4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Gargoyle]

"Yeaahhh!!! My rogue just sneak attacked the fire elemental and did triple damage. I swung my dagger so fast behind his back that I snuffed him out!! Huzzah!!"

"Wow! I just finished off the stone golem by striking its vitals. Fighter, I know that you were hitting it all over and made some great hits but you just didn't stick you sword between chunk of stone A and chunk of stone B. Right these is where is wee little golem heart was. What? You didn't know golems had hearts....well neither did I until 4e told me they do. Silly me, in 3e I thought the darn things were made of solid stone."

"Waahooo! I just killed that ooze with my shortsword with a quick thrust to its barely noticable neural ganglia located in this undefinable, shapeless glop of ooze right here. We rogues have studied the anatomies of every single creature you are ever going to encounter. This allows us to know where to srike every time."




This makes baby jeebus...who cares about versimilitude....cry.

If a PC can't hack every single creature up with his special powers...we'll the game just aint worth playing. Well I think that the game isn't fun unless my fighter can shoot fire from his fingertips as a class ability or unless my cleric can shapechange like a druid. Why should I be penalized for my character concept bah? blah, blah.



Wyrmshadows

So hitting a walking stone statue with a sword is going to kill it? I'd say that's pretty unrealistic too, but neither of us seems to have a problem with that.

The thing is, we are already suspending our disbelief. Letting sneak attack affect constructs just takes D&D combat a little farther into fantasy. Some people don't have a problem with it, but some will.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Which customers? While there's a lot of "hey, that's a good idea!" going on, there wasn't much in the way of clamoring for these changes. WotC isn't listening to customers so much as seeking new customers. Whether that will ultimately work out for them is up the air, and will be until 4E hits.

I heard this clamoring all over the place when I ran games. Sure, I didn't see threads dedicated to "We MUST change this or the game is no good." However, if i asked all the people I know who play what they would change if they could change the game any way they wanted to, almost all of these things would be on their list.

If I was going to list all of the parts of the game where it became tedious rather than fun it would be:
-When my attacks are completely useless against an enemy or I feel like my character isn't having an effect on the combat
-When my character is forced to do nothing for most of a combat due to an effect
-When I lose a level
-When I lose a magic item
-When I die way quicker than I expect to because of negative levels, ability drain, or save or die(I like to play the game with a lot of strategy and that is bypassed by these abilities)
-We have to use real world knowledge in order to get to the end of an adventure

Most of this is fixed by 4th Ed.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

So hitting a walking stone statue with a sword is going to kill it? I'd say that's pretty unrealistic too, but neither of us seems to have a problem with that.

The thing is, we are already suspending our disbelief. Letting sneak attack affect constructs just takes D&D combat a little farther into fantasy. Some people don't have a problem with it, but some will.

Magical weapons provide the suspension of disbelief required to allow for a sword to cleave into a stone golem. In fantasy fiction enchanted blades are described as supremely sharp and capable of cutting into damn near anything. Its not the skill of the wielder that makes a sword cut through stone, it is the wielders skill combined with the enchanted nature of the weapon.

All good fantasy has the quality of internal consistancy with a nod to the believable within the context of the millieu. Humans have two arms and two legs, the world revolves around the sun, green plants need water and sun to survive, animals eat other animals to stay alive, etc. In other words a baseline realism that allows for the suspension of disbelief required for immersion in the game. Some of this "reality" can be altered due to magic but there is the key, the internal consistancy is maintained by invoking that which can supercede the normal laws of reality ie. magic.

There is nothing inherently magical about a rogue's sneak attack that would allow him to score more damage than a warrior striking the same golem, elemental, ooze, etc. The decision to allow rogues to sneak attack everything is nothing more than another indicator that D&D, though never known for its intense realism, is becoming a game that is more and more a Medieval Supers Boardgame of Tactical Combat (tm) where unless everyone gets to be badass all the time, the game is unfun.

I think this philosophy is designed to take the sting out of the consequences of choices a player makes in regards to his or her character. IMO this is an attempt to allow those who were weaned on videogames to play D&D and feel that there are no real consequences to their in game choices. In a videogame you can always start again at the last checkpoint/save point and things like versimilitude mean absolutely nothing. Does anyone really look for versimilitude when the play WoW? I have never seen anyone raise such a concern.

