Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Lizard]

I reckon that 9 months ago I would have been the biggest anti-4E simulationist out here. But since I have tried Bo9S and realised, 'sod it, it is a game. I want fun and options for all PC classes not a world sim' I am now looking forward to it, LOTS!
I reckon if you are going to get annoyed by 'unrealistic' powers 4E will be really stressful to read. They have gone for class balance and options rather than realism. And as long as they have the balance sweet, I am happy to have my uber-heroic PC actions

The problem is, when the game begins to strain creduility, even in fantasy, people stop having fun, because they're reminded how artificial the game is. It's like the "Steal his pants" scene in "The Gamers".

If characters constantly do things which are nonsensical even in the context of the game world, it's a powerful immersion breaker. That almost anything can be justified by sufficient imagination doesn't mean that it's not a problem to have to constantly 'reimagine' the action because what's described by the mechanics doesn't make sense.

No matter what example I provide, you will find some "reasonable" explanation, but do you want to have to do that every time the power is used, and for every other "non simulationist' power? Can I imagine how a halfling gets a standing ogre to charge 20 feet away from the halfling by being tricky? Yes. Do I want to keep coming up with explanations every time he does this, over and over and over, because no one bothered to add "for creatures of your size or smaller" into the power description? No. Do I hope that we're missing key pieces of the puzzle and this isn't how it's going to really work? Yes.

 

[SSquirrel]

I disagree, because this implies all aspects of a thing are de facto broken, and thus, must be changed to be improved. (And SA was changed, just not *eliminated*)

For example, if the next version of Word lacked the capacity to use the letter 'e', would it be an *improvement* because it was a *change*? There's way too much for change for change's sake in 4e as it is; why wish for more?

Sneak Attack now works on a LOT more monsters than it used to. That change alone makes it far better and worth keeping around.

I'm curious what the "change for change sake" items are in your view. Every edition of the game has included different races and classes in the mix as well as drastically different art styles. When I think of "change for change sake" I think of the White Wolf revamp of the WoD to the NWoD. Using the same names for alot of things that were completely different from their old meaning, making up new names for things that already existed. The system wasn't really streamlined much, they just spelled out more of the +/- factors involved. The magic sysetm for Mage used to be highly freeform w/very few rotes. Now everything is pretty much rotes and the section on spells rivals the PHB in size.

Those were just a couple of the changes in the Mage setting that I felt were poorly handled. Let's not even start on the awful "Hai guyz! Atlantis!" and something about ladders background story.

I have yet to see anything in 4E that made me want to throw up so it's well ahead of the NWoD. I will say tho that the Changeling book has been the best revision of their old settings. Drastic re-imagining but it actually puts a focus to a game that was previously (inaccurately) viewed as a more kiddie setting somehow as well as just leaving a lot of people scratching their heads.

PS I'm sorry if people involved w/the NWoD stuff read this and get offended, it's all just IMO and I wish it wasn't, but it has saved me lots of money.

 

[Sir Brennen]

So the rogue says "Catch me if you can, dumbass!" and runs off, leading the fighter on a merry chase? OK, I can see that...but, uhm, wouldn't that mean the rogue moves, too? This doesn't seem to be implied.

Taunt, get the guy to rush you, maybe even *look* like you're going to run, then Artfully Dodge at the last moment and slap 'em with your sword as they pass by.

We're probably getting into YMMV territory, and maybe some of the specifics of the powers are a little gamist. But I think they open up enough tactics and options which didn't exist in combat before, that part of the fun will be in describing in game the effects of these mechanics in cinematic terms.

I think the new edition is going away from trying to think "How is that even possible?" to "Yah! I saw that in a movie once!" I mean, we pretty much already do this with magic; now it's just being extended to the other classes.

Edit: I see you've already stated your counter to this two posts above. (It's like magic!) All I can say is, because it is a game, there will always be mechanics which strain credibility on how they depict "the real world" for someone. Trying to avoid that will either lead to either an extremely complex or boring game, or both.

 

[ltbaxter]

I personally think we are going to end up seeing something like this

Each weapon will list a profiencies on the weapon chart(we already know that they do from critical hit preview)

So Rapier may simply say proficencies short sword on the the weapon table

This next part is complete conjecture but it is my guess based on the way they seem to like predictability in 4e design and the new weapon abilities

I think we will see all the weapons with one type of proficencies all do the same samage. For example, the gladiuss, short sword and rapier may all list short sword as the proficency. They will all do d6 damage. The difference between the three will lie in the weapon abilities. short sword may by "Versitile", rapier may be "High Crit" etc etc. We know these exist from the critical hit preview as well. So maybe your choice of weapon will not come down so much to damage, but what extra little trick to you want your weapon to do,

Now that's very interesting, nightspaladin! That would work very well, would avoid the problem of having to rewrite the rules for all classes/talents when anyone created a new weapon (ie the ice cleaver blade - uses short sword proficiency). What makes this plausible is that they seem to also have shifted from 'light' armor proficiency to 'leather' (and some would suggest, chain and plate instead of medium and heavy).

Doing so, assigning a proficiency that applies to a whole class, would allow a character to use a specific weapon based on cost, style, type of crit, rather than one stated type. Then again, the specific use of the word "dagger" in some of the other talents would be going in the opposite direction, pinning down characters to very specific weapon types. I hope it's the former...

 

[Tusz]

Possible, but I *really* doubt that.

- Light blades are described all over in the feats but not a listed proficiency. Almost surely that is a 'group'

I took it to mean that "Light Blade" can refer to either a dagger [dagger, katar] or Short Sword [short sword, gladius, rapier].

