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

[billd91]

The playtesters have seen the full rules, and they've praised the game. This guy hasn't seen the full rules, and he's condemned the game.

Not ALL of the playtesters have done so. I know of one group of playtesters who believe that the game actually got worse with every iteration of the rules they were given.

Nor is "not feeling like D&D" really condemning the game. There are plenty of successful games that don't feel like D&D. It's criticism to be sure, but I fail to see how it's a condemnation.

 

[Lizard]

Compare to the 4e universal mechanic. If it's a Dex attack vs reflex (or fort), there's no AoO, and the saving throw to shrug off the effect is the standard 10+, the tactic always keeps the same effectiveness (possibly more than 1d4 rounds if the DM rolls the saves poorly). Why would everyone not use it constantly in 4e?

Because it would be an encounter power. Or not; if it's a DM call, it could be at will or daily.

(Honestly, I think 4e mechanics would work better if everyone had a pool of 'stunt points', or whatever, and powers simply cost points. Use a low-point power in every round or blow your wad on one big one and limp along for the rest of the encounter. There'd be no pretense of an in-world explanation, it would be a purely metagaming construct, and better for it. I'm sure the "Math is hard!" crowd would object, though.)

 

[billd91]

What's the equivalent of throwing salt for higher levels? Throwing Silverdust? Dragonblood? Magma?

Does it need an equivalent designed for higher levels? Why isn't it just appropriate to have substances with different save DCs based on their own inherent properties? Sand is a low DC, salt a little higher, ankheg acid substantially higher, and so on....

Why should sand or salt be equally effective against non-adventuring farmers for low level PCs as against great wyrms for high level PCs? The higher level PCs probably should be looking for something well beyond basic sand and salt against a critter that tough.

 

[Cadfan]

Why should it scale at all? Is the salt getting more irritating because the PC throwing it is a higher level? Besides, as the PC fights tougher opponents, the tactic becomes naturally less useful, another reason it surely won't be used constantly.

Because you throw it more accurately, and more salt goes straight into the dude's eye.

Compare to the 4e universal mechanic. If it's a Dex attack vs reflex (or fort), there's no AoO, and the saving throw to shrug off the effect is the standard 10+, the tactic always keeps the same effectiveness (possibly more than 1d4 rounds if the DM rolls the saves poorly). Why would everyone not use it constantly in 4e?

Well, that would depend on how it were implemented.

My view would be to make it so that throwing salt is combat ineffective for the typical person (your opponent just ducks the slow moving spray of salt), but you can take it as a power. If you take it as a power, it becomes part of a combination of techniques that make up a per encounter or per day power. So you don't just throw the salt, hopefully gain a combat bonus, and then exploit it on later turns if its still around. You throw the salt as you lunge to stab your enemy, gaining immediate advantage, even if the salt wears off quickly. This is a long way of saying that the reason that people wouldn't spam this in 4e is because, in my design, it would be a per encounter or per day ability.

And since I'd be custom designing it for a player, I'd ask him how awesome he wants his salt throwing to be. Does he want to throw salt relatively often, for a small benefit? If so, I'll probably make it per encounter. Or does he want to throw salt as a surprise attack that permits him to absolutely rock his target? If so, I'll probably make it a per day ability, and strengthen it accordingly. I can write it differently if he wants to throw salt, gain a minor advantage and then lunge, versus if he wants to throw salt and gain a massive, longer term advantage. I can even make multiple salt throwing powers, each which combine with different types of attacks. Maybe rogues throw salt differently than monks, and monks throw salt differently than barbarians. I've got a lot more space to play here.

If "you can't throw salt every round because its a per encounter ability and that's that" causes your brain to spasm, then 4e (and frankly D&D) may not be for you. If you're ok rationalizing to yourself ("ok, it only works as a surprise, and once your enemies see it, they're ready for you to try it again"), then you can move on and just have fun throwing salt in people's eyes then punching their lungs out.

And for the record, the odds of a 4e "save ends" ability lasting more than 1d4 rounds is low. The expected duration of 1d4 rounds is 2.5. The expected duration of "save ends" with a 50/50 save is less than 2.

 

[billd91]

If "you can't throw salt every round because its a per encounter ability and that's that" causes your brain to spasm, then 4e (and frankly D&D) may not be for you. If you're ok rationalizing to yourself ("ok, it only works as a surprise, and once your enemies see it, they're ready for you to try it again"), then you can move on and just have fun throwing salt in people's eyes then punching their lungs out.

And for the record, the odds of a 4e "save ends" ability lasting more than 1d4 rounds is low. The expected duration of 1d4 rounds is 2.5. The expected duration of "save ends" with a 50/50 save is less than 2.

Personally, that design paradigm is one of the major reasons my skepticism of 4e has grown in proportion to what I know about it.

And I know about the odds quite well, well enough to know that the expected value is what you'll tend to see over a large number of trials. But I also know, probabilities being what they are, that you will see encounters where the target of the power is inexplicably unable to shake off that effect.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Not ALL of the playtesters have done so. I know of one group of playtesters who believe that the game actually got worse with every iteration of the rules they were given.

Well, then those testers should hold their tongues as well. All I'm saying is that folks--either pro- or anti-4e--would do well to withhold final judgment until they see the rules. That goes double for industry pros. Saying "I will not play 4E" or "I will definitely switch to 4e" is fine for fans, but industry professionals should know better.

Nor is "not feeling like D&D" really condemning the game. There are plenty of successful games that don't feel like D&D. It's criticism to be sure, but I fail to see how it's a condemnation.

Let me explain: 4th Edition D&D is, well, D&D. You can tell from the letters after "4th Edition." If one declares that 4th Edition D&D does not feel like D&D, then one is declaring that the game has fundamentally failed. It's a blanket condemnation. In fact, I'd say there's no greater condemnation.

 

[Stalker0]

Let me explain: 4th Edition D&D is, well, D&D. You can tell from the letters after "4th Edition." If one declares that 4th Edition D&D does not feel like D&D, then one is declaring that the game has fundamentally failed. It's a blanket condemnation. In fact, I'd say there's no greater condemnation.

I think it comes down to the old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."

As designers, one would hope they would want the new edition to succeed. While they may feel its too soon, etc, the fact is 4e is here, and the future of dnd goes with it. Its been awhile, but its important to remind people that until 3e came around, dnd as a business was dead. 3e resurrected it because it made profit. But dnd can just as easily die again if it does not continue to make profit.

So with that in mind, I think its important to be positive, to get people excited. If you see something in 4e you like, then say so. If you don't like it, then wait to see the full picture and see if it changes your mind.

Is that a biased view? Absolutely. But I would much rather be optimistic about the future of the game I love than to shoot down its future before we even see what that full future will entail. And for designers, people who make a living off of this game, I would say that goes double for them.

 

[billd91]

Well, then those testers should hold their tongues as well. All I'm saying is that folks--either pro- or anti-4e--would do well to withhold final judgment until they see the rules.

But isn't it fair to make a judgement on what you have seen? Clearly, a lot of people are doing so. How about expressing concerns or misgivings?

Sure, everyone doing so is working from an incomplete picture, but why isn't an incomