Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[AllisterH]

Thats why you always carry a bound goblin which you can kick with you. That way something is happening and the encounter goes on.

That shouldn't work since a bound goblin isn't an encoutner. It would be like kicking luggage. Now, if the luggage was THE LUGGAGE, that's an encounter

 

[hong]

Thats why you always carry a bound goblin which you can kick with you. That way something is happening and the encounter goes on.

The bound goblin can carry the bucket of snails!

 

[Primal]

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.

No, I don't think it takes too much effort ("extra work"), say, to give a monster lower-than-average HPs, right? Do you*really* think that a DM, who adjusts the "danger curve" of the campaign to match the party's abilities is using a "crappy" method?

I'm a bit baffled why you'd think that it would be "bad" or "not fun" if *all* the PCs get to "shine" , since I though this was one of the design goals in 4E? So some of the guys (e.g. those with better HPs) may occasionally get to be more "heroic" than they "normally" would at their level, but I never saw this "unbalancing" the game at all. And why would "weaker" monsters make for an "unbalanced" campaign, if the DM knows how to adjust their numbers and stats for a balanced encounter? Besides, isn't this "more heroic at lower levels" another design premise of 4E? In factm I never saw anyone being more "heroic" than others just because of HPs, but *Ability scores* are another matter...

Let me tell you something -- *ALL* PCs in that campaign had lower-than-average HPs, but this wasn't actually the reason which led to the party's demise at 8th level. Here's the thing: it's the dynamic *attack rolls* in D&D that did the thing. Really. And the fact that we split the party and each PC went exploring on their own, certainly. But in the end, a regenerating BBEG slew each of us in single combat, due to horrible attack rolls. I mean, I rolled single-digits for *five* consecutive rounds with *ALL* of my three attacks... and the funny thing is that I only needed to roll 10 to hit! And the same happened to the Ranger and the Cleric. So, I don't think it was just bad luck... that was destiny. And the funny thing is that under the "normal" circumstances any one of use should have killed that BBEG in melee. Now, would this be a valid argument for static *attacks* in D&D?

You may seem to think that every PC must be "optimized" for combat, since that's the "heart and soul" of D&D, right? And "sucky" PCs are "badwrongfun", right? Yet I know many people who run campaigns in which "non-heroic" abilities and events play a much larger role. I tend to see it this way: if the basic premise of a campaign is interesting, I don't mind creating a "weak" (minimized) PC as long as the character is interesting and fun to play *and* has some sort of goals which are also possible to achieve in that campaign. If you want to play cobblers, blacksmiths and whatnot -- why should you not be able to play them in D&D? Is it because D&D *should* be about "monster bashing" and little else? Is variety in character options a bad thing, if it allows for "non-optimized" builds? I don't think so, if the DM and the players both know which sort of campaign a DM is going to run. So, maybe you don't like players who create "Tanks who can't do their job", but is that really the "heart" of the problem, or is it because you can't think of ways to work around this "problem"?

And I'm quite surprised that you seem to think that rolling for stats does not affect game balance as much as rolling for HPs. So your Fighter has 25 HPs more than my Fighter, but he has only STR 12 (your best score) while I have 14-18 in all my stats. Which of them will be "suckier" in most campaigns? And yet, although the 'Point Buy' system is far better from the perspective of game balance, it tends to produce almost identical stats -- especially if you only have 28 points to buy your stats with.

As for the NPC design -- you seriously think your "mysterious" NPC will be able to "hold back" his powers for more than a round or two? I know that this type of metagaming has always existed, but with static HPs I suspect it will become an even more significant feature in the game. In 3E, that 10th level Wizard might have 10-70 HPs (excluding Feats), so it'd be pretty pointless to "guesstimate" his HPs (except that if he's a BBEG, he's probably got more than just 10 ) and try to pick a "group assault plan" based on that. In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1. So yeah, it's just for NPCs, but I think most DMs prefer using PC races and classes for BBEGs and I think it might prove to be a serious "flaw" in 4E.
As for monster BBEGs... as the designers have hinted at 'Orc Shamans who spit acid', I think it's a random roll or two on a "Special Powers"-table (similar to how Chaos mutants work in WFRP).

 

[Khuxan]

As for the NPC design -- you seriously think your "mysterious" NPC will be able to "hold back" his powers for more than a round or two? I know that this type of metagaming has always existed, but with static HPs I suspect it will become an even more significant feature in the game. In 3E, that 10th level Wizard might have 10-70 HPs (excluding Feats), so it'd be pretty pointless to "guesstimate" his HPs (except that if he's a BBEG, he's probably got more than just 10 ) and try to pick a "group assault plan" based on that. In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1.

How do they know what level he is? From the level of power he uses? You don't have to tell the PCs the name of the power, just describe its effects. Might they be able to guess? Sure. But that indicates a very high familiarity with the system - at which point, your best bet is probably adapting powers or introducing new ones from new books.

And by the time the first power is used (which may not be the wizard's highest-level power), the encounter has begun and there's little opportunity for planning.

