatever forest (I personally use the 4e mythos and history that is embedded in the race, class and monster descriptions, but not the Nentir Vale stuff - my campaign map is from the old Basic module Night's Dark Terror). It's about whether those gnolls will be mechanically distinctive in the way that 4e gnolls are.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Thursday, 21st June, 2012, 09:26 AM #52
Still, leader- or encounter-group-templates could be a way to provide sufficient mechanical differences. However, if all of the interesting bits depend on the leader won't the only viable combat tactic be to take out the leader first? that's a tad limited.
In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. - Tom Moldvay
Thursday, 21st June, 2012, 10:50 AM #53
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
And that's before you start playing with mechanics. I have seen generals that actually make their troops harder if they are killed or even damaged. Or even leaders that automatically transfer their abilities to another of their allies upon death. There's a lot you can do with these kind of mechanics.
Thursday, 21st June, 2012, 12:14 PM #54
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
And I could see and understand if not agree with a player crying foul on that. Especially if they want to roleplay their 4E paladin as following a dark god of lies and murder or simply as a selfish person. RAW allows both as roleplaying options (any alignment allowed in 4E).
RAW, I as the DM have 0 input into those decisions without serious house rules. To me, that makes the rules as written flawed, despite other great rule innovations in the same set of rules.
Thursday, 21st June, 2012, 01:23 PM #55
I won't derail this thread with an detailedexplanation of my own views on paladin codes and alignment, but I prefer it to be in the hands of the player, not the GM.
Thursday, 21st June, 2012, 01:53 PM #56
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
If 5E addresses both options we would both have guidelines and tools to discuss with the rest of the players around the table about how to set up the rules before we start playing. If 5E can do that, it will be a huge leap forward from previous editions because it would support both of our play styles (and many other players' styles) without the need for extensive house rules.
Sunday, 24th June, 2012, 04:29 AM #57
Superhero (Lvl 15)
That is, if I deal psychic damage in any game with hit points, you might "feel suffering" because you're worse off than you were before. If a creature makes your character afraid, you might worry that it will get to attack you while you can't defend yourself or your friends adequately (fear --> worry). But, these work in any system, and I don't think that there's any great reason to place 4e above others in this regard.
Now, 4e does do this, but I do not believe that it's the sole method to achieve those results. And, I'd also posit that the way the mechanics should (in my view) be created is "here's what I want the story to produce --> here's the mechanics that make the story be produced in play." This, I think, is where people are talking past one another. I think that both pemerton and I (and others in this conversation, probably) want the mechanics to produce the story that should be implied. That is, if goblins are supposed to be fragile, then we need mechanics to reflect that. It goes "I want goblins to be fragile --> give goblins small amounts of HP and AC."
This can be applied to everything, and if you want the story to unfold due to the mechanics, you need to carefully craft mechanics that produce that story. But, you must know what story you want, first, which is why I think you're getting "you have to start with the flavor first!" as a reply to your statements in this thread.
Different sorts of humanoids are not there to give us "flanking vs phalanx" distinctions, though giving mechanical incentive to do so is helpful. It's not strictly necessary, mind you. There's a lot about humans that isn't represented mechanically ("humans are sexual creatures" for example). That's fine, sometimes. Some things are that way because "society taught them this, so they prefer it" or "elves just taste bad to bulettes."
The races, then, contribute new mindsets to the game. New antagonists. New allies. New aspects of the setting. We don't need all hobgoblins to form a phalanx to gain something. We have a race that is highly organized, militaristic, and generally decently equipped. Does the phalanx mechanic tell us this, or produce these things? No, not really. It has a hint of "militaristic" and "highly organized" but falls short of giving us their real place within the setting. The same holds true of the goblin and his flanking ability.
You might ask "what is the point of his place in combat instead of other humanoids, then?" To this, all I can say is that not every race needs to be mechanically different in this respect on a base level. I'm not opposed to it, though. It's just not necessary. Because, to many people, the role within the world that hobgoblins fulfill is more than just forming a phalanx when you fight them. Their ability to equip themselves, their militaristic nature, and their highly organized nature are more important to the overall setting than their ability to fight adventurers. And, yeah, let's see some mechanics reflecting these things, too. As always, play what you like
As always, play what you like