4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Campbell]

Reynard,

I know this probably won't improve your disposition any, but I don't think the intent is solely to determine character parity through combat. Everything I've seen so far indicates that noncombat abilities will play a meaningful role in 4th Edition, but instead of balancing noncombat abilities with combat abilities they're attempting to balance combat and noncombat abilities seperately. It looks like we'll be getting the same sort of broadly competent character classes that Saga has. I expect that difference between the most highly skilled and the least skilled characters will be narrower, and that the rogue will most likely lose a fair bit of his edge here. I also expect fighters will actually be able to represent professional soldiers adequetely.

 

[Reynard]

Reynard,

I know this probably won't improve your disposition any, but I don't think the intent is solely to determine character parity through combat. Everything I've seen so far indicates that noncombat abilities will play a meaningful role in 4th Edition, but instead of balancing noncombat abilities with combat abilities they're attempting to balance combat and noncombat abilities seperately. It looks like we'll be getting the same sort of broadly competent character classes that Saga has. I expect that difference between the most highly skilled and the least skilled characters will be narrower, and that the rogue will most likely lose a fair bit of his edge here. I also expect fighters will actually be able to represent professional soldiers adequetely.

There's nothing wrong with that, in general, despite the fact that I think parity in combat should not be a goal in a game built around archetypes. That's hardly my biggest problem with 4E, though, and I can see why, especially from a player's perspective, it is seen as a "good thing".

However, it should be noted that WotC has given ua almost exclusively combat related previews. Even those previews that are about fluff end up including little sections on how totally awesome the combat against creature x/while playing race or class Y will be. Will 4E be any more or less combat focused than any other edition? No way to tell. But it does seem that way, given the nature of the previews.

What I do know, though, is that design with the encounter as the central aspect, as the basic unit of fun, will lead to design that forces parity where it doesn't need to exist. Letting PCs of a certain type shine in certain kinds of situations is a good thing and doesn't ruin the balance of fun when you are taking an adventure as a whole as the basic unit of fun. An encounter with powerful, incorporeal undead giving the cleric a moment to shine while the other PCs try not to die isn't "unfun"; having a magical duel between a PC wizard and an NPC witch while the other PCs do little more than mop up mooks isn't "unfun"; letting the rogue fully explore a complex web of traps and locks while the other PCs hold torches isn't "unfun"; creating an encounter where the fighter shines through massive physical violence while the other PCs have to deal with their less than awesome BABs isn't "unfun -- so long as situations like these all exist in a given adventure. I don't know about anyone else, but watching my fellow players feel awesome and special is fun, and more to the point, I can manage to create my own fun through roleplaying my character and doing what I can to contribute even if I am not the spotlight character or I don't have much to do in the way of mechanics.

D&D is storytelling: not in the sense that the DM should be telling the players a story, but in the sense that stories naturally emerge from play. It doesn't matter so much if those stories end with a group of mouldering corpses on the third level of the Dungeon of Doom or with a set of Young Gods who managed to be so great that they ascended to immortality. The whole spectrum is cool when you sit down with a couple beers and everyoen starts talking about last week's/month's/year's/decade's game. And part of those emergent stories are the moments when the characters involved did their thing, got to shine and took center stage. It happens in every kind of ensemble entertainment and D&D is no different.

It's not a beer and pretzles game that we play for a couple hours of monster bashing. It is, and always has been, more than that. The very fact of continuity inherent in the system -- character levelling, for the most basic example -- tells us that the game is more. That's why it is niche.

I don't know if I would like 4E or not, but I do know that the combination of the previews we've seen and the general attitude of thsoe that argue most vehemently in favor of whatever random change WotC throws at us make me fairly certain I am not going to bother trying (so long as I can still find a group to play one of the various previous editions I have on my shelf). WotC has done a "good" enough job with their re-imagining of D&D -- or at least their previews of such -- that it is the *only* version of the game that is likely to not find a place on my bookshelf. That has to say something.

 

[Campbell]

There's nothing wrong with that, in general, despite the fact that I think parity in combat should not be a goal in a game built around archetypes. That's hardly my biggest problem with 4E, though, and I can see why, especially from a player's perspective, it is seen as a "good thing".

I'm not going to argue that this isn't a genuine concern, especially for folks who've been with the game since its inception. Generally speaking, I think 3e and 4e occupy a middle ground between archetype based game play and more free for all systems. Personally, I tend to like this middle ground.

As far as combat parity and hopefully noncombat parity being central design goals of 4e I can't say I've ever really looked at it from a player's perspective. The reason I tend to view such things favorably is the additional adventure design space this allows me as a DM.