 

[AllisterH]

As for the NPC design -- you seriously think your "mysterious" NPC will be able to "hold back" his powers for more than a round or two? I know that this type of metagaming has always existed, but with static HPs I suspect it will become an even more significant feature in the game. In 3E, that 10th level Wizard might have 10-70 HPs (excluding Feats), so it'd be pretty pointless to "guesstimate" his HPs (except that if he's a BBEG, he's probably got more than just 10 ) and try to pick a "group assault plan" based on that. In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1. So yeah, it's just for NPCs, but I think most DMs prefer using PC races and classes for BBEGs and I think it might prove to be a serious "flaw" in 4E.
As for monster BBEGs... as the designers have hinted at 'Orc Shamans who spit acid', I think it's a random roll or two on a "Special Powers"-table (similar to how Chaos mutants work in WFRP).

Actually, that's not really possible UNLESS you actually purposely change the "average" value for a 10th level PC when rolling the die. Statistics math state that the more times you roll a die, the more likely the result of adding each die roll will be the average of the die * number of die. Basically, the standard deviation shrinks.

In 3E, what really determined the wide swings in HP was the CON being added.

At 10th level, a difference in +1 in two wizard's CON modifier would result in a difference of 10 HP which from what I remember of Statistics math, should be larger than the possible standard deviation of rolling a d4. At a guess, it might break even with a d6.

At 20th level though, the effect of +1 mod difference would mean more to a barbarian's total HP than the rolling of a d12 20 times.

That's only for a +1 difference in a CON modifier. A +2 difference though, that simply blows away the std deviation at 10th level even for a barbarian I'm willing to bet.

 

[Just Another User]

Ladies and Gents, let's not go this route, please. J.A.U. didn't get hysterical or insulting, he just had a point to make.


Actually, the fluff explanations for those questions work the exact same way; just because they're blind, stunned, whatever, doesn't mean they give the same openings. Maybe they are, but you're not the right distance away, or they have a nearby ally that spoils your whole angle, or your character has a better opportunity to use another ability. And again, I point to the fact that boxers don't use the exact same maneuvers unless they have their opponent on the ropes (in other words, helpless) - and this would be more like a coup de grace than some fancy maneuver.

I understand your and the other point of view, it is just that it don't work for me, I would be ok if it was a videogame or a board game, you have 1 "positioning strike" token, you play it and that is it, but in a role play game I want a little more ...consistency? Believability? Realism? pick your favorite.


Another problem I have with Encounter powers, now from the PC point of view, let's take the monster X as an example, it have the dreaded per encounter ability A (which is not magical at all) it can use it only once for fight after which we don't fall for it anymore because we have seen it... and yet we fall for it every time we fight an exemplar of the monster X. well, D'uh!!! (can't really enter in specific becasue the only per encounter abilities of monsters were magical in nature, so maybe they really can't be used more than once in a short period, but I'm willing to bet that in the monster manual there will be many monsters with P/E abilities that logically could work more than once in a fight but they just don't)

 

[Just Another User]

After all, when you're watching a movie, you're choosing to not have your sense of reality affected by the fact that the characters are actually not real but are being played by actors, or by the fact that you constantly watch it on a screen, or that there's clearly a camera in the same spot as these people but they pretend it's not there. And the fact that you're used to those conventions is a big part of it. When you play D&D, your sense of reality is presumably not affected by the fact that the halfling rogue is being played by your friend Bob, or that it's a world where giant lizards can fly without magic, or where human beings commonly can pull off things nobody in our world can.

None of the above is inherently more appropriate for a suspension of disbelief than anything else. It's all about habit and choice.

But a roleplaying game is not a movie, just to change your example a little, you are playing a videogame, your character come to a closed door, you have a ass-huge battleaxe and more than enough strength to use it so you try to hack the door to pieces... and find that you can't. the door (even if it is just a common, non-magical wooden door is indestructible, the only way to pass it is to find the key. Are you annoyed? maybe a little, but you have to expect things like that, it is a videogame, it came with the territory. Now suppose the same happen in a traditional RPG session, would you be annoyed? Heck, I would be pissed, even enough to leave the game maybe.
What I mean is, suspension of disbelieve is a funny thing, it works differently for different media, and mine is particulary sensible when it come to P&P RPG. And I like it that way.

 

[Lizard]

No, not in 21 years, regardless of using ToB, which we have, or not.

Neither have we -- but with the exception of Barb Rage, it's never *mattered* before. "We never had a problem resolving the fixed boundaries of an abstraction when those boundaries had no effect" isn't a promise that "We will never have such problems now that they do."

I know in V:TM, we often had to ask "Is the scene over?"

 

[ThirdWizard]

Everyone needs to get to the point where this doesn't mess with their sense of verisimilitude, and everything will then work out for the best. Once you accept this, things become much easier.

*hands out kool-aid*

 

[Lizard]

My guess: Intimidate is an automatic skill for fighters (like Stealth and Thievery for rogues), so that fighters now have a niche in social encounters. It wouldn't really make sense to have fighters automatically know how to bluff as well, so they kept the two skills separate. (Also, they probably don't want the social skills combined TOO much... having one "Convince People To Do What You Want" skill for social encounters would be like having a "Make Enemies Be Dead" skill for combat encounters!)

Hmm...

Fighter, Ranger, Wizard: Intimidate
Paladin, Cleric, Warlord: Diplomacy
Rogue, Warlock: Bluff

?