Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[McBard]

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.

 

[Lizard]

One thing that seems to have slipped below the radar amidst the angst about skills, piercing strike and whatnot, is that Tumble is now a per-encounter ability. Hmm.

This was discussed in R&C.

Sheesh, do only us hat3rz read the actual rules pre-releases?

 

[hong]

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.

Don't mind it at all. Having extreme variations in hit points between characters just made for too much of a gap between the tanks and the squishies.

 

[chaotix42]

Hey, does anyone else get an HTTP 500 - Internal server error when they try to view the article? : /

 

[Lizard]

Every time someone replies to "this rule doesn't work" with "but the DM can do..." or "but the DM can change...", GOD KILLS A KITTEN.

Please, think of the kittens.

Since 99% of my criticisms of 4e have been answered with "Well, houserule it" or "The DM can just...", PETA needs to look into some of 4e's more ardent defenders.

"Names like 'Golden Wyvern Adept' are stupid and immersion-breaking!"
"The DM can change the name to whatever they want!"

"Building monsters with extra-special-powers no one else gets is a throwback to 1e!"
"The DM can use the class level system if he wants to!"

"The skill system is too stripped down!"
"You can add more skills!"

"Halflings are too tall!"
"The DM can make them shorter!"

Etc, etc, etc...

 

[Lizard]

Er, it IS lower damage than 3E overall. It scales to a max of +5d6 from 21st level, and it only applies once per round. That's positively nerfed!

We haven't seen how many things modify/increase it. I don't doubt they'll be in there...

Once per round is interesting, but without iterative attacks, I'm not sure what this means. Do I need to decide to 'hold off' on SA if I think I might get an AOO?

 

[hong]

Since 99% of my criticisms of 4e have been answered with "Well, houserule it" or "The DM can just...", PETA needs to look into some of 4e's more ardent defenders.

"Names like 'Golden Wyvern Adept' are stupid and immersion-breaking!"
"The DM can change the name to whatever they want!"

The names are fine and evocative, nitpicking notwithstanding.

"Building monsters with extra-special-powers no one else gets is a throwback to 1e!"
"The DM can use the class level system if he wants to!"

Building monsters with monster-specific powers streamlines the system, and is an idea that the vast majority of people have no problems with judging from what's out there.

"The skill system is too stripped down!"
"You can add more skills!"

The skill system is designed to meet the purposes of the majority of those playing the game, ie, those going into dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff.

"Halflings are too tall!"
"The DM can make them shorter!"

Actually, I'll just ban them.

 

[Lizard]

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

IIRC, in SWSE, you can't choose to be Trained in a skill not on your class list, so you have to multiclass to be good at a skill you 'shouldn't' be good at.

 

[shilsen]

Hey, does anyone else get an HTTP 500 - Internal server error when they try to view the article? : /

Yes, I do.

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.

I have no problem with it whatsoever. As Jeff Wilder and others have noted already, the fact that damage caused will be variable and healing will be variable means there's more than enough randomness to what the fixed hit points mean when one gets into a fight.

 

[Lizard]

The names are fine and evocative, nitpicking notwithstanding.

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!"

Just to clarify, I wasn't interested in re-opening old debates, just in pointing out that 4e's defenders have killed as many kittens as 3e's defenders...