Why I'm done with 4e

[Imaro]

Not on its own, but combined with the rest of the system you get something that makes it pretty easy for the DM to come up with ad-hoc rulings.

Maybe I'm weird but I don't find it any easier or harder to come up with ad-hoc rulings in 3e or 4e, so again not seeing what the great improvement is. If anything 4e's focus on balance has made me much more wary about rulings.

 

[SSquirrel]

I've had stunt rulings in prior editions where the DM gave far too much (or too little) damage for what we all felt was appropriate. Page 42 gives a handy guideline for that damage. It also gives the encouragement to fudge things a bit and not keep everything rigid, which is one of the things a DMG should do. Advice on running the game.

Imaro>You are an experienced gamer tho. There are people that 4E will be their first game. Having a page like Pg 42 will add a lot to their starting view and give them a firmer base to stand on when making those rulings. I can only see this as a good thing. There are plenty of things that are in a RPG that someone will always say isn't needed b/c "anyone can just make that up", but that isn't the point. Either a)you shouldn't have to make it up or b)there should be guidelines to help you make it up in a fair and balanced fashion. 4E goes for B.

 

[LostSoul]

Maybe I'm weird but I don't find it any easier or harder to come up with ad-hoc rulings in 3e or 4e, so again not seeing what the great improvement is. If anything 4e's focus on balance has made me much more wary about rulings.

Let's say that my action is to throw a curtain over a cultist so he can't see when I stab him in the kidney. In 4E I make an attack roll, probably Dex vs. Ref (Ref because I'm the DM and I decide that he tries to duck out of the way).

Right there I know the math more-or-less lines up; the PC has a decent chance of scoring a hit, but it's not a given; the better the monster is, the worse the chance of success, and quicker monsters have a better chance of avoiding the attack than a big brute.

In earlier versions: Save vs. Petrification? To hit vs. AC? What AC? Any proficiency/non-proficiency bonuses or penalties? AoO, if that misses, melee touch attack using Dex instead of Str, then a Reflex save? Just a Reflex save? What's the DC? Or no Reflex save at all?

If I pick any one of these, how will the math work out? I'm not sure. It doesn't scale by level as well.

 

[Imaro]

I've had stunt rulings in prior editions where the DM gave far too much (or too little) damage for what we all felt was appropriate. Page 42 gives a handy guideline for that damage. It also gives the encouragement to fudge things a bit and not keep everything rigid, which is one of the things a DMG should do. Advice on running the game.

Imaro>You are an experienced gamer tho. There are people that 4E will be their first game. Having a page like Pg 42 will add a lot to their starting view and give them a firmer base to stand on when making those rulings. I can only see this as a good thing. There are plenty of things that are in a RPG that someone will always say isn't needed b/c "anyone can just make that up", but that isn't the point. Either a)you shouldn't have to make it up or b)there should be guidelines to help you make it up in a fair and balanced fashion. 4E goes for B.

I'm not arguing it isn't needed... I'm arguing pg. 42 is often given way too much hype (mostly by experienced gamers) for what it actually gives guidelines for. Again... no guidelines for any type of conditions or effects besides damage

 

[Imaro]

Let's say that my action is to throw a curtain over a cultist so he can't see when I stab him in the kidney. In 4E I make an attack roll, probably Dex vs. Ref (Ref because I'm the DM and I decide that he tries to duck out of the way).

Right there I know the math more-or-less lines up; the PC has a decent chance of scoring a hit, but it's not a given; the better the monster is, the worse the chance of success, and quicker monsters have a better chance of avoiding the attack than a big brute.

In earlier versions: Save vs. Petrification? To hit vs. AC? What AC? Any proficiency/non-proficiency bonuses or penalties? AoO, if that misses, melee touch attack using Dex instead of Str, then a Reflex save? Just a Reflex save? What's the DC? Or no Reflex save at all?

If I pick any one of these, how will the math work out? I'm not sure. It doesn't scale by level as well.

Uhm how about Dex check vs. Touch AC? I think a better question is... what does the success of this action mean in mechanical terms, IMHO that's the question that really needs support.

 

[LostSoul]

Uhm how about Dex check vs. Touch AC? I think a better question is... what does the success of this action mean in mechanical terms, IMHO that's the question that really needs support.

Ah, I see. Yeah, our opinions differ; I think the mechanical impact of the action should be pretty obvious by the player's description of the action. That's the same as any previous edition, or many other games for that matter.

 

[BryonD]

Right there I know the math more-or-less lines up; the PC has a decent chance of scoring a hit, but it's not a given; the better the monster is, the worse the chance of success, and quicker monsters have a better chance of avoiding the attack than a big brute.

In earlier versions: Save vs. Petrification? To hit vs. AC? What AC? Any proficiency/non-proficiency bonuses or penalties? AoO, if that misses, melee touch attack using Dex instead of Str, then a Reflex save? Just a Reflex save? What's the DC? Or no Reflex save at all?

If I pick any one of these, how will the math work out? I'm not sure. It doesn't scale by level as well.

You like the fact that in 4E it is more homogeneous.

 

[Imaro]

Ah, I see. Yeah, our opinions differ; I think the mechanical impact of the action should be pretty obvious by the player's description of the action. That's the same as any previous edition, or many other games for that matter.

Why doesn't this same logic apply to discerning how the action should be represented mechanically in the game?

Edit: Or perhaps a better way to phrase this is why does the math matter in performing the action... but not in discerning results?

 

[Derren]

Ah, I see. Yeah, our opinions differ; I think the mechanical impact of the action should be pretty obvious by the player's description of the action. That's the same as any previous edition, or many other games for that matter.

How so? In 4E the impact of the players action is limited by preserving the balance of the combat. That can lead to player actions having less/a different effect than it normally should have, as it having the logical effect would be unbalanced.

 

[SSquirrel]

I'm not arguing it isn't needed... I'm arguing pg. 42 is often given way too much hype (mostly by experienced gamers) for what it actually gives guidelines for. Again... no guidelines for any type of conditions or effects besides damage

Success vs failure and how to adjudicate it is what the entire left side of the page is about. The right side of the page is what deals with damage. Guidelines for success and failure is sometimes the only condition I need. This page gives some good basic information to the DM and also gives some rough damage figures for non-standard damaging moves. The page itself gives guidelines for

"A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them intentionally aren’t covered in the Player’s Handbook—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater."

The page also goes on to list when to make things an attack roll and when to make it a skill check, as well as saying context can allow an easy +2/-2 to a situation to help show if it should happen more easily or not. This page is given a lot of credit b/c it can be bent into many different things. It is definitely NOT just about damage.