D'karr
Adventurer
Yeah, I wouldn't put too much stock on internet polls. I'd go as far as saying that I would put no stock on them.
D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Yeah, I wouldn't put too much stock on internet polls. I'd go as far as saying that I would put no stock on them.
wrightdjohn
Explorer
What I found odd about it was that it matched my local gaming club's breakdown between Pathfinder and 3.5e. I just assumed Pathfinder had absorbed all the 3.5e players. Apparently not.
Ahnehnois
First Post
The poll data and anecdotal data are of course unscientific, but if anything, looking in an active online forum probably overestimates the prevalence of PF and 4e and underestimates the prevalence of everything earlier. Like the man said, the OGL made sure that no company could ever kill D&D. People will be playing 3.5 D&D for a long time, regardless of what the industry comes up with.
nogray
Adventurer
Just another nit to pick (seven or so days and several pages late): There are (to my knowledge) no "mindless" or "spell-immune" creatures in 4e. Golems and "mindless" undead have low intelligence and charisma, but all the actual creatures have at least some score.
Objects, on the other hand, might lack these scores, but they aren't subject to the power, anyway. (Even objects that can attack, like traps, I mean to say.)
Immunities are handled by things like damage type, if they are present at all. Some odd critters may have more ... esoteric immunities, but none have a general "immunity to all ____ powers," where the blank is filled in by a power source (arcane, divine, etc.).
Just thought I'd throw out some more 4e factoids.
Hussar
Legend
As I said, the only difference between CS dice and E/D powers is the refresh rate. That's it. They are exactly the same powers.
Note, you apply effects after you know that you hit. At least, that's the way it's written now. Because, what happens if you miss? Do you lose your CS dice? Note, that many CS powers are also reactive, so you actually retcon other people's attacks as well.
Poisonous Snake hits for 5 damage. CS dice are rolled and the damage is reduced to zero. Any rider effects on the snake's attack are still applied (presumably some sort of poison effect - ongoing damage perhaps?). Did the snake hit or not? If he hit, why didn't he do damage? If he didn't do damage, how did he poison the target?
We spent how long listening to complaints about Schroedinger's Hit Point, but, this apparently doesn't cause the slightest wobble in people's verisimilitude.
Seems rather... selective to me.
Note, you apply effects after you know that you hit. At least, that's the way it's written now. Because, what happens if you miss? Do you lose your CS dice? Note, that many CS powers are also reactive, so you actually retcon other people's attacks as well.
Poisonous Snake hits for 5 damage. CS dice are rolled and the damage is reduced to zero. Any rider effects on the snake's attack are still applied (presumably some sort of poison effect - ongoing damage perhaps?). Did the snake hit or not? If he hit, why didn't he do damage? If he didn't do damage, how did he poison the target?
We spent how long listening to complaints about Schroedinger's Hit Point, but, this apparently doesn't cause the slightest wobble in people's verisimilitude.
Seems rather... selective to me.
wrightdjohn
Explorer
Well 3.5 D&D could be played OGL or not. It's not illegal to play with our old books. Pathfinder would not be possible but 3.5 D&D is possible forevermore. Same for 4e,2e,1e too.
I'm not sure and I didn't say it was absolutely conclusive evidence. I did think the online poll was revealing. Why would online people be less likely to buy Pathfinder? Rather I think just the opposite. But sure I'm not presenting it as incontrovertible proof. Just something I found interesting consider the local breakdown which I feel is even more anecdotal.
wrightdjohn
Explorer
1. Refresh rate is very significant. It is far easier to avoid dissociative issues when a power is at-will. Easier but not absolute of course.
2. You are right. If you apply the effects after you hit or are hit then I agree it is dissociative. You should spend your CS dice either way and make that decision prior to attacking or defending. It's funny how I consider dissociative things so ridiculous that I auto correct for them while playing. I was always requiring things in advance. Yeah this is a major issue. I'll raise it.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Well, not equally effective, some of those targets are likely to have higher WILL than others, and some might have powers or traits that come into play when pulled. It's exception-based design so anything is possible. As the DM, if your player has a power and you don't see that power working quite as written vs a monster you have in mind, a quick tweak to the monster could take care of it. The golem could be immune to powers with the Charm keyword, the wizard have a startlingly high WILL, the 'fighter' (Soldier-role NPC) an immediate action that lets him shift after being pulled - and, really, the dragon should have no problem advancing on a puny human.