However, it should be noted that WotC has given an almost exclusively combat related previews. Even those previews that are about fluff end up including little sections on how totally awesome the combat against creature x/while playing race or class Y will be. Will 4E be any more or less combat-focused than any other edition ? No way to tell. But it does seem that way, given the nature of the previews.

I can understand where you're coming from here. Other than the traps preview, some hints of rituals, and some vague indications of the new social resolution system we've seen little about the noncombat elements of the game. I think there a few reasons for this that don't really speak to the overall focus of the design work although I could be wrong. First of all, I think the combat mechanics are sufficiently different enough from previous iterations of the game to make them ripe for preview material and they're probably easier to preview in chunks than the social resolution material will be. Additionally it's probably easier for a number of people to relate to, right or wrong.

What I do know, though, is that design with the encounter as the central aspect, as the basic unit of fun, will lead to design that forces parity where it doesn't need to exist. Letting PCs of a certain type shine in certain kinds of situations is a good thing and doesn't ruin the balance of fun when you are taking an adventure as a whole as the basic unit of fun. An encounter with powerful, incorporeal undead giving the cleric a moment to shine while the other PCs try not to die isn't "unfun"; having a magical duel between a PC wizard and an NPC witch while the other PCs do little more than mop up mooks isn't "unfun"; letting the rogue fully explore a complex web of traps and locks while the other PCs hold torches isn't "unfun"; creating an encounter where the fighter shines through massive physical violence while the other PCs have to deal with their less than awesome BABs isn't "unfun -- so long as situations like these all exist in a given adventure. I don't know about anyone else, but watching my fellow players feel awesome and special is fun, and more to the point, I can manage to create my own fun through role playing my character and doing what I can to contribute even if I am not the spotlight character or I don't have much to do in the way of mechanics.

To a certain extent I agree with you here, although most likely not on all specifics. Over all I'd argue that 'unfun' has been trumpeted out far too often on these boards. Much like 'anime' or 'video game' its a term used in place of a solid argument and cuts off discussion. I guess I don't see this issue as a binary one. There are varying levels of 'being taken out of the game' as well as differing rates of occurrence. I personally feel that PCs in 3e are hyper specialized to an extent that occasionally wreaks havoc upon adventure design for me. I agree having individual PCs shine is something that needs to be preserved, and I have faith that it will be if not necessarily to the degree that you might prefer. For instance, it seems like rogues and warlocks will not do as well as fighters and wizards in combat against a multitude of foes, but will rise to the occasion against solo enemies. Rogues should still be the best equipped to handle bomb disposal. Generally, I think most examples of PCs shining will be due to expressing their strengths, rather than as a result of other PCs dealing with glaring weaknesses (see the removal of the Rock/Paper/Scissors spell casting in Saga).

D&D is storytelling: not in the sense that the DM should be telling the players a story, but in the sense that stories naturally emerge from play. It doesn't matter so much if those stories end with a group of moldering corpses on the third level of the Dungeon of Doom or with a set of Young Gods who managed to be so great that they ascended to immortality. The whole spectrum is cool when you sit down with a couple beers and everyone starts talking about last week's/month's/year's/decade's game. And part of those emergent stories are the moments when the characters involved did their thing, got to shine and took center stage. It happens in every kind of ensemble entertainment and D&D is no different.

It's not a beer and pretzels game that we play for a couple hours of monster bashing. It is, and always has been, more than that. The very fact of continuity inherent in the system -- character leveling, for the most basic example -- tells us that the game is more. That's why it is niche.

I absolutely agree with you here. I think where we disagree here is how to best accomplish that task.

I don't know if I would like 4E or not, but I do know that the combination of the previews we've seen and the general attitude of those that argue most vehemently in favor of whatever random change WotC throws at us make me fairly certain I am not going to bother trying (so long as I can still find a group to play one of the various previous editions I have on my shelf). WotC has done a "good" enough job with their re-imagining of D&D -- or at least their previews of such -- that it is the *only* version of the game that is likely to not find a place on my bookshelf. That has to say something.

I’m not trying to sell you on 4e here, but I’d advise you to wait a while longer before making up your mind. There’s still a lot we still don’t know and making up your mind now, for good or ill, could be doing yourself a disservice. It is a shame that so many of us have become lost in rhetoric to the point that we can’t really have a decent conversation.

Note: When I was composing this reply I used Microsoft Word and edited the entirity of the post, including quoted section, for spelling and grammar.

 

[Hussar]

Wrong! Magic users spend more time firing crossbows knowing they will never do anything than Rogues do not getting sneak attack. Rogues can still maneuver and help an over all encounter, still do damage with their chosen weapon. A wizard will get crippled by casting his three spells for the day and have nothing else to do until the group can rest. I hate playing magic users because you have to limit yourself to one or two rounds of action per encounter or risk having nothing to do but say, I fire my crossbow for two hours at the game table.
*snip*

Three spells for the day? Ok, that's a second level wizard. What about the other eighteen levels of the game? Your wizards never buy scrolls or wands?