- Hand crossbow is definitely the name of single weapon, not a group. Likewise in 3e short sword and sling are single weapon names.
- If you list several unique weapon names, it would be odd to list weapon groups in the same list, especially without calling one a group.

I don't think they're "groups" so much as weapons with other weapons that are used in a similar way.

- Having 'shuriken' as a group would please some people, but adds a ton of complexity and similar options at a time when they seem to be streamlining and pairing down quite a bit.

Again, I think they're just using "shuriken" as a sample light, thrown weapon. And I think the options within that subset (shuriken, throwing daggers, possibly throwing axes) will all have different advantages that will make them not quite so similar. Shuriken might be exceptionally fast to use and allow you to throw an extra one, whereas throwing axes might be "high crit."

- They're really stressing the "stick it between a rib" at ultra-close range thing, there's not a hint of "swashbuckling" in any of the fluff we're seeing in this article. While a rapier-based striker might be feasible and a lot of fun, it sure doesn't sound like the basic rogue describe here is any kind of fencing master.

It was mentioned by a dev a while ago that you can play a sneaky rib-shanker or a more swashbuckling type rogue. They might both be the "brawny" style, but with a different selection of powers (since we haven't seen all of them).

 

[mach1.9pants]

The problem is, when the game begins to strain creduility, even in fantasy, people stop having fun, because they're reminded how artificial the game is.

But the point that this happens is going to differ from gamer to gamer and group to group. My level this happens is maybe a lot higher than yours. More than powers breaking my immersion (cos you can think of a reason, if you try hard enough- I don't bother) it is art which has ridiculous weps and armour. They stick in my head more, but that is just me!

No matter what example I provide, you will find some "reasonable" explanation, but do you want to have to do that every time the power is used, and for every other "non simulationist' power?

I could but I won't bother. It just does what it says...

Can I imagine how a halfling gets a standing ogre to charge 20 feet away from the halfling by being tricky? Yes. Do I want to keep coming up with explanations every time he does this, over and over and over, because no one bothered to add "for creatures of your size or smaller" into the power description? No. Do I hope that we're missing key pieces of the puzzle and this isn't how it's going to really work? Yes.

I see where you are coming from -entirely- but IMO this is 4E and how it will be. I do hope for simulationists (or whatever) house ruling will be easy

 

[JosephK]

Man, I really really like this stuff.. Looks like 4e is going to be awesome!


Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.

Sure he can multi-class as warrior, but that that doesnt help him with regard to using the rogue powers, they'll still be unavailable with his greatsword. He cant sneak attack, no extra + to hit or anything. From the looks of it, the classes are somewhat (in certain aspects anyway) more limited to traditional "roles".

Also in the same vein, what's up with no + to hps, from CON? If con is only added to hp once, it will have a fairly insignificant impact on them, at level 10-30. I always thought it was kinda cool to have players do different things with the stats.. Such as the dwarven wizard, who placed his best stat in con and who used all his ability increases on con instead of intelligence and ended up being one of the stoutest characters in our group at the higher levels (or the extremely skillful, but frail and dexterous fighter, etc).

Seems to me that some forms of variety and differentiation have been removed, in favor of more fixed archetypes. Of course, without having seen all of the rules, it's impossible to tell, whether these types of things are possible, and if new options for playing quirky (mechanically speaking) characters have been added.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.

How long before a feat allows you to use another weapon for these powers? If you want to be non-standard (and doing more damage than the standard) your going to have to pay a feat for it, IMO.

 

[SSquirrel]

You must keep in mind though, your version of what "the best" is and the developers version via marketing research and playtesting, could be very different. My version of best is certainly different than both of those.... but the question remains that you need to pose yourself, "What exactly do I want Dungeons and Dragons to be?" and the logical follow up "What could I fix about this system that I don't like, and what worked well?" And once you have that - why not work on a system of your own? That's what my DM did, while he still houserules a good bit, we still play D&D, but in his off time, he works on his own system, which works quite from what I've seen.

You never know, publishers may be interested in your system, and you could gain a hefty indie following, nothing ventured, nothing gained I suppose.

No real interest in designing my own system. Plus w/our 2nd daughter almost here and the busy time of year at work, I'm lucky to have time to play WoW, let alone much of anything else. I've helped friends who were designing their own several times and I always just sat there saying "you know this is all just really close to X" or "This is X plus bits of Y here, why not just houserule syetem X?"

I don't need to do all that work b/c they're already doing a lot of the things I wanted to see gone. Not all of course, but I'm not a designer of the team so I'm not surprised more of my input isn't involved Some other systems like Arcana Evolved attack my dislikes in different ways and also ditch alignment and the arcane/divine split, while giving me new races and classes to change the usual archetypes around.

But sometimes I just wanna play D&D, so hopefully the version of D&D we're playing is one that makes me excited and want to play. So far 4E sounds more enticing than 3.5, which i never bothered buying. 3E PHB and a list of the bigger changes worked fine.

 

[SSquirrel]

If characters constantly do things which are nonsensical even in the context of the game world, it's a powerful immersion breaker. That almost anything can be justified by sufficient imagination doesn't mean that it's not a problem to have to constantly 'reimagine' the action because what's described by the mechanics doesn't make sense.

The key phrase here is "in the context of the game world". While the halfling chasing an ogre back 20' would be odd, I seriously doubt we saw all the text involving this situation. A lot of people are pointing at pretty much anything they can tho as saying they will break verisimilitude, when they are internally consistent w/the game world, just not OUR world. Internal consistency is more important than matching up w/the real world. Cuz we lack elves and magic and dragons in the real world and we all know those are more fun in D&D