D&D 4E 4e playtest report...my effort to convert our group

[gizmo33]

It was essentially a feat 'tax' you had to pay to play an effective archer. Its stupid so they got rid of it.

An effective archer, to me, is one that uses the weapon where appropriate. If anything is stupid, it's the idea that shooting into a battle between some monsters and your friend carries with it no risk of striking your friend. Though the concept of "Precise Shot", the "dire flail" of feats, is a close second.

Ok, so maybe having to think about what you're doing isn't considered "fun"? You know, it's also not fun to not be able to swing a sword at a monster that's on the other side of a 100 ft chasm. Maybe there should be a rule that let's you attack someone with a sword as long as they're within 200 ft. Or better yet, all characters should be able to fly like Peter Pan and Wish should be an encounter-level power.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

An effective archer, to me, is one that uses the weapon where appropriate. If anything is stupid, it's the idea that shooting into a battle between some monsters and your friend carries with it no risk of striking your friend. Though the concept of "Precise Shot", the "dire flail" of feats, is a close second.

Ok, so maybe having to think about what you're doing isn't considered "fun"? You know, it's also not fun to not be able to swing a sword at a monster that's on the other side of a 100 ft chasm. Maybe there should be a rule that let's you attack someone with a sword as long as they're within 200 ft. Or better yet, all characters should be able to fly like Peter Pan and Wish should be an encounter-level power.

Um, sarcasm much?

For me, it isn't fun to be forced to take certain feats to be an effective character (nor do I think it's good games design) and in the case of archers that was exactly what happened.

I'm also not keen on having to work out several different rules about cover, no matter how realistic that might be. I don't play D&D in a simulationist way anyway, so I'm much happier with "cover grants -2 to hit" and be done with it. Yeah, it'll lead to some odd looking shots on the battlefield, but it applies to everyone equally and it'll mean that more characters are tempted to have a mix of ranged and melee attacks.

Put it this way, if my 3.5e would only take a shot with his ranged attack if the target was by himself - in all other cases it made more sense to charge in and try and hit him. I'd rather play a game whereby you were making a choice each turn as to how the attack should go.

 

[gizmo33]

Um, sarcasm much?

Yea, I'm a little rusty. As I reread my post it turns out to be less informative than it was in my head.

For me, it isn't fun to be forced to take certain feats to be an effective character (nor do I think it's good games design) and in the case of archers that was exactly what happened.

It's not good games design that objects with real-world equivalences (like bow) function somewhat like their real-world counterparts? Falling into a pit and taking damage probably isn't fun. Do think they'll scrap this whole "gravity" thing in DnD as being too simulationist? What about a game that divides the field of combat into little 5' squares and makes you count out each of your moves? What about having a character keep track of objects that they discover in the game? And pay for equipment with imaginary money? And what about when I kill a monster in a room, and then leave the room and re-enter the room and the monster is still dead? Is all that simulationist?

But somehow it's the cover rules that are complicating things.

My best guess of what I've read so far is that people played an archer character and the DM sticks them in dungeon adventures in narrow passageways and they're not having any fun. Sort of like they wouldn't have any fun by trying to be a Tarzan-like character in full plate armor, except rather than acknowledge the foolishness of the concept we instead blame the game system.

Put it this way, if my 3.5e would only take a shot with his ranged attack if the target was by himself - in all other cases it made more sense to charge in and try and hit him. I'd rather play a game whereby you were making a choice each turn as to how the attack should go.

Making a choice based on a list of completely implausible options? What about the choice to pluck a blade of grass and impale your foe with it? Why does the game penalize "improvised" weapons? That's too simulationist too. I mean, jeez, do people need a PhD in medieval technology just to understand why a lawn-chair is a worse attack option than a spear? The DM should just tell me I kill the monster and be done with it - insisting on some sort of realistic exchange of round-to-round combat is tedious. My character should just be bathed in a swirl of pretty colors and then handed 500 xp.

 

[Dragonblade]

If anything is stupid, it's the idea that shooting into a battle between some monsters and your friend carries with it no risk of striking your friend.

I think there was an assumption that every PC archer would take the feat, and thus they just saved us the trouble and "built" it into the class by default.

Of course some might bring up the argument, "but I want to play an inept archer!" And you're right, 4e D&D does assume all PC's all start with a certain heroic level of competence. Much more so than in prior editions.

And I'm fully on board with that.

But I could see how some fans with simulationist leanings might not like that.

 

[hong]

My best guess of what I've read so far is that people played an archer character and the DM sticks them in dungeon adventures in narrow passageways and they're not having any fun.

It's good to know that dungeons are foolish.

Making a choice based on a list of completely implausible options? What about the choice to pluck a blade of grass and impale your foe with it?

That would be AWESOME.

 

[hong]

An effective archer, to me, is one that uses the weapon where appropriate.

IOW, only in the vicinity of people with red circles around their feet. Using it in the vicinity of people with blue circles around their feet is RIGHT OUT.

 

[Connorsrpg]

@ Dragonblade: I am completely with you on Presice Shot Please read each post. The feat did not make sense to me at all, let alone this competence thing and all we want now are bonuses.

My problem is with COVER. If something is in the road, it makes your shot harder, clear and simple. Now we have to distinguish b/w allies and enemies. If an ally is in the road then they are obscuring your shot...

I have given egs, etc and yet people keep coming back to precise shot. Arrgh. So did every archer take Co-ordinated shot? No. I suggest this is a good use of a feat. I mean the penalty for cover is way down anyway. I just hate this, make it more fun, remove all penalties, etc. There are just so many situations where this change of cover makes no sense at all.

One more: dwarven crossbowman standing behind several of his fellows attacking kobolds (all on the other side of the dwarves). What if there are several rows of dwarves? This has huge consequences for big fights, esp in confined areas...and again totally screws any thoughts on party order
C

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

@ Gizmo33

You appear to be deliberately over-blowing the situation and taking my responses out of all proportion.

The reason I like the new rules is this:

In 3.x D&D, archers were obliged to take certain feats to be effective or indeed viable at all. The cover rules don't come into it - my objection is that characters were more or less forced to take these feats otherwise there was little point in playing them. The cover rules lead to over-complication, slowed down the game and lead to a lot of discussion around the table about who was and wasn't in cover, how much, and so forth.

In 4e, as I understand it, you're in cover, or you're not. If you are, -2 to hit, if not, fine. The cover rules are simple, effective and clear (at the moment - I'm sure it'll all get more complicated when the Rules forum gets hold of it). I like them, they promote a fun and quick combat system. They're not realistic, but I don't play D&D for realism - if you do, then we're never going to agree and that's fine.

As for your other examples - I have no response to that since it seems to have no resemblance to anything we've seen in any preview, nor in any game I've ever played.

My character should just be bathed in a swirl of pretty colors and then handed 500 xp.

So long as the pretty colours include purple, I'm all up for that.

 

[gizmo33]

You appear to be deliberately over-blowing the situation and taking my responses out of all proportion.

Your judgements about my motives are probably not any more accurate than your understanding of my arguments. I really hope that you'll take my comments as a good faith effort to discuss this situation. I have nothing to gain from convincing you of anything that's worth not being honest about what I think the comparisons are.

In 3.x D&D, archers were obliged to take certain feats to be effective or indeed viable at all.

I find the "viable at all" thing to be an extreme exaggeration that misses the point of what a bow does as a tool. It's like me complaining that I can't take my horse into a dungeon of 5 ft high passageways. Horses aren't effective in places like that - doesn't mean that throughout history cavalry has not been "viable at all". Bows aren't used to shoot at people in melee combat with your allies unless you don't care about hitting your allies.

Now maybe somebody in some movie somewhere shot at someone in combat with their friend and managed to hit the enemy. Well good for them, the tension of that scene in the movie was probably dependant on the observers momentary concern that the archer could hit his friend. Of course now remove that tension from the game since you just get a -2.

They're not realistic, but I don't play D&D for realism - if you do, then we're never going to agree and that's fine.

So, in your campaign, people take their horses into passageways that are 5 ft high? Just because they took a bunch of mounted combat feats and and it "wouldn't be fun" otherwise? IMO - having to keep track of every copper piece spent, etc. is one thing, but this pendulum swing to barely having a grasp of the real-world issues and mechanics that apply to a game element strikes me as an uncomfortable omission.

I understand that going too far in the other direction bogs down the game for no purpose. Nobody that plays DnD using the hitpoints mechanic can be accused of being a 100% simulationist. It's possible to come up with rules that are a good approximation of something realistic while at the same time being easy to use. At least IMO the designers should try.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Your judgements about my motives are probably not any more accurate than your understanding of my arguments. I really hope that you'll take my comments as a good faith effort to discuss this situation. I have nothing to gain from convincing you of anything that's worth not being honest about what I think the comparisons are.



I find the "viable at all" thing to be an extreme exaggeration that misses the point of what a bow does as a tool. It's like me complaining that I can't take my horse into a dungeon of 5 ft high passageways.

Horses aren't effective in places like that - doesn't mean that throughout history cavalry has not been "viable at all". Bows aren't used to shoot at people in melee combat with your allies unless you don't care about hitting your allies.

We're talking about melees that give everyone 5 ft of room to freely maneuver. There should be some space left for an arrow...

Now maybe somebody in some movie somewhere shot at someone in combat with their friend and managed to hit the enemy. Well good for them, the tension of that scene in the movie was probably dependant on the observers momentary concern that the archer could hit his friend. Of course now remove that tension from the game since you just get a -2.

If archer characters would only occassionally fire into melee the tension is fine. If they do it a lot, it sucks. No, I am not saying it's realistic, but I am saying it is one of the archetypes that just feels to natural to be intentionally hosed by rules for sake of versimilidingenskirchenteil.