Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[Coldwyn]

The best teacher is actual experience, somehow for years DM's have had access to SoD and gained the experience and knowledge to decide whether (as well as how) they wanted to use them or not. Yeah, I don't think many if any other games have SoD, it's a D&Dism... and strangely enough some people who enjoy D&D, do actually enjoy SoD.

Quick question...How does removing SoD totally from the game ever give someone the experience and knowledge to use the tools properly for the type of game they want?

In the same way as sticking to one RPG and mastering it does teach you anything - not at all. So having SoD in or out doesn´t really give you the experience until you have tryed both and that´s still worth nothing (imho) until you´ve checked out how and if other systems handle it.

 

[Kafen]

More. Much, much, more.

I played baseball up to and through college. I never gave a rat's ass if I swung and missed once, or even twice. But with 2 strikes, it's down to business, and there's a LOT of tension. You have one chance. One. You had better get it right.

Ayup, classic baseball lore... Most pros have some wisdom along those lines. The only important strike is the last one. And, it's not like it is a surprise. You do not just wake up and find yourself in front of a man throwing a baseball at you. The example supports the one SoD rule more than anything.

Past that, Imaro is spot on in my opinion. The SoD should be an option. I would use it in any 4e game of mine if lethal force would be best.

 

[Imaro]

In the same way as sticking to one RPG and mastering it does teach you anything - not at all. So having SoD in or out doesn´t really give you the experience until you have tryed both and that´s still worth nothing (imho) until you´ve checked out how and if other systems handle it.

Waitaminute... what?

No one said having SoD in the game or out of the game magically bestows experience in using it to get the game experience you want...

A new DM is learning the game, he has to learn how to run the game he wants in the same way a player has to learn how best to play his particular character and that means that some things can only be learned in actual play. IMO, the experience of seeing SoD's actual effects in gameplay (as well as on ones players) is worth much more than you give it credit for.

Also, I'm a little confused as to what "how and if other systems handle" SoD's has to do with a DM shaping his D&D game to be enjoyable for him and his players... it's kind of irrelevant since you aren't playing those games...

 

[Coldwyn]

Waitaminute... what?

No one said having SoD in the game or out of the game magically bestows experience in using it to get the game experience you want...

A new DM is learning the game, he has to learn how to run the game he wants in the same way a player has to learn how best to play his particular character and that means that some things can only be learned in actual play. IMO, the experience of seeing SoD's actual effects in gameplay (as well as on ones players) is worth much more than you give it credit for.

Also, I'm a little confused as to what "how and if other systems handle" SoD's has to do with a DM shaping his D&D game to be enjoyable for him and his players... it's kind of irrelevant since you aren't playing those games...

Ok, I´ll try it again:

Back when I started with D&D, our game was ehavily influenced by the literature we´ve read and just a bit by tv, simply because comics, cinema and most tv was quite rare and our parents where against it anyways.

SoD fit quite well into the game we used to play then because it resonated well with our preconception on how fantasy should look like (aka Leiber, Howard, Smith).

Also, when you died, you were back in the game quite quick thanks to easy and simple character generation rules.

Looking at the last Editions (meaning 3E, PF and 4E), I don´t really see the old influences again except maybe as cameo appearances and with the added komplexity of the rules, character death and the chore of charaktercreation is akin to punishment.

Add to this that newer edition charakters are generelly tougher than ever before, SoD fails even more to portrait what it is intended to.

There is a disconnect going on what make SoD so terribly deadly and what SoD should be able to portrait.

When 25 tons of evil-tempered dragon repeatedly crushed you, you´ve survived said dragons breathweapon, had your lifeforce attacked by various spells, been dipped in hell for some rounds, all that in one days work, than a death attack DC represents danger? Being brain-slurped by a mindflayer is deadly? really?

So, no, I don´t think that 3E/PF/4E SoD or SSSoD portrait anything, they come along more arbitrary than anything.
Then again, look at older edition, when getting fireballed twice could be as lethal as doing a SoD save and so on.

 

[Hussar]

This. I never understand why, just because SoD is in the game, a DM feels he has to use it. If you don'tlike that level of lethality, let your players know you won't use monsters (or you'll be modifying monsters) that have SoD abilities. What I don't like is it being removed from the game and not an option for those who do want to use it.

But, what about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to turn encounters into autokills? What about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to always have to set them up in EXACTLY the same way every time? ((going back to the statuary fetish that medusa's apparently ALL have))

SSSoD does not mean that the creatures are no longer lethal. It means that the math of the game lines up the encounter with expectations of the level of lethality of the creature.

Wicht above mentions that our 1 HD orc with +25 damage is now a CR 6 monster. But, it's not. It can't hit anything at EL 6 - it only has a +3 (or 4?) attack bonus. By 6th level, most PC's are running in the low 20's for AC's. Now, it's an insignificant speedbump and not even a threat.

That's why I call SoD bad design. Because it doesn't work. It's entirely unpredictable. How much xp should that orc be worth? How much xp should a creature that can kill you instantly be worth compared to a monster that can beat you to death?

These mechanics don't exist in a vacuum. They have effect all the way along.

And, one the 3 strikes example, I obviously disagree. Maybe football should go to one down? After all, that would be more exciting. Soccer should go to sudden death rules? One strike baseball would be incredibly boring. Much, much faster, but, snore. The whole point of tension is you need periods of build up. A little foreplay goes a long way towards a better climax.

 

[Wicht]

Wicht above mentions that our 1 HD orc with +25 damage is now a CR 6 monster. But, it's not. It can't hit anything at EL 6 - it only has a +3 (or 4?) attack bonus. By 6th level, most PC's are running in the low 20's for AC's. Now, it's an insignificant speedbump and not even a threat.

Why does your orc have a +25 damage bonus but only a +3 to hit? Something in your build is, by the rules, pretty broken. If you are building a PFRPG monster correctly, the bonus to damage has to come from somewhere. So what is your bonus to damage coming from?

I think I know the point you are trying to make, but building a monster that doesn't follow the proper rules and guidelines is a poor way to show how broken the monsters who do follow the rules and guidelines are.

 

[Wicht]

But, what about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to turn encounters into autokills?

The iconic medusa does not slowly petrify her victim. She zaps them and they are stone. My read on this is that you want the iconic monster but you don't actually want it to have its iconic power.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The iconic medusa does not slowly petrify her victim. She zaps them and they are stone. My read on this is that you want the iconic monster but you don't actually want it to have its iconic power.

Ah yes the iconic power of being defeated instantly as soon as the hero shows up, never actually being seen petrifying anyone.

 

[Hussar]

Why does your orc have a +25 damage bonus but only a +3 to hit? Something in your build is, by the rules, pretty broken. If you are building a PFRPG monster correctly, the bonus to damage has to come from somewhere. So what is your bonus to damage coming from?

I think I know the point you are trying to make, but building a monster that doesn't follow the proper rules and guidelines is a poor way to show how broken the monsters who do follow the rules and guidelines are.

But, that's exactly how a 1 hit die creature with a save or die effect is built. Of course the +25 damage is broken. That's the point. But, why is a 1 HD creature that can instantly kill you, regardless of your level or hit points not broken, but adding +25 to damage is?

So, what guidelines are there for adding SoD to a monster? How does adding SoD affect its CR? What is a reasonable baseline for determining the save DC?

That's been my point all along. SoD monsters don't follow the system for creating monsters. They are broken. SoD monsters with area of effect abilities are doubly so.

The iconic medusa does not slowly petrify her victim. She zaps them and they are stone. My read on this is that you want the iconic monster but you don't actually want it to have its iconic power.

The iconic medusa isn't a species and could fly. The iconic medusa wasn't an archer and didn't shoot arrows. Why are these things ignored? How come you get to pick and choose what is iconic and I can't.

The SSSoD medusa CAN turn things to stone, so, she still has her most iconic attack. The only difference is, it's now in keeping with the mechanics of the game.

 

[billd91]

The SSSoD medusa CAN turn things to stone, so, she still has her most iconic attack. The only difference is, it's now in keeping with the mechanics of the game.

The mechanics of the 4e game, a game quite distinct from the 1e, 2e, and 3e games which all have the medusa petrifying with a single failed save.