Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Doug McCrae]

I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.

Alignment and the arcane/divine split.

4e doesn't just have the same broad concepts as 3e, it retains a lot of minutiae such as swift/immediate actions, five foot steps, attacks of opportunity, feats, three saving throws, touch armor class, unified stat bonuses, 3.5's lack of facing and monster dimensions, and sneak attack.

I'm happy with most, if not all, of these but it doesn't change the fact that this game is staying very similar to 3e. Oh well, at least it gives them something to change in 5th.

 

[Lizard]

Of the five points you mentioned, three are specific to 3e only (skills & sneak attacks). Altering those doesn't make 4e less "D&D" . . . just less "3e D&D".

We've used fixed hit points since 2e, so I consider that part of the D&D experience.

Just because 4e Rogues appear to have Weapon Finesse hardwired into their powers doesn't break D&D for me either.

I'm still curious as to what '3e-isms' you see. That was my point -- most of what I mentioned are 3e-only, and they're gone. (Though sneak attack, in the form of backstab, has been around a while...since the Greyhawk supplement?)

 

[Lizard]

4e doesn't just have the same broad concepts as 3e, it retains a lot of minutiae such as swift/immediate actions, five foot steps, attacks of opportunity, feats, three saving throws, touch armor class, unified stat bonuses, 3.5's lack of facing and monster dimensions, and sneak attack.

Let me rephrase my question then -- which of these did you think would be gone, and why? Most of them were confirmed to still be in 4e, perhaps in mutated form, very early in the development release process. Others were obvious based on later 3e books and SWSE.

See, I'm happy because it looks like a lot of the worst possible changes WEREN'T made, and the game will still have real tactical depth. (Would have liked facing, but, hey, I didn't expect it...)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Let me rephrase my question then -- which of these did you think would be gone, and why?

I had very few assumptions about 4e. The one thing I thought they might do - a HEROisation of the backend for gearheads while keeping a user friendly D&D-style class and level-based front end for casual players - they haven't, probably for sound financial reasons.

In order to improve something you *must* change it. 4e isn't a massive change so, logically, it can't be a massive improvement. It's just a small improvement. Which is all well and good but it could be even better.

I'm kind of disappointed when I see stuff like sneak attack still in, not because I have a specific idea for something better in my head, I don't - that's how game designers can make lots of money off me - but because every time I see something that's the same as 3e I know that's an area that hasn't been improved.

 

[Doug McCrae]

the game will still have real tactical depth.

Yeah, love that tactical depth. It's probably my favourite element of 3e.

 

[helium3]

OMG. I already found something totally broken! Armor is now worthless if you are fighting a rogue. At will they can AUTOMATICALLY bypass your armor! AUTOMATICALLY. Well I can guess people will be saying how totally screwed over Fighters are by the current edition... all over again!

So a rogue can basically make an attack as a touch attack now? Once per round? OMG, that's just like the 3E Warlock, and we all know how broken Eldritch Blast was.

 

[heretic888]

LOL I do have some laundry to do, thanks for the reminder!

I figure we've only seen a portion of the class, as Crimson Edge is "Rogue Attack 9" which to me signifies the level of the ability. That leaves us with 21-levels-worth of abilities left, and I'm also inclined to believe some of the other low-level abilities were snipped. I too hope (and expect) that the rogue gets a bit more than just attacks, but since she's a "striker" I can understand.

Hi chaotix42,

Yep, exactly.

Riposte Strike (at-will), Sly Flourish (at-will), Easy Target (daily), and Trick Strike (daily) were all mentioned under the builds section. These are all seemingly 1st level Rogue powers that we have not seen yet.

Then, of course, there's stuff like Tornado Strike whose level we don't know yet.

Laterz.

 

[ferratus]

I'm curious as to what artifacts you see, that could reasonably have been changed while still keeping the game arguably D&D.

Team based combat, fantastic creatures, magic... Hmm... I can't think of any other elements from the D&D boxed set till now which have remained unchanged.

