4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[haus48]

I have to admit, I do like the removal of save vs die and energy drain. I also think that the rules are going to be more balanced and overall it will be a much better game, as much as I hate to admit that.

The biggest thing I do not like it what I see as a change in the marketing and business structure of the game. 3rd edition was all about making the core books as broad as possible to oh my goodness, sell more core books. In 4th edition they are changing the business model to selling the core books and splat books to oh my goodness, sell more miniature and the digital gaming table. Why put all the spells/classes/races in the players handbook, it is nothing special in terms of the business model. They want you to keep buying miniatures (where I think we all agree the make a better profit on) and the digital initiative ($10 or so bucks a month for the digital gaming table, every DM and player will be paying monthly, if they don't buy a book after the PHB or not). I have to admit it is a great business model, but for a game I love I just got used to the freedom and individuality of having 3rd party publishers being supported by Wotc (hey they were a vital part of the business model) to the new model of being edged out of the big money pool.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's because letting your friends have a chance to shine is, apparently, "unfun."

I like this kind of "shining":
Fighter: "Wohoo! 65 points of damage against the Giant and he is tripped, get him, Stabby McStab!"
Rogue: "Haha, take this, stinking bastard of a giant! 80 points of sneak attack damage! That did it!"
Giant: "Aaargl!"

Bard: *dreamy eyes* "Okay, I have "persuaded" the princess to help our cause to drive back the Giants. But Slashy Montoya has to deal with the Kings General, he only respects strength, not charms..."
Fighter: "Okay, General Visier'ltra, this is how it is. I've already taken on two dragons and an orc tribe. So, which side do you want to be on - that of my forest elves friends, or the losing side?
...
King: "After careful deliberation with my council, I am willing to lend you 30 of my finest warriors under the lead of General Visier'ltra to aid the forest elves against the invading giant hordes."

 

[Reynard]

I am a player/GM who puts much more emphasis on role-playing than on combat as story elements, but 3e combat mechanics really eat up the time. It isn't being less than optimal in some fights that is the problem, it's being well-nigh useless for such a long period of time when the right circumstances roll around.

I understand this complaint, but I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a good solution. If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two (and those archetypes matter, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck around for so long -- and I am not referring to the 30 years of D&D). One of my key complaints with 4e is the casting of roles that are enterily mechanical, rather than having anything to do with archetypes ("The rogue? A striker, you say? Um, no.")

I don't think you are likely to see less of your average play time be combat in 4E than 3E -- probably quite the opposite since both traps and social interactions have been adjusted to be sufficiently "combat like" to qualify as such. So, it makes sense for you to think that removing any elements that might hinder your action in combat to be a good thing, as it keeps you active and playing. And in a way you are right, but only insofar as such changes are needed because the emphasis on crunchy combat goes up and up.

Rather than "fix" 3E combat by making all awesome, all the time, 4E could have fixed it so it didn't last as long (deflate hit points across the board, back to 1E levels), reduced the time needed to look up rules (put more power back in the hands of the DM), and sped up the actual process of maneuvering minis around thebattlemat (no more 10' diagonals; simplified AoOs; etc...) As it is, the "fix" is as likely to unsatisfying as the "problem" was, but it will be full of special effects and random crit-heals.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

In 1e and 2e fighters did more damage than rogues, but it was only by a few points. An average rogue with a +2 shortsword did d6+2 points of damage. The average fighter with even an 18/00 STR with a +2 longsword did only d8+8 damage (with weapon specialization). The difference in damage was only 7 points on the average.

BECMI offered much closer parity than did 1E or 2E.

We didn't feel overshadowed by the fighters, paladins and rangers because we were all in the same boat - being overshadowed by the wizards!

I did not see martial types being overshadowed by wizards in either BECMI or 2E, because of the very slow speed of leveling after 7. IME, most actual gameplay took place around levels 4-7. And most players avoided the single-classed wizard IME because of their fragility -- elven fighter/mages were a more popular choice, but would lag behind in spellcasting and would not have the HP of a straight fighter. The biggest check on wizards' domination of the game was supposed to be their high mortality rate. Starting PCs above level 1, or DMs avoiding killing PCs, would distort the picture here.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two

Giving the rogue the ability to sneak attack any kind of enemy does not make the rogue a better combatant than the fighter. The rogue is already balanced against the fighter with the assumption that sneak attack is "ON."

Classes are not balanced against the expectation of Encounter X or Encounter Y or X% of this type and Y% of that type. That's not how design works. The monsters pay a premium in terms of CR for the ability to ignore crits or sneak attacks.

The rogue does not suddenly become "broken" if the adventure includes nothing but goblins, orcs, and other soft targets that can be sneak attacked.

By extension, the rogue is not "broken" if you just give him the ability to sneak attack anything, however an individual monster's CR might be a smidge lower than reported. And by "a smidge," I mean, "Not enough to even adjust CR by 1 point."

EDIT: The limitations on sneak attack have nothing at all to do with game balance and everything to do with sacred cows left over from 1e backstab "verisimilitude."

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Reynard
Just for giggles, I counted up encounters in Forge of Fury. Of the 27 combat encounters in the adventure, 6 were with uncritible enemies. There are also 6 traps or locked doors in the adventure (I left out the yellow mold "trap" and any doors that couldn't be opened with Open Locks).

Obviously, the rogue is useless in the typical 3E adventure.