I was very enthusiastic about 4e and still like a lot of what I have seen. However, I am having grave doubts about some of the design philosophy behind the game that makes it seem that versimilitude is worthless and ruins everyone's fun. For 22yrs as a DM versimilitude added to the depth of the game and though there were chellenges that come PCs couldn't overcome merely with wicked cool powers, and they were forced to think outside the box, ultimately the campaigns seemed real and were a great deal of fun for all involved.

I still remember a situation in my 2e campaign when the party encountered a dragon who, with their resources too low to overcome it with sheer might, they were able to escape by collapsing the mouth of the cavern. Collapsing the cavern trapped the creature long enough to make a hasty retreat. Two of my friends still talk about that encounter and how powerless they were against the creature and of their pride in ultimately surviving the battle by using their wits.

This is IMO a lot of what the adventure of D&D is supposed to be about. Of course that encounter required on-the-fly adjudication on my part but IMO ultimately everything possible cannot and should not be covered in some rule. The DM is more than just a rule arbitrating CPU whose sole function is to interpret RAW though YMMV.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Reynard]

Reynard,

I agree that all characters should occasionally face enemies that take them out of their element and force them to use unconvential tactics. However, 3rd Edition rogues didn't face creatures that were immune to sneak attack occasionally. It was a regular occurance.

What's a "regular occurance" versus "occassionally"? In official modules? Dungeon magazine adventures? Homebrew adventures? Are we talking about WotC or individual DMs?

In any case, the issue of the rogue sneak attack isn't really my point. My point is that players like Doug who can't figure out what to do after using the best ability, or when their best ability isn't working out during a particular fight/scene, are the ones driving the game design. If Doug and players like him aren't having fun, then the game as it is must be "unfun" and therefore must be changed to make sure everyone has as much fun as possible, all the time, continuously and without interruption.

It is not a design philosophy I agree with because it is not a playstyle I agree with. Hell, I don't even agree there's a problem, let alone that there's an issue of "unfun" at stake.

If you don't like having your special powers limited by circumstance, don't play a rogue. If you don't like having to actually think about allocation of resources over the long term (i.e. a day) don't play a wizard. if you don't like having to support your teammates with buffing and healing, don't play a cleric.

Instead, we'll just remove all the problematic elements of the game. For Doug.*

*I'm not really picking on you, Doug -- I am just using you as an example.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This is IMO a lot of what the adventure of D&D is supposed to be about. Of course that encounter required on-the-fly adjudication on my part but IMO ultimately everything possible cannot and should not be covered in some rule. The DM is more than just a rule arbitrating CPU whose sole function is to interpret RAW though YMMV.

This is exactly what I don't like in a game. I like being able to use strategy to win. Strategy requires that I know the relative merits of every action I take.

If I know that I do more damage when flanking, it lets me choose between moving to a flanking position and attacking from where I am. I might be able to hit the monster immediately this round or for more damage next. However, I might risk attacks of opportunity or being trapped behind the monster when my allies decide to flee. I might be too far away from the cleric to get healing if I take a big hit. All of those things I know because the rules tell me that's how it works.

If I am fighting a monster that due to every rule in the book I cannot reasonably expect to beat all it does is make me want to run away and wonder why a DM would use a monster that we were unable to defeat. Either that, or if I know my DM is one who uses on the fly adjudication then I start guessing randomly at things the DM might accept as an answer:

Me: "I run underneath the dragon to a position where he can't hit me and attack his soft underbelly. That should ignore his DR."
DM: "No, you can't end your movement in an enemies square, sorry."
Me: "Damn, we're using that rule? Ok. I shoot arrows at the ceiling above its head. Does that cause rocks to collapse on him?"
DM: "No, arrows don't do anything but chip the rocks."
Me: "Ok, I'm beginning to get it. *I* cannot defeat this monster, apparently the DM expects the wizard to fireball the ceiling to cause a collapse so we can beat it. I'll delay until after the wizard tries that. Until then, I'll be reading my novel and waiting until I can do something."

Frankly, it's no fun to be useless or to be at the whim of the DM as to what will work and what won't.

 

[Hussar]

What's a "regular occurance" versus "occassionally"? In official modules? Dungeon magazine adventures? Homebrew adventures? Are we talking about WotC or individual DMs?

In any case, the issue of the rogue sneak attack isn't really my point. My point is that players like Doug who can't figure out what to do after using the best ability, or when their best ability isn't working out during a particular fight/scene, are the ones driving the game design. If Doug and players like him aren't having fun, then the game as it is must be "unfun" and therefore must be changed to make sure everyone has as much fun as possible, all the time, continuously and without interruption.

