Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[HP Dreadnought]

4E supports on-the-fly adjudication much better than previous editions. You want to throw salt in somebody's eyes? Fine. Roll Dexterity vs. Reflex. If you succeed the opponent drops 1d6 numbers in the initiative order - or looses his minor action for the round or something.

Youi're going to mildly inconvenience sombody with this technique, but its hardly going to be a major determining factor for the fight.

 

[Flynn]

I ran my first 4e game last night. My overall impression? It felt more or less like running other versions of D&D. Sure, how you determine which bonus to add to the roll might be a little different in cases, but it's more or less the same game from a DM's point of view. I should note that perhaps I was doing a lot more of the improv and on-the-spot rules decisions in 3e than some people were, and 4e seems designed to make that easier, but I honestly can't say that it's "not D&D."

Cheers,
Cam

Cam:

I came away with the same feelings myself when I ran "Raiders of Oakhurst" yesterday afternoon. Yeah, the stats are little different, but all in all, it plays more or less like other versions of D&D, at least from the DM's perspective.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Lizard]

4E supports on-the-fly adjudication much better than previous editions. You want to throw salt in somebody's eyes? Fine. Roll Dexterity vs. Reflex. If you succeed the opponent drops 1d6 numbers in the initiative order - or looses his minor action for the round or something.

Youi're going to mildly inconvenience sombody with this technique, but its hardly going to be a major determining factor for the fight.

Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."

But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."

But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!

Amazing! That's a great idea. The best thing would be if the game rulebook would put a few guidelines for these effects, too, since DC 15 fort save doesn't scale well, and 1d4 blindness sounds a little too strong and stealing the shtick of casters with appropriate abilities... And how do you ensure that it's not used constantly?

 

[eleran]

Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."

But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!

Thou art truly the greatest DM ever.

 

[Wolfspider]

If anyone "knows" how to balance combat manoeuvers in D&D, it would be Mearls. You yourself stated you liked how he did it in 3E but then you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what's he's doing now.

Oh, I'm quite sure he knows what he's doing. I trust him in that regard completely.

It's just that, as you yourself said, it's a different paradigm with 4e. I prefer the one present in 3rd edition for a number of reasons, although I'm sure that Mearls' ideas will work wonderfully in the reality of 4e.

 

[Wolfspider]

Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."

But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!

Heh heh heh.

Thank you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that! Some sort of mechanic where you could roll against just hitting someone, not penetrating their defenses...we could call it an 'attack to touch', and it would take into account things like agility but not armor. If we had something like that, we might also wish for conditions such as 'blinded' or 'dazed' which would reflect the state of having something tossed in one's eyes; further, we might wish for some number which showed the hardiness, or perhaps the fortitude, of the target, in order that we could evaluate his ability to shrug off pain and shock. Then, if both of those wishes were granted, we might hope the people playing the game would have access to some sort of randomizer, for example, a four-sided die (imagine such a thing!). If these miracles were, somehow, to all come together, than a DM in 3x could say "Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds."

But we cannot do those things in 3e, alas and woe! Truly, when 4e comes, it shall be an age of wonders!

would be fine, if touch AC would scale with level and fortitude save would scale in a reasonable way... a DC 10 Fortitude check would be much more reasonable for this kind of attack... (should be lowerd than the blind spell DC)
i would rule it that way in 3rd edition, but however you set the numbers, it doesn´t scale well with your level. Either it is overpowered early, or underpowered in higher levels...

 

[Wolfspider]

Yeah, spelled S-T-A-L-E

 

[Lizard]

Amazing! That's a great idea. The best thing would be if the game rulebook would put a few guidelines for these effects, too, since DC 15 fort save doesn't scale well, and 1d4 blindness sounds a little too strong and stealing the shtick of casters with appropriate abilities... And how do you ensure that it's not used constantly?

(In actual play, I'd probably decide about how likely I wanted it to be, then assign a DC based on that. Alternatively, the usual 10+1/2 hit die+Dex bonus -- in this case, the more dextrous the attacker, the more accurate the throw and thus the harder the save. It's an odd mechanic, but it works.)

As for not being used constantly...well, many high-level monsters don't rely on sight, the save shouldn't be too hard, you need to make an attack AND he gets a save, and is "Blinded for 1d4 rounds" *usually* the best outcome for a given round of combat? At very low levels, perhaps, but at higher levels, there's almost always something better. (Lastly, if someone insists on carrying no weapon but a bag of salt, have him meet undead, golems, plants, slimes, and guys with goggles. )

Point being, it's no harder making up rules in 3e than it looks like it will be in 4e, and people basing their belief in 4e's simplicity due to a handful of pre-release pages might be a bit shocked when the THUD of 600+ pages of rules comes down in June. A lot of stuff people are making up now, there probably WILL be rules for in the game...with just as many loopholes, exceptions, and broken edge cases as 3e had. "Attack vs. Reflex" is not "simpler" or "cleaner" than "Make a touch attack", and "moves down in the initiative order" is neither more nor less arbitrary than "blinded for X rounds".