Clerics I've seen run out of spells lots. Wizards? Not so much. And, picking up a wand or three isn't out of line for most wizards.

Agreed 100%. You want to be a primary combat damage-dealing badass, play a warrior class.

Rogues are, IMHO, meant to be secondary or tertiary combatants, using tactics to give his party an advantage, not accumulating a bodycount as fast as his armor-wearing, Maul weilding partymates.

I have no problem with rogues having periods of merely being able to deal base weapon damage- other classes do so as well. My first adventure ever (back in '77) concluded with my fighter standing shoulder-to-shoulder with only the party's mage (who only had Magic Missile left) against a Purple Worm. I welcomed those d4s from thrown daggers and d6s he did with his staff strikes after that final spell was expended- it made the fight close enough to give me a chance. (The worm won, but with only 4 hp left- I never felt cheated, and that single adventure hooked me on the game, along with several of the guys who fell earlier in the game).

Rogues can't SA undead? I'm crying! That means that PC Paladins & Clerics (and some others) get to step to the fore.

This is a "problem" that really didn't need a fix.

Let's not forget that that purple worm had what, 50 hit points? Meaning that a d4 damage ACTUALLY mattered. Now, it might as well be harsh language. The purple worm could sit back and take d4 damage attacks for 20 or 30 rounds before he started to get worried. Comparisons to earlier editions don't take into account how much tougher monsters got in 3e.

"Tertiary combatant" So, he's not second line, he's actually third string? In a 4 man party? You can't have a third line when there's only 4 PC's. That's ridiculous. You might as well be a commoner. Or an expert.

Actually, thinking about it, expert is FAR closer to what you guys are talking about. A skill monkey that is very weak combatant.

Sorry, my rogue has ALWAYS been the ninja cuisinart to use Reynard's term. We allowed thieves to sneak attack just about everything back in the day. And it didn't hurt the game at all. Heck, we allowed theives to hide in shadows during combat and then backstab in the next round. 3e simply codified the house rules I was already playing (after giving them a shiney new buff too )

You want Indiana Jones in your group? Why? Getting your ass kicked every fight is stupid. Indie lives because he has plot protection. PC's just die. 3e combat is far and away too lethal to have weak combatants in the group. Because, that means that the weak combatant doesn't die, but someone else does because the monster gets more attacks because the weak combatant doesn't contribute to the fight.

 

[Phlebas]

That's a high-level rogue to me. He isn't a toe-to-toe fighter, laying down devastating blows that stun, knockdown, or knockback a target. He uses acrobatics, trickery, the terrain, and his ability to take an opponent by surprise. When you get into the higher levels, that starts to make them more ninja-like, with the way the game scales.

Seems like this may be the route of the various disagreements, various expectations of what a pure class rogue should be.

One of the GREAT (IMHO) conceptually changes 2E -> 3E was the idea of mix-n-match base classes to give you flexible build. The most effective combatant in my campaign (unless monsters have DR) is the Rog 4 / Ftr 4 / Shadowdancer 3 TWF stab-o-matic. Thats a very specific build, and is incredibly effective and should be much better in combat than a pure rogue (otherwise whats the point of the fighter class). On the other hand she's nowhere near as good as the other rogue in the party at trapfinding and all the traditional rogue activities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing i thought of last night is that the combination of DR and Sneak Attack immunity is a double whammy for light fighters - maybe thats something that should be looked at?

 

[med stud]

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?

Without any problems at all. If we assume that HP is the amount of beating needed to get someone out of a fight and not necessarily kill them, then "vital spot" would mean "a body part crucial for fighting".

When fighting a zombie or a golem:
-Non vital spot: Slashing up the side, piercing the abdomen, breaking ribs.
-Vital spot: Breaking a knee or cutting off an arm.

The increased damage due to the sneak attack in this circumstance is that by attacking body parts the zombie needs for fighting, you take out of the battle earlier.

Note that this works out perfectly well against living creatures as well; without your leg, it doesn't matter if you are Miyamoto Musashi. I think many sneak attack descriptions tend to overemphasis the "vital" aspect as in "necessary for prolonged survival" (prolonged as in minutes-hours-days) instead of "needed to get someone to stop fighting in 6-12 seconds".

