Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Primal]

Player 1: Hey, does the wizard have any rings on his fingers?
DM: He's got one on each hand.
Player 2: Holy crap! He's epic? I run!
Player 3: Me too. Damn you, DM! Damn you!
Player 1: Wait a minute guys! He's got 1st level fighters for minions, and we had no trouble killing his henchman. He can't possibly be epic.
DM: The wizard waves at you and gestures at his rings, smiling knowingly.
Player 1: Oh jeez. Fine. I run too.

*later*

Player 1: What was the big idea throwing that epic wizard at us?
DM: What epic wizard?
Player 2: You know, the guy with the rings.
DM: The guy with the 10 gp nonmagical rings? Yeah, when you started to freak out about his rings, he figured you guys were idiots and played along to scare you. It worked too, and next week you guys get to clean up the mess you made by failing to kill him. Also, when word gets around, you'll all be the laughing stock of the adventurer's guild. He will make sure word gets around. HAW HAW.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

Seriously, although it sounds ridiculous, I think players will be paying a lot of attention to any such "telltale" signs to determine a BBEG's level and powers. Based on what I've seen so far, in 4E it seems to be pretty easy to fall into meta-gaming and I wonder if it will have much more in common with strategic boardgames than RPGs (yes, tactical aspects of the game do not actually prevent you from role-playing, but IMO they don't really encourage "immersion" either -- quite the opposite, in fact).

EDIT: I am also concerned about layers of complexity being added to combat to make it more tactical in nature. Apparently position and movement play a much larger role than in 3E, and all the examples of class abilities/powers I have seen (those of Paladin and Rogue) seem to indicate combat-related actions have become more complex although some rolls have been removed from the system and crits and damage have been "toned down" to reduce PC deaths. And let's not forget that the devs have stated that they also wanted to remove *math* from crits (and combat in general). Well, since *most* combat abilities (which are used probably more often than crits happen, right?) seem to inflict 2 X Weapon Damage + Stat Modifier anyway, I'm a bit baffled how this is different from occasionally calculating 2 X [ Weapon Damage + STR Modifier]? Or that magical weapons and "High Crit"-weapons still add dice to the roll?

I like randomness and unpredictability in combat, because it I need my moments of ultimate triumph and utter despair. I want to have the possibility to slay a dragon with a lucky crit that inflicts 50+ damage -- and wouldn't it feel even *more* satisfying and special and *heroic*, if you were down to your last HPs? And now if I crit -- unless I'm using some kind of "combat ability" -- I have no way of slaying it (not even a chance, no matter how marginal) with a single stroke? It may make for a more *balanced* combat, but I don't see these new and awesome "combat abilities" or action points ever making up for the kind of excitement I'm talking about. 4E may be more "fun" to people who think that 3E combat is "too random" or "too chaotic" or outright unbalanced, but does it offer the same kind of "rush" I've felt in 3E? All I'm seeing so far is how they've removed a lot of the "danger factor", which will signal to me that they've removed the emotional "peaks" from the system (e.g. no 'save-or-die'-traps or abilities or spells, no level/ability score loss, action points, "healing surges", etcetera). I'm not saying that you can't have those moments of triumphs or feel "heroic" in 4E, but I'm quite certain that I'd be feeling I'm missing something in the game. If I were more into "cinematic" action (a la 'Princess Bride' or 'Indiana Jones') and preferred a less-random "performance rate" (i.e. combat effectiveness), I might be excited. At least until I got to play my third or fourth Rogue from the "Clone Factory" (TM). I wonder if 5E will introduce static attacks and damage and initiative to remove *all* randomness and "unfairness" from combat?

It's also my subjective opinion that "builds" and character optimization/maxing will still exist in 4E, but it will just be different in nature. In 3E, you concentrated on optimizing your *character*, and I'm not denying that there are a lot of "broken" and wacky builds in 3E. I'm also not suspecting that in 4E the character classes will be more "in balance" with each other. However, as the focus of the abilities are becoming more about "group synergy", I have a gut feeling that there will be "broken" ability/talent/feat combos between the classes. In that sense I see a 4E group becoming sort of like a *DDM warband* -- a player might say to another: "If you're playing a Rogue and you go for 'Storm of Slashes', I'm gonna create a Paladin who will have 'Overwhelming Light Burst' and 'Binding Smite'. If Bob creates a Warlock with Fiendish Pact, I've got a list of powers he should take to combo with our powers...". IMO this sort of "group synergy" in combat was much harder to achieve in 3E (and certainly not without spending your precious Feats).

Now, it's easy to say that "you can houserule anything that you don't like in 4E", but why couldn't you do that in 3E if you felt something was "broken"? Maybe it felt somehow "unsatisfying" or even irritating? Maybe your solution felt "out-of-sync" with the rest of the system? Or you didn't like extra work to make the system, as a whole, to work for your group? If so, please don't use this argument.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm not entirely sure they haven't thought of that. I expect to see something like the following in a golem's stat block.

Not sure about golems, but the Large Fire Elemental and the Fire Archon in the Desert of Desolation minis both have an ability that states they never give combat advantage - ie, no Sneak Attack. Granted, it's not quite 4e, but I think it's a very good sign.

There will undoubtedly be *less* things immune to Sneak Attack, but not *none*.

 

[Imban]

I'm personally quite prepared to house-rule immunities back in if things end up stupid: it's important for Rogues to not feel entirely shut down by widespread immunities to sneak attacks, but gelatinous cubes can't be sneak-attacked, skeletons can't be poisoned, and golems need not fear bleeding.

I hope I won't have to, and don't think I will, but if I have to, I will.

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

A bit extreme... in that "not metal" sorta way.