Even just taking this example.

That's about 1/4 of the encounters that the rogue cannot use his main combat ability.

26 encounters takes about 16 hours to play out. Give or take. I'm not familiar with the levels of Forge of Fury, but, 30-40 minutes per combat isn't out of line in many groups.

That's FOUR HOURS of sitting around twiddling your thumbs. Yup, you get to make that up by making 6 Disable Device checks. Woo hoo.

No other class does this. NONE. No one sits around for 4 hours during combat and cannot do anything related to their class.

As Doug Mccrae so rightly points out, it comes down to what you consider an acceptable minimum. To me, I'm far too busy to waste my time watching everyone else play for four hours. In return, I get about 20 minutes of star time.

How the heck is that a fair trade?

Oh, and by the way, it was never answered why I can sneak attack a bone devil but not a skeleton. It was waved off, but, never answered. Why do bone devils have vulnerables, but skeletons don't? Same with Chaos Beasts or gibbering mouthers.

 

[Reynard]

By extension, the rogue is not "broken" if you just give him the ability to sneak attack anything, however an individual monster's CR might be a smidge lower than reported. And by "a smidge," I mean, "Not enough to even adjust CR by 1 point."

EDIT: The limitations on sneak attack have nothing at all to do with game balance and everything to do with sacred cows left over from 1e backstab "verisimilitude."

I don't think much of "balance" between character types, but even so let's look.

5th level fighter: 18 str + greatsword + weapon spec. + power attack (2 pnts*)=2d6+12(avg 19)
5th level rogue:rapier + sneak attack (3d6)=4d6(avg 14)

Edge to the fighter.

10th level fighter: 20 str + greatsword + weapon spec + power attack (3 pnts*)=2d6+15 (avg 22)
10th level rogue: rapier + sneak attack (5d6)=6d6 (avg 21)

Dead even.

20th level fighter: 22 str + greatsword + weapon spec + gtr weapon spec + power attack (5 pnts*)=2d6+23 (avg 30)
20th level rogue: rapier + sneak attack(10d6)=11d6 (avg 38)

*the fighter is power attacking for the difference between BABs. Assuming parity in strength vs dex (finesse), this gives each an equal chance of hitting.

I left out various magics, as it is just as easy for a rogue to get a shocking burst weapon as it is a fighter. The same with ability boosters. There is a small but steady increase, then, of the rogue's "combat ability" (if we define that as the ability to deal damage) versus the fighter's.

Now, where the fighter shines is Crits. A crit doesn't appreciably increase the rogue's damage, but it has a powerful effect on the fighter's.

EDIT: I was going to make some sort of argument, but looking at the actual numbers, with the knowledge that the fighter is going to actually be power attacking for more than the values I listed, tells me that the rogue would be fine with a constant ability to sneak attack. See, thinking things through can change one's mind, even on the internet.

EDIT, the Sequel: Although, the rogue doesn't have to do anything to get this benefit. it is a class feature. The fighter has to direct at least some resources (feats) toward a damage optimization build. Hmmm...

 

[Reynard]

That's FOUR HOURS of sitting around twiddling your thumbs.

Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Even just taking this example.

That's about 1/4 of the encounters that the rogue cannot use his main combat ability.

26 encounters takes about 16 hours to play out. Give or take. I'm not familiar with the levels of Forge of Fury, but, 30-40 minutes per combat isn't out of line in many groups.

That's FOUR HOURS of sitting around twiddling your thumbs. Yup, you get to make that up by making 6 Disable Device checks. Woo hoo.

No other class does this. NONE. No one sits around for 4 hours during combat and cannot do anything related to their class.

As Doug Mccrae so rightly points out, it comes down to what you consider an acceptable minimum. To me, I'm far too busy to waste my time watching everyone else play for four hours. In return, I get about 20 minutes of star time.

How the heck is that a fair trade?

It's also important to note that it's not as if other characters will suddenly lose out and become less effective if the Rogue can sneak attack. The Fighter still deals his awesome amount of damage (and probably hits more often then the Rogue, too!).
He can still take a lot of heat. The Wizard can still dominate weak-minded monsters and blast away enemy hordes. The Cleric can still buff himself up to crush his enemies, and restore the health of his comrades.

On the contrary, the Rogue now is someone that can reliable make the life easier for Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, because he helps taking out the monsters quicker...

So, it boils down to the question: Can someone conceive sneak attack as something other than striking at vital, living organs? Can it be striking sensitive (but not always bleeding) parts, can it be a representation of the element of surprise instead?

 

[Hussar]

Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.

Yes, but, the ideas that have been discussed are either:

a) pointless - such as "Aid Another" or
b) not specific to the rogue

As such, none of them are actually anything more than bandaids and all of them are HIGHLY situationally dependent.

EDIT, the Sequel: Although, the rogue doesn't have to do anything to get this benefit. it is a class feature. The fighter has to direct at least some resources (feats) toward a damage optimization build. Hmmm...

True, but, the rogue is still balanced against that because sneak attack is not automatic. It requires either a flat footed target or flanking. Flanking means the rogue has to get in close to the opponent, which can almost always kill him in a single round.

Yes, the rogue will likely sneak attack at least once every combat, but, it's unlikely he'll sneak attack every round.

One other thing you forgot to mention is the number of attacks. The fighter is getting one more attack most of the time over the rogue. That will change the total damage numbers considerably.