 

[Reynard]

I can understand where you're coming from here. Other than the traps preview, some hints of rituals, and some vague indications of the new social resolution system we've seen little about the noncombat elements of the game. I think there a few reasons for this that don't really speak to the overall focus of the design work although I could be wrong. First of all, I think the combat mechanics are sufficiently different enough from previous iterations of the game to make them ripe for preview material and they're probably easier to preview in chunks than the social resolution material will be. Additionally it's probably easier for a number of people to relate to, right or wrong.

I’m not trying to sell you on 4e here, but I’d advise you to wait a while longer before making up your mind. There’s still a lot we still don’t know and making up your mind now, for good or ill, could be doing yourself a disservice. It is a shame that so many of us have become lost in rhetoric to the point that we can’t really have a decent conversation.

Well, I am still reading the previews and still taling about it, which means there's a part of me that really wants to find that golden nugget that sells me on 4E. I have been gming a long time and I have played a lot of games, but D&D was first and best and I always come back to it. The idea that a new edition of the game is something I wouldn't want to play is kind of upsetting.

 

[Reynard]

Without any problems at all. If we assume that HP is the amount of beating needed to get someone out of a fight and not necessarily kill them, then "vital spot" would mean "a body part crucial for fighting".

When fighting a zombie or a golem:
-Non vital spot: Slashing up the side, piercing the abdomen, breaking ribs.
-Vital spot: Breaking a knee or cutting off an arm.

The increased damage due to the sneak attack in this circumstance is that by attacking body parts the zombie needs for fighting, you take out of the battle earlier.

What you are talking about here is a critical hit, of which the sneak attack is only a component. Allowing criticals against any corporeal opponent, by defining a critical as a blow to a vulnerable area (whatever that may mean for a given opponent) is not a bad idea and affects all characters. I am sure the falchion-wielding, improved criticalled, power critical-ing barbarian would appreciate it, too.

Thinking on this, maybe the better way to model "sneak attack" is to call it a critical, and/or double the rogues threat range when flanking or attacking a creature denied its dex bonus. This way, the rogue has an eye for "vitals" but isn't necessarily a cuisinart of awesomeness.

In a thread on rpg.net, I did some quick numbers and found, much to my surprise, that all those sneak attack d6's didn't put the rogue over the top -- early on the big weapon, power attacking fighter was still better at dealing damage and even at later levels the rogue only had a slight edge (and only then if the fighter wasn't using a particularly powerful power attack). So, in the end, allowin most creatures to be criticalled, and therefore sneak attacked, isn't going to break the game. Sneak attack is already sufficiently different from "backstab" that the "thief" D&D-ism is long lost already.

 

[med stud]

What you are talking about here is a critical hit, of which the sneak attack is only a component. Allowing criticals against any corporeal opponent, by defining a critical as a blow to a vulnerable area (whatever that may mean for a given opponent) is not a bad idea and affects all characters. I am sure the falchion-wielding, improved criticalled, power critical-ing barbarian would appreciate it, too.

Thinking on this, maybe the better way to model "sneak attack" is to call it a critical, and/or double the rogues threat range when flanking or attacking a creature denied its dex bonus. This way, the rogue has an eye for "vitals" but isn't necessarily a cuisinart of awesomeness.

In a thread on rpg.net, I did some quick numbers and found, much to my surprise, that all those sneak attack d6's didn't put the rogue over the top -- early on the big weapon, power attacking fighter was still better at dealing damage and even at later levels the rogue only had a slight edge (and only then if the fighter wasn't using a particularly powerful power attack). So, in the end, allowin most creatures to be criticalled, and therefore sneak attacked, isn't going to break the game. Sneak attack is already sufficiently different from "backstab" that the "thief" D&D-ism is long lost already.

Well I think the difference in the game world between a critical hit and a sneak attack is hard to tell . But both critical hits and sneak attacks are most often described as hitting vital parts of your opponent.

I essentially agree that sneak attack could be renamed to something in theme with critical. OTOH I think the "sneak" part of the name shows that they are attacks made on an opponent who can't defend itself properly.

My main point, though, is that many creatures that can't be critically hit or sneak attacked due to lack of vitals really have many vulnerable points in common with living creatures.

 

[hopeless]

Okay

For me, the issue is not whether they have weak spots, but whether the rogue has learned them. Flesh golems and most undead, fair enough, but tell me where you'd attack an animated oak table with a dagger to earn a sneak attack!

Use an axe like everyone else!
Fire apparently works well supposedly even on oozes but the trick is to not get caught in the subsequent attempt to put said fire out...

Well if fighters are going to get combat maneuvers whats to stop rogue getting assassination techniques?

I believe a certain rogue in the d&d sequel made use of a vial of purple worm stomach acid, I guess it will be a matter of preparation which adventures might make difficult if not impossible I wonder how they're going to treat holy water?