The classes, the way classes operated were different, races came and went, the means of resolving an attack changed, ability scores affected different things, unarmed combat was different, light and visibility, movement, specific spells like lightning bolt and fireball, equipment rules... all different.

So when you bring up that the following is different...

Skill points are gone.

You know another time skill points were gone? 2nd Edition. There were no skills at all but Non-weapon proficiencies. In 3e the problem with skill points is that if you didn't max out your skills you were usually useless at that skill, especially if the skill in question had an opposing skill check ie. hide vs. spot. So 4e just assumes that you train in a skill or you are a gifted amateur. This means that more people can participate in teamwork involving skills (which keeps people from wandering away to the fridge, talking to other people left out, or reading), and since you were maxing out your skills anyway just giving you proficiency in that skill is an easy shortcut.

Skills are truncated dramatically.

You mean you didn't combine hide and move silently into "Stealth" and spot and listen into "Perception" 6 years ago? I thought pretty much every D&D table had house ruled that.

Hit points are fixed.

Again, you didn't houserule the "Living Greyhawk" half hit dice +1 rule into your game 6 years ago? I saw some emotional attachment to the old style rolling, but most tables I gamed in had 3 hit points for wizards, 4 for rogues, 5 for clerics, 6 for fighters and 7 for barbarians. This really is nothing new.

Sneak attack damage is now 'tiered'.

It was tiered before too. Every few levels you got an extra +1d6. Like I said in another post, I'm pretty sure that you can add more to your sneak attack with powers and feats, though I have nothing to back that up.

There's no apparent default attribute for attacks -- different attacks use different attributes for 'to hit' and 'damage'.

Again, not really new since spells have been using all sorts of ways of attacking a character. We had to have three seperate defenses in order to deal with different types of magical attacks, plus spells attacked AC as well. The only thing that is different is that martial character classes through various means are attacking saving throws as well. Precise strike is just a fancy way of "called shot to a gap in the armour" and thus uses reflex saves. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "blinding attack" using powder or sand that required a fortitude save, or if non-lethal damage required a will save to stay conscious. Now these are just examples I'm making up, but certainly they aren't any more ludicrous than magical attacks against these defenses.

So really I don't get how it changes it from being "D&D" since all of your examples haven't been around in previous editions of D&D. Also, a lot of changes have been optional rules for awhile, and those that weren't are just logical extensions of existing rules.

 

[Lizard]

I'm kind of disappointed when I see stuff like sneak attack still in, not because I have a specific idea for something better in my head, I don't - that's how game designers can make lots of money off me - but because every time I see something that's the same as 3e I know that's an area that hasn't been improved.

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?

 

[Lizard]

So really I don't get how it changes it from being "D&D" since all of your examples haven't been around in previous editions of D&D. Also, a lot of changes have been optional rules for awhile, and those that weren't are just logical extensions of existing rules.

I really do wish people would read posts before replying to them.

I was noting specific 3e-isms gone in response to a post by someone who claimed the rogue still had too many 3e holdovers. I also noted that there's a point at which things change so much that one can't arguably claim it's the same game. Often, this point is time-dependant; if D&D 3e had appeared in 1978 after the 'brown box', it would be pretty easy to argue it was an entirely new game -- indeed, EGG argued that AD&D 1e was just that vs. D&D. But changing things over time leads to continuity. (Another thread) My point, to be extra-special-super-clear, was NOT that 4e had mutated to the extent it was a new game, but that those claiming that it still had too many 'holdovers' seemed to be hoping that it WOULD.

My point: Many, many,3e-isms are gone, and those that remain are either core to the D&D concept (race/class/level/hit points) or have shown themselves to be too successful/popular to merit extreme change. Which is, uhm, EXACTLY the propaganda line 4e apologists have been making right up until we actually started seeing the crunch, so why be upset that I'm agreeing with them? Isn't "Fix what's broken, preserve what works" the guiding design philosophy for ANY (good) upgrade?

So let me refocus yet again:
What about the rogue preview indicates a 3e holdover which cannot be justified on any basis but nostalgia or sacred-cow-ness? IOW, what's there which keeps 4e from being as much of an improvement over 3e as it theoretically could/should be?