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

[Mathew_Freeman]

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.

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.

For me the game is about fun, period.

Riding a horse into a 5 foot high corridor is obviously wrong and can't be done. It's also uninteresting. However, playing an archer that moves swiftly around the battlefield, taking his shots and helping out his friends with great marksmanship, is fun, to me. Therefore, I support a game that allows me to do that.

D&D combat is such an abstraction that the idea of whether or not you can fire into melee, and what penalty you'd get for it is just a matter of where the designers choose to draw the line. I'm happy wtih a flat -2 penalty because I'm strongly gamist.

I'm not fussed about what the bow can do as a tool. I'm fussed about what a boy can do as a tool that also works well in-game. I put "the fun of playing the game" over "the realism of the rules", and it appears from your comments that you are of the opposite opinion - that the rules of the game should reflect the reality of the situation. I have absolutely no problem with that, but it appears that D&D 4e aims more towards the gamist viewpoint.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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.

4e is basically an action movie. When did Legolas ever shoot Aragorn in the rump?

It's not stupid; it's stylistic. DnD does not mimic reality in any many appreciable fashion, nor does it attempt to. A rule has been change to better suit the genre's style. That does not remove risk or challenge from the game.

 

[gizmo33]

Riding a horse into a 5 foot high corridor is obviously wrong and can't be done. It's also uninteresting. However, playing an archer that moves swiftly around the battlefield, taking his shots and helping out his friends with great marksmanship, is fun, to me. Therefore, I support a game that allows me to do that.

What "great marksmanship"? Even a complete idiot can fire into a crowd of people at his enemy and be assured that he never hits anything other than his intended target or empty space. So at what point would the rules really be "allowing you" to do what you describe. IMO it seems like it would only maintain that illusion for as long as the player failed to grasp the real mechanics.

I put "the fun of playing the game" over "the realism of the rules", and it appears from your comments that you are of the opposite opinion - that the rules of the game should reflect the reality of the situation. I have absolutely no problem with that, but it appears that D&D 4e aims more towards the gamist viewpoint.

Well I'm really just saying that I think some effort should be made to come up with a playable rule that also makes shooting into a crowd of your friends something non-trivial. Your assuming, AFAICT, that a rule that covers this situation would necessarily be unfun/unplayable.

 

[gizmo33]

4e is basically an action movie. When did Legolas ever shoot Aragorn in the rump?

When did Legolas do or accomplish *anything* except that which the author intended? Some of this comes down to some uncertaintly on my part about to what extent "gamist" just means telling the players a story. Legolas never fell into a pit and took damage either unless the pit were specifically part of the scenario. This would mean, at first glance, that all pit rules should be changed so that there are "plot pits" and all other pits are automatically avoided.

It's not stupid; it's stylistic. DnD does not mimic reality in any many appreciable fashion, nor does it attempt to. A rule has been change to better suit the genre's style. That does not remove risk or challenge from the game.

I think it depends on what you mean by "DnD" (this somewhat hypothetical gamist 4E version, or every other prior version) and to what extent you want to mimic reality. As I said in a previous post, my character (at least in all prior editions of DnD before this "gamist" business came up) does not walk into a room, move around the objects in the room, leave, and come back and find all the objects restored to their original location simply because the DM doesn't feel like doing the leg-work and recordkeeping necessary to simulate a realistic environment.

The problem with the movie analogy used to justify the "gamist" playing style is that IMO the role that the character plays in the movie has virtually nothing to do with the role that the player plays in the game. And the role of the player vs. that of the audience is also substantially different. Players are going to interact with objects, and have a certain expectation for versimiltude.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Hmmm. But again, to me it removes a LOT of fun too.

I have already given egs above (that none have covered... get it covered). Ok I am out.

 

[DeusExMachina]

In 3.5e we had rules for a while that if you missed the enemy by only a small margin while shooting into combat you might hit your ally (roll a new attack roll on your ally, etc). This was fine the first time it came around. However the rule got problematic when I critted with a composite longbow with a high pull...
I find that almost nothing creates party dissention (in game and more importantly out of game) like one player accidently killing another's character...

I for one am grateful that these rules are not present and that there is no longer a need for precise shot. No, it's not very realistic, but in my opinion way more fun to play...

 

[Connorsrpg]

Hmmm. To reiterate. My problem is not with Prescise Shot...it is entirely with the new cover rules.

Imposing a -5 attack for shooting into melee made no sense anyway, as I stated several posts ago.