4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think a big part of it is that the sneak attack damage has been explicitly predicated on striking vitals through each edition up until, it seems, 4Ed.

Sacred Cow? Maybe.

But then again, I see this particular change as a scooby snack for the inner munchkin.

By that I mean that even though I dislike the change, it does make me salivate over playing a rogue in 4Ed. Its appealing. Its seductive.

But I don't think its good for the game.

 

[Campbell]

In other words, that way lies madness. Just put some brakes on the magic, or somehow wrangle out some logic as to how the fighter manages to pull off that wire fu that will float for more than someone who's not just focused on what the kewl powerz will do for their PC.

Rounser Dude,

That isn't really a fair argument to make. Being okay with martial characters performing actions that lie outside the realm of real world physics doesn't imply that a person is focused on 'what their kewl powerz can do for their PC'. Some people (namely me) simply have different aesthetic tastes. Perhaps my wahoo meter is out of whack, but I've never had any issues with warrior types in D&D performing superhuman stunts when his spellcasting comrades are raining down holy fire, raising the dead, or forcing people to do their will.

Let's face it : even without any over the top abilities high level martial characters aren't even close to being on the level of even the most elite of real world soldiers. They can face a multitude of lesser warriors without breaking a sweat. They come face to face with gargantuan monstrousities and rely on their strength of arms to take down those foul beasts. They stare down supernatural horrors.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*
Consider...

A rogue scouting for his party, rounds a corner to find a sealed door. He cautiously breaks the seal and quietly opens the door, revealing a room full of (cinematic, fast) zombies. Confronted with legions of undead beats a hasty retreat (i.e. runs, screaming like LEEEETLE GORIL) past his party who try to decipher his echoing, doppler effect shifted screams of "Run, Zombies!" as he flies by.

Classic! Archetypal! and most of all- Fun!

But, whether or not the rogue can sneak attack those zombies is irrelavent. He's still going to run like a little girl because he'd get his ass handed to him if he didn't.

Only now, when the party decides to turn and fight, he can do more than "aid another".

I agree that character's don't need to be 100% effective all the time. That's fine. However, there's a huge difference between being 100% effective and 0%. No other class is relagated to being useless in this way. It's not a case of being a bit less effective (such as fighting something with DR) or having to use different spells (high SR).

It's a case of being incapable of doing anything.

I wouldn't mind the idea that certain creatures get extra damage reduction against sneak attacks. That's fine. Or half damage. Or whatever. Reduced is fine. Reduced to zero is not.

 

[shilsen]

After hearing about 60 people groan simultaneously in disbelief as James Bond "catches up" with a falling plane that's come off the edge of a cliff in Goldeneye, I beg to differ.

And I've seen people cheer during such scenes. Taste, as I noted, is subjective.

Strict physics, yes. Narrative physics? Not really. Those wings are big. Big enough to suspend disbelief for most people except maybe an aviation engineer.

Perhaps for most people. Which goes to show, as I noted, that what is needed to achieve suspension of disbelief varies drastically between people.

Flying with no wings, or vestigial wings? You'd better have magic aplenty, buster.

You just don't like beholders and will o' wisps, do you?

I call shenanigans.

Which, of course, you are free to do.

Just because something's subjective is not carte blanche to ignore the issue just because it suits you. That's not being subjective, just wilfully ignorant.

I didn't say I ignore the issue or think one should. I just find it amusing when I see posts like yours which try to argue that their subjective tastes are somehow more accurate or laudable than others, and if I've got nothing better to do I sometimes post about it. That's all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I agree that character's don't need to be 100% effective all the time. That's fine. However, there's a huge difference between being 100% effective and 0%. No other class is relagated to being useless in this way. It's not a case of being a bit less effective (such as fighting something with DR) or having to use different spells (high SR).

It's a case of being incapable of doing anything.

That is some FINE hyperbole.

The rogue isn't reduced to zero effectiveness against undead, he's just less effective. If he has the right equipment and his wits about him, he has the potential to be just as deadly when he hits.

After all, what's to say that the rogue expecting to face corporeal undead doesn't load up with acidic or flaming grenade like weapons- with his high dex allowing him to strike where and when he wishes, he still makes a GREAT contribution in such a situation.

One could argue that a fighter without his weapons or armor is useless, but I've seen just such a case this month, and it wasn't the case. The newly naked (yes, naked) warrior charged into battle, same as always, protected by spells rather than armor...then got healed by the Cleric afterwoads...I mean, afterwards.

I've even seen wizards contribute without their spellbooks, and Barbarian diplomats.

 

[AllisterH]

I tend to side with those happy with this change of making sneak attack more "common".

