Why I'm done with 4e

[Pbartender]

So what other EFFECTS besides damage does it give guidelines for?

So, I was just thinking, Imaro...

There was recently a preview article for the DMG II that had stats for a Chandelier that could be cut loose to drop on enemies... Effectively a single-use stunt-trap that damages enemies beneath it and creates a zone of difficult terrain.

I wonder if they'll include something similar to what you're asking for in the DMG II... Either guidelines for using conditions as a part of stunts, or a long list of examples that use them.

 

[MerricB]

I'm not a huge fan of the flat out "no" response. I would much prefer dismal odds for success that could result in an incredible memorable moment if it somehow succeeds. Just be careful and don't push the odds to a million-to one or such stunts will be pulled off 9 times out of ten.

One of my least favourite parts of 3e was that "everything could be destroyed". Yes, every door and wall had an AC, hardness and hit points. Yes, occasionally designers put the hardness of the door up a bit, but often that did nothing about tricked-out characters (esp. with adamantium weapons, but often they didn't even need those).

There are times when the DM needs to be able to say "no!"

(Thoughts of Brian throwing pebbles at a demon in KotDT...)

If something is inventive, why, certainly - they can try and I'll say yes. However, not every action must be possible.

Cheers!

 

[Imaro]

You seem to be expecting to find a table in the DMG that says "Blindness DC15 Deafness DC17" etc. I look at page 42 and I think "Hey, I want to take that bowl full of salt and throw it in the bully's eyes to blind him, how hard would that be?" "Uhm...he's kinda drunk right now so his reaction time is a lot worse, we'll call it moderate, DC 17, roll 'em".

The table on page 42 adjudicates whatever you really feel it needs to. If I throw salt in someone's eyes, that doesn't mean I'm automatically looking out to the side and then rolling 3d8+4 for damage as well. If I was using a makeshift weapon to attack him then that is probably when I would be looking at the damage column.

No, what I'm looking for is guidance on determining the severity of conditions in relation to the appropriate DC's. The funny thing is that 4e's conditions are quantified and limited this shouldn't be that hard for the designers to do...

Perhaps something like a three tiered system where you have low/moderate and high conditions to inflict... then one could even combine them with damage so that doing a low conditon + low damage is a moderate DC but doing a medium condition + low damage is a Hard DC or something like that... I think I'm gonna work on this some more, I'll post what I come up with later.

 

[Pbartender]

One of my least favourite parts of 3e was that "everything could be destroyed". Yes, every door and wall had an AC, hardness and hit points. Yes, occasionally designers put the hardness of the door up a bit, but often that did nothing about tricked-out characters (esp. with adamantium weapons, but often they didn't even need those).

There are times when the DM needs to be able to say "no!"

Adamantine spoons.

 

[D'karr]

No, what I'm looking for is guidance on determining the severity of conditions in relation to the appropriate DC's. The funny thing is that 4e's conditions are quantified and limited this shouldn't be that hard for the designers to do...

Perhaps something like a three tiered system where you have low/moderate and high conditions to inflict... then one could even combine them with damage so that doing a low conditon + low damage is a moderate DC but doing a medium condition + low damage is a Hard DC or something like that... I think I'm gonna work on this some more, I'll post what I come up with later.

This is exactly the type of stuff that I want the designers to stay out of. As soon as some designer puts an "official" table in a book they begin to handcuff the DM. That is one of the main reasons I hated DCs for specific effects of skills in 3e. A DC15 to tumble away from an opponent without provoking? A DC 25 to tumble through the opponents square? Shouldn't the skill of the opponent count for something?

I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not. A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an "in stone" chance removes the freedom the DM currently has.

If a player wants to attempt to blind the ogre, the DM currently can decide if it is doable or not. As soon as a table gets put in the book then the DM starts to become beholden to the book.

Page 42 gives some good guidelines, an example, and then provides a scalable table for the stuff that mechanically is more difficult to adjudicate (damage). The effects are left entirely up to the DM.

The DM can already use the existing powers to determine what a stunt should be able to do and how feasible it is. You attempt to push an opponent 1 square, look at Tide of Iron. You attempt to push multiple opponent, look at Thunder Wave. As the DM becomes more experienced he doesn't have to rely on looking at existing powers anymore. He will have a better feel for his game.

And that is where these things should stay, within the purview of each individual DM.