It is not a design philosophy I agree with because it is not a playstyle I agree with. Hell, I don't even agree there's a problem, let alone that there's an issue of "unfun" at stake.

If you don't like having your special powers limited by circumstance, don't play a rogue. If you don't like having to actually think about allocation of resources over the long term (i.e. a day) don't play a wizard. if you don't like having to support your teammates with buffing and healing, don't play a cleric.

Instead, we'll just remove all the problematic elements of the game. For Doug.*

*I'm not really picking on you, Doug -- I am just using you as an example.

Well, a regular occurance would mean, to me, fairly common monsters that see play in adventures. I'm thinking that undead certainly fit that bill. Elementals are pretty high up there. Constructs are also making appearances in many, many adventures.

Put it another way. Putting a rogue in the party means that you cannot do tomb raiding. What's the point of having a rogue if Tome Raider is not on the list? Sure, the rogue sorts out the traps, but, that's one die roll (or maybe a couple) and 20 seconds of game time. I watched our last adventure, which was a tomb raid, and the rogue sat around for THREE SESSIONS. And, that's not unrealistic. Pick any tomb raiding sort of adventure and you should be seeing lots of constructs and undead.

Woo hoo, my rogue gets to sit around with his thumb up his bum. Oh, I can give someone else a whopping +2 to hit. Yay me. Gimme a break.

Even the wizard, facing constructs, is not totally nerfed. He can buff, he can use non-SR spells. Bang, he's back in the game. No matter what, the rogue is screwed.

What blows my mind is that people have no problems with a fighter with a non-magic sword kicking the crap out of a stone golem (two handed sword, five points power attack, no more DR), but, nope, the rogue can NEVER EVER be effective. It's not a case of "the best ability doesn't work, so the game is unfun". That's not the problem.

The problem is NOTHING the rogue does can be effective. He might as well sit in the corner and watch, because he's not going to help in that fight.

If you don't believe this to be true, design an undead filled dungeon for your party. Do a tomb raid and watch the rogue player. See how much fun he/she has for the duration of that adventure.

I really get the sense that people who don't worry about the rogue being screwed over have never seen it in play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I really get the sense that people who don't worry about the rogue being screwed over have never seen it in play.

They probably avoided the situation in the first place. Some people still have (or take) time to create their own adventures and tailor them to their group. I know that it's pretty impossible for my group to do that, but others might have more luck. Some might focus more on the non-combat parts of the game.

 

[Reynard]

If you don't believe this to be true, design an undead filled dungeon for your party. Do a tomb raid and watch the rogue player. See how much fun he/she has for the duration of that adventure.

And here's the key to this issue. The problem isn't a systemic one, it is a DM one. Consequently, the fix is a mechanical one designed to "protect" the player from the DM. It ain't going to work. A DM who totally ignores his players' desires as expressed through what's on their character sheets will do that no matter what.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I really get the sense that people who don't worry about the rogue being screwed over have never seen it in play.

I don't think it's so much a matter of that as it is that there ARE some people who truly don't care if they can't do anything in a combat. They believe that their role is to be bad at combat.

They have ways of compensating for being bored. Some will read or fall asleep during combat. Some watch movies or play video games from the couch while everyone else is playing D&D. Some just sit at the table and make jokes or talk to the person beside them about their week or their WoW character.

Some don't get bored at all, they love the challenge of coming up with things outside the rules to do. They know that the game itself gives them no chance to succeed so they'll try to invent new ways of harming the enemies. Some DMs really love this sort of thing and will make the ideas work much better than they should in order to reward the players for thinking outside the box. This ends up making those rogues even MORE effective in these situations than in ones where they can use their real powers.

Other times the DMs see the rogue being screwed over by the adventure but they don't care. They think that they player is obviously playing the wrong character if they want to be useful in combat and they shouldn't be stupid and choose a better class for what they want.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And here's the key to this issue. The problem isn't a systemic one, it is a DM one. Consequently, the fix is a mechanical one designed to "protect" the player from the DM. It ain't going to work. A DM who totally ignores his players' desires as expressed through what's on their character sheets will do that no matter what.

Huh? A DM problem? It's my problem if I think it would be a cool session for the players to go through an undead infested tomb simply because I don't throw out the idea immediately when I realize there is a rogue in the group?