Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[hong]

So, if God kills a kitten every time someone says "The DM can fix it!", what does He do when someone says "That's not a bug! That's a FEATURE!"

I smile indulgently and point out that life wasn't meant to be easy.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that PCs with less-than-average HPs are mechanically weaker in combat and this needs to balanced in some way (e.g. by giving monsters less than average HPs). Just as DMs usually use tougher variants for monsters against a more "effective" party (i.e. a party that has "combat-maximized" builds or powerful magical items).

...

IMO All this reducing of "randomness" will probably increase *meta-gaming* a lot during play. For example, you can pretty guesstimate any NPC BBEG's HPs, and everyone just chooses their actions accordingly.

What hong and Hussar said plus:

Your DM's solution to the problem was crap. It throws the balance off for all the PCs that *didn't* roll low and makes a lot of extra work for him, changing every monster. A much better solution would be to only change your PC's hit points. Which is what WotC are doing with their new house rule.

Your argument about metagaming applies only to NPCs, not PCs. If you want mysterious opponents there are lots of tools to do that. The NPC could hold off on some of his higher level powers, lulling the PCs into a false sense of security. He could have feats such as toughness. He could have a template or buffs. Or you could roll for his hit points if you must.

There are two huge problems with rolling for PCs hit points:
1) Imbalance between PCs.
2) Tanks who can't do their job.

While there are some good reasons for rolling for stats - they tell you something about the character and thus act as a spur to the imagination - there are *no* good reasons to roll PC hit points. They are abstract so tell you nothing in game-world terms. From 3e onwards there is no problem with 'cookie cutter' PCs as there are so many other ways to distinguish between them such as feats.

 

[Wormwood]

Yep, this definitely not 3.75 - this is a whole new D&D. June 6th can't come soon enough.

Nothing I hate more than useless 'me too' posts. . .

But me too.

 

[Derren]

And that's an important characteristic of this skills system. Character are potentially good in all skills.

Which poses its own kind of problem as it looks like that classes have a very narrow list of what they can become trained in. (People who own SW told me this is also true in SAGA).
So when you play a fighter you can never really be good at stealth because its not on your class list unless you spend feats for it (which could have been used for combat techniques)
Thats the same problem as in 3E.

 

[Fifth Element]

I, too, predicted some small part of how classes will work in 4E. I will therefore brag about it, all the while neglecting to mention the 37 things I was completely wrong about.

 

[Ahglock]

Just a quick return to the "fixed HP" situation.

The fixed 12 + Con score at 1st level is, yes, "fixed", but there's at least some variance in the Con score element. However, the 5 HP per level thereafter is extremely fixed: there's not even a "+Con modifier" or anything.

For everyone who is happy with "fixed HPs" in general, are you happy with this extremely fixed amount in the per level progression? (outside of feat effects, of course).

I'm pro-fixed HP, in general, but still not sure how I feel about the flat (no Con mod) HP per level.

If con doesn't help in HP per level I think it is lame. But like Int bonus not adding to skills, it may be something that is described under the attribute and just not rehashed in every class. Heck they keep telling us they couldn't fit crap in due to page count, maybe they actually did something to try and save page count.

 

[hong]

Actually, I suspect they're trying to reduce the importance of super-duper stats later on. In 3E, you practically had to have Con 20+ at high levels, unless you had a perverse liking for being knocked out early and often. Similarly, every fighter had Str 20+, every rogue had Dex 20+, wizards had Int 20+, and so on. While I'm all for gung-ho buttkicking, the idea of characters with half (or more) of their stats at godlike levels is one of the things about D&D I never really liked. If high Con gives you a bonus, but that bonus doesn't inflate over time, then getting Con 20 won't be as necessary as it is now. Maybe the same holds for Int not giving bonus skills.

 

[Kirnon_Bhale]

Rogue gets Five weapons - (My guesstimate)

Ranged
Long Range - Sling
Short Range - Hand Crossbow

Melee (all light blades)
Best Damage - Short Sword
Best Attack - Dagger
Best Reach - Shuriken

 

[Lizard]

Actually, I suspect they're trying to reduce the importance of super-duper stats later on. In 3E, you practically had to have Con 20+ at high levels, unless you had a perverse liking for being knocked out early and often. Similarly, every fighter had Str 20+, every rogue had Dex 20+, wizards had Int 20+, and so on. While I'm all for gung-ho buttkicking, the idea of characters with half (or more) of their stats at godlike levels is one of the things about D&D I never really liked. If high Con gives you a bonus, but that bonus doesn't inflate over time, then getting Con 20 won't be as necessary as it is now. Maybe the same holds for Int not giving bonus skills.

So, a 3e Rogue getting +5 on all dex-based skills (20 dex) by 20th level bothers you more than a 4e Rogue getting +10 on ALL skills by 20th level? The +1/2 level bonuses inflate competence more than high stats did, and stats still add to skills....

IME, characters would have one 20+ stat by the time they were in their mid-teens, level-wise, with most stats in the 12-14 range, and usually one dump stat of less than 10.

 

[AllisterH]

Which poses its own kind of problem as it looks like that classes have a very narrow list of what they can become trained in. (People who own SW told me this is also true in SAGA).
So when you play a fighter you can never really be good at stealth because its not on your class list unless you spend feats for it (which could have been used for combat techniques)
Thats the same problem as in 3E.

Er, do you actually know how SWSE actually works?

The difference between a Trained rogue with Stealth and an untrained fighter with Stealth in SWSE is +5 at all levels compared to the current situation by where level 2, the rogue is at +5 advantage to a fighter and where it increases.

The fighter is not exactly a helpless guy.