Each effect already has a description that gives the DM a pretty good idea of how "powerful" a specific effect can be. Restrained is more powerful than immobilized, Stunned is more powerful than Dazed, etc. So with that the DM can make some pretty accurate ad-hoc judgements.

I'm glad 4e got away from spelling everything out for the DM. I hope it stays that way.

 

[Greg K]

My preference would be to see something like the Book of Iron Might maneuver system with attack modifiers comprised of maneuver penalties when attempting to pull off attacks for certain effects (e.g, blind, daze, shift an opponent) and maneuver restrictions (e.g, target gets a save, opposed abiity check, effect only, etc.) that reduce the penalties. If the final penalty resutls in the character needing a natural 20 to hit, they can't attempt the maneuver.


This gives the DM a system to work with, but still leaves the DM to determine which maneuver elements are involved. The use of modifiers to attack rolls also means that the relative skill of the opponents (and armor if appropriate) is the factor rather than a set DC

 

[Imaro]

This is exactly the type of stuff that I want the designers to stay out of. As soon as some designer puts an "official" table in a book they begin to handcuff the DM. That is one of the main reasons I hated DCs for specific effects of skills in 3e. A DC15 to tumble away from an opponent without provoking? A DC 25 to tumble through the opponents square? Shouldn't the skill of the opponent count for something?

I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not. A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an "in stone" chance removes the freedom the DM currently has.

If a player wants to attempt to blind the ogre, the DM currently can decide if it is doable or not. As soon as a table gets put in the book then the DM starts to become beholden to the book.

Page 42 gives some good guidelines, an example, and then provides a scalable table for the stuff that mechanically is more difficult to adjudicate (damage). The effects are left entirely up to the DM.

The DM can already use the existing powers to determine what a stunt should be able to do and how feasible it is. You attempt to push an opponent 1 square, look at Tide of Iron. You attempt to push multiple opponent, look at Thunder Wave. As the DM becomes more experienced he doesn't have to rely on looking at existing powers anymore. He will have a better feel for his game.

And that is where these things should stay, within the purview of each individual DM.

Each effect already has a description that gives the DM a pretty good idea of how "powerful" a specific effect can be. Restrained is more powerful than immobilized, Stunned is more powerful than Dazed, etc. So with that the DM can make some pretty accurate ad-hoc judgements.

I'm glad 4e got away from spelling everything out for the DM. I hope it stays that way.

Your argument makes no sense... The DM always decides if something is doable or not. You seem to be saying that the DM should be forced to scrounge through pages of powers to get a reference for adjudicating effects... but that a concise table that gives him guidelines for this is somehow bad? Any DM can change the rules and nothing in the books makes one beholden to them. All you're doing is saying searching for the guidelines in a roundabout way as opposed to them just being presented is better...because... it's better that way...

Taking this reasoning even further, all the DM had to do was look at different powers or monsters to determine ad-hoc damage... I mean we already know that 1d10 dmg is more than 1d8 dmg is more than 1d6 dmg, so with that we should be able to make some pretty accurate ad-hoc judgements...

In the end, what I'm suggesting would be beneficial to people who want to use it and easily ignorable (as many say their players choose to do with pg. 42 anyway). If you feel that the book controls the DM... well that seems more a problem with the DM.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not. A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an "in stone" chance removes the freedom the DM currently has.

I agree with you, although I don't think anyone's suggesting that the DMG should indicate what condition to inflict as a function of what action the player narrates. What could be useful is guidelines indicating how "powerful" dazes are compared to pushes, to help the DM decide what a "balanced" condition or effect would be for a stunt. Then again, I am not sure that such a guideline or table is possible. I would agree that in this case too the DM needs to provide judgement. After all, this is the part of the game where the players can exercise creativity, and codified rules would only stifle them.

 

[GnomeWorks]

However, not every action must be possible.

This statement makes me real twitchy.

The moment a game or DM tells me that I cannot do something that would be completely and utterly reasonable to attempt in real life (and digging through a wall with a weapon - while difficult and time-consuming - would count, IMO), is the moment my suspension of disbelief goes out the window.

 

[Jack99]

This statement makes me real twitchy.

The moment a game or DM tells me that I cannot do something that would be completely and utterly reasonable to attempt in real life (and digging through a wall with a weapon - while difficult and time-consuming - would count, IMO), is the moment my suspension of disbelief goes out the window.

Are you saying that you have often smashed through stell doors using your adamantine weapons? Or know of other people who have done just that in real life?