You can also just adjust how you visualize the power to the monster it's being used against. The flavor text of the power is quite explicitly just an example, afterall.
Against a fighter or dragon, you 'show weakness,' goading them into attacking over-confidently (not that it's really /over/-confidence in the case of the dragon).
The golem is easier, it runs of fairly simple programing, you note the conditions under which it advances and re-create them.
For the melee-allergic foe, you don't 'show weakness,' but feign inattention, giving him a chance to 'escape' if he just scampers past you.
Against a mixed group, it could be better visualized with positioning - the way akido masters move adroitly so that enemies get in eachothers way would be an example. You position yourself so the golem's advance forces the wizard forward and the fighter sees a golden flanking opportunity with his dragon ally, and in a moment, they're all - intentionally or not -
right up with you.
Well, not equally effective, some of those targets are likely to have higher WILL than others, and some might have powers or traits that come into play when pulled. It's exception-based design so anything is possible. As the DM, if your player has a power and you don't see that power working quite as written vs a monster you have in mind, a quick tweak to the monster could take care of it. The golem could be immune to powers with the Charm keyword, the wizard have a startlingly high WILL, the 'fighter' (Soldier-role NPC) an immediate action that lets him shift after being pulled - and, really, the dragon should have no problem advancing on a puny human.
You can also just adjust how you visualize the power to the monster it's being used against. The flavor text of the power is quite explicitly just an example, afterall.
Against a fighter or dragon, you 'show weakness,' goading them into attacking over-confidently (not that it's really /over/-confidence in the case of the dragon).
The golem is easier, it runs of fairly simple programing, you note the conditions under which it advances and re-create them.
For the melee-allergic foe, you don't 'show weakness,' but feign inattention, giving him a chance to 'escape' if he just scampers past you.
Against a mixed group, it could be better visualized with positioning - the way akido masters move adroitly so that enemies get in eachothers way would be an example. You position yourself so the golem's advance forces the wizard forward and the fighter sees a golden flanking opportunity with his dragon ally, and in a moment, they're all - intentionally or not -
right up with you.
Right, like I said in the same post:
The player is modifying the motives and goals of the NPCs -- the wizard wants to escape past the Fighter -- even if there is no route out there. The dragon suddenly becomes overconfident regardless of past behaviour or motivations.
And it's hard for me to visualise as adroit positioning when the allies your are drawing to you are up to 30' apart from each other.
Last edited:
I am always surprised when people make that assumption. Then again, Pathfinder definitely, has not absorbed the 3.0 or 3.5 gamers that I know. At best, it is a source for a few extra spells and feats and the game itself is disliked almost as strongly as 4e (which itself does have a handful of things that are liked, but things like the AEDU, removal of skill points, heavy consolidation of skills, more abstract hit points, paladin marking, removal of "sim" aspects assure we will never touch it).
5e, at the moment, is just as strongly disliked as Pathfinder and 4e among the gameres I know and nobody wants to playtest it (4e at least has three groups playing it. Two are DM'd begrudgingly- one because it was in print and the other because it is easy to prep despite fighting design assumptions/mechanics) . Combat Superiority (in its current form although better than martial AEDU based upon recovery), Cleric (cleric spell list access, turn undead as always prepared, healing as the base channel divinity ability, built for only one domain), the Sorcerer ( the draconic heritage being forced into the role of a gish, the pathetic spell list and to lesser degree the sorcerer manifestation), Dwarf and Elf immunities, hit point thresholds, returning to con bonus per level rather than just con score at first level, halflings not being penalized for strength or carry capacity are all among the things being found unacceptable.
To be fair to the designers of 4e and Next, for several of us, WOTC has been the design team has been the team that that cannot shoot straight as far back as 3e and d20M. Most of their supplements were considered pathetic (a few exceptions existed like Unearthed Arcana, Fiendish Codex I, some of the dedicated monster books). The strength of those systems were in Unearthed Arcana and supplements from several third party companies. Surprisingly, some of the designers did some good third party stuff prior to joining WOTC or after leaving.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