Wait what's wrong with being able to identify a threat...?

Player: "Look, it's a dragon, I bet it flies, has a breath weapon, and uses seriously nasty melee attacks!"

DM: "Hey, no meta-gaming!"

:\

Unless the CHARACTERS are grossly ignorant of the world they live in, they should be aware of things like "Rings are used only by the most powerful of souls" and whatnot.

Your example here is rather ridiculous. It's one thing to be able to identify a threat, it's another thing for a character of a low level to identify a wonderous item/artifact/insert powerful magic item here, just because the player themselves are veteran gamers (or just well-informed).

But hey, that was a joke poking fun at someone's argument about meta-gaming.

And now for something completely different!

I think I totally missed the boat on this whole Rogue wielding a Great Sword crap. What, someone wants the child of Rikimaru (Tenchu games) and Cloud from Final Fantasy? Call me crazy, but a rogue being all stealthy while carrying around a LARGE CUMBERSOME weapon that is NOT concealable and then getting a Sneak Attack on someone (which if I'm not mistaken, by definition is the ability to hit vital areas of the body like viens and organs, creating a large amount of damage) which would, in theory, cleave them in half... So in essence, that maneuver is not a sneak attack, but a power attack. I just don't see how that's like... super awesome and made of win. I don't mean to be cruel or judgemental here, but could someone explain this strange phenomenon to me? Because I don't see a whole lot of people clammering to have someone who swashbuckles with a Great Axe.... or a Ninja who wields a Pick. Or even better, a Spell Caster who is 24th level and only 13 years old, lives in his own apartment and has a girlfriend (who looks like she's 19) who happens to have cat ears and a cat tail.

 

[Primal]

I'm a huge fan of static hit points.

I've often said that there's plenty of randomness in the game itself, there's no need to make your character random either. That's why I like point buy ability scores and fixed hit points.

I never rolled hit points for the monsters in 3rd edition, either. I just don't think it's as big a deal or adds anywhere near the kind of flavor (or "realism") as folks claim it does. Certainly not as much as the other elements of the game do.

Overall, I really like this preview. I cringe at the use of "builds" (despite my preference for point buy characters) and I really, really hope none of the other classes has "gish" as a suggested "build option."

Cheers,
Cam

My group doesn't use point-buy, because we found that in the end, there was very little difference between, say, two fighters (especially if you use 28 points).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My group doesn't use point-buy, because we found that in the end, there was very little difference between, say, two fighters (especially if you use 28 points).

In stats, maybe. But rest assured that the fighters would have played very differently - unless everyone took exactly the same feats.

The reason why fighter ability scores will look so similar is because it is very obvious which stats are important and you need to focus on. There is little point in Wisdom or Charisma, and Int is only needed for a few builds. Dex for a fighter going for heavy armor is not required, so that leaves Strength and Con. It's just to easy to create the "optimum" build.

Rolled stats hide this pretty well, but if you look at the priorities players pick, they are the same as with point buy. Yeah, you might have one Fighter with a Strength 16 and Con 14, and one Fighter with Strength 17 and one with Con12, but the tendencies are still the same, and anyone except those looking at the stats will not see the big difference.

It's really something that looks noteable on paper, but is hardly in play.
If a class relies on more ability scores and it's important to choose a focus - and it's "okay" to prioritize your abilities differently, point buy will also result in very different abilty score distributions. The classes in 3.x coming closest to these are Paladin and Monk - but there, prioritizing is very hard, since you really need all the stats they require. It's not really as if it's okay for a Monk to focus more on Dex instead of Wis, or a Paladin to focus more on Cha then Str. If you can't afford both, you're playing an inferior character, not just one with a different focus.

 

[hong]

My group doesn't use point-buy, because we found that in the end, there was very little difference between, say, two fighters (especially if you use 28 points).

The lack of imagination of your players cannot be attributed to the use of point buy.

 

[devoblue]

The lack of imagination of your players cannot be attributed to the use of point buy.

But point buy encourages min-maxing, which has an optimal solution, which means all characters are likely the same given the same inputs. I'm sure they all used their imagination individually to come to the same conclusion.

 

[hong]

But point buy encourages min-maxing,

Point buy makes minmaxing transparent. It does not encourage or discourage it.

which has an optimal solution, which means all characters are likely the same given the same inputs. I'm sure they all used their imagination individually to come to the same conclusion.

1. There can be many optimal solutions (or, for the pedantic, solutions that are close within a given tolerance to the global optimum).

2. The solution depends on the problem, which depends on the player. Individual tastes and opinions can have a huge impact on the final outcome, as can any constraints imposed.

3. Optimality assumes a well-defined problem in the first place, which is a brave assumption to make in gaming.

Trust me, I'm a statistician who has used quasi-Newton algorithms to solve complex optimisation problems of several variables.

 

[devoblue]

Point buy makes minmaxing transparent. It does not encourage or discourage it.

It is an enabler of min-max and provides opportunity. A common strategy to encourage a behaviour is to make it easier.

1. There can be many optimal solutions (or, for the pedantic, solutions that are close within a given tolerance to the global optimum).

2. The solution depends on the problem, which depends on the player. Individual tastes and opinions can have a huge impact on the final outcome, as can any constraints imposed.

3. Optimality assumes a well-defined problem in the first place, which is a brave assumption to make in gaming.

This is character building, not gaming. How many fighters have ever decided that they wanted to max STR, good CON then DEX, bit of WIS for a will save bonus, dump CHA and INT. Every stat comes out with an even number so there are no odd points wasted.

Trust me, I'm a statistician who has used quasi-Newton algorithms to solve complex optimisation problems of several variables.

Nah, you is just some random dude on the intaweb.