My problem is, and has ALWAYS been, the tacit assumption that magic trumps all. If this is true, it should NEVER have been allowed in the hands of the players.

I mean, you as a DM have to DELIBERATELY target a wizard to nerf it (Golem, Anti-magic areas) yet even here, a smart wizard can STILL use his class powers "Summon a beast to fight the golem"/"use dispel magic on the antimagic"

Whereas just rolling randomly, you end up with creatures immune to the sneak attack ability which results in a class that pretty much can't use its class ability.

I'm not against this per se, but just how common it occurs.

 

[rounser]

You just don't like beholders and will o' wisps, do you?

Oh get off it, both are clearly magical.

(Or at the very least have a supernatural force at work on them in the case of wisps...e.g. ghosts are a good example of arguably non-magical yet supernatural).

Human fighters are neither supernatural nor magical, except in superpower games, and maybe manga universes, where supernatural martial arts forces are at play (e.g. Star Wars' "The Force").

You can take some artistic license when they're "epic" and on the road to divinity, maybe, but otherwise it's kind of stupid and against type - IMO. Unless you're aiming for an anime feel, maybe (and I don't mean that in the derogative way it's usually used on this board), where shooting fireballs out of your behind after an especially good maneuver might make sense in the context of secret supernatural martial arts of some sort.

If D&D keeps peppering the fighter with borderline supernatural powers as a matter of course, then D&D has indeed turned into a superhero game. Not so hot, IMO. YMMV.

"Oh, but that's subjective..." Yes, it is. But some opinions are more equal than others.

I didn't say I ignore the issue or think one should. I just find it amusing when I see posts like yours which try to argue that their subjective tastes are somehow more accurate or laudable than others, and if I've got nothing better to do I sometimes post about it. That's all.

And I'm just saying that you can't just discount tastes which don't match yours totally, which is what you're implying.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[rounser]

Some people (namely me) simply have different aesthetic tastes. Perhaps my wahoo meter is out of whack, but I've never had any issues with warrior types in D&D performing superhuman stunts when his spellcasting comrades are raining down holy fire, raising the dead, or forcing people to do their will.

Let's face it : even without any over the top abilities high level martial characters aren't even close to being on the level of even the most elite of real world soldiers. They can face a multitude of lesser warriors without breaking a sweat. They come face to face with gargantuan monstrousities and rely on their strength of arms to take down those foul beasts. They stare down supernatural horrors.

Yes, fantasy warriors do amazing things that wouldn't be possible in the real world, like kill dragons with a sword and shield. We suspend disbelief for that, but not Yoda-like antics without a supernatural force at play. There's only so far you can strain disbelief before it turns into a superpower game or Dragonball Z.

That's a stylistic choice that Gygax seems to think has already happened to D&D - the change from fantasy heroics to superpowered heroics. Bordering on hypocrisy, he did it with the monk, but I think the whole "mystical martial arts" thing gave him a license to do that. The fighter...well, he's not exactly mystical by default. Maybe when he's on the road to becoming a deity it makes more sense, because the "power of legends" envelopes him/her or something.

Again, we're into shades of grey. A bit of something being present doesn't necessarily mean "go crazy with it, it doesn't matter". I'm not arguing in absolutes, but it seems the people disagreeing with me are - saying that a bit of something is okay, so a lot of it is fine too. 'Taint necessarily so, it's not everyone's cup of tea to go completely wahoo, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the game robs Peter to pay Paul by doing this.

WOTC can do this, they have the power. If that's the road they're going down, then as Gygax said regarding the superpowering of D&D, "Let them play their little game."

 

[Dormammu]

If you think Rogues' inability to sneak attack things in 3E isn't fun, I feel sorry for you. I hope one day you find a DM who knows how to make the game fun for you. Many will scoff at this sentiment, but if I am wrong then it was never fun to play D&D for the past 30 years... and yet it seems as if thousands of people did have fun doing it.

The logic that is leading to this type of change is antithetical to the concept of role-playing games. RPGs are not about balance, plain and simple. That's not the goal of the game style. When you start balancing things in this way, you are building a different kind of game.

If you don't believe me, you've been missing out on something that has been magical to hundreds of thousands of gamers for decades. :\

 

[Jhulae]

If you think Rogues' inability to sneak attack things in 3E isn't fun, I feel sorry for you. I hope one day you find a DM who knows how to make the game fun for you. Many will scoff at this sentiment, but if I am wrong then it was never fun to play D&D for the past 30 years... and yet it seems as if thousands of people did have fun doing it.

Or, maybe they just didn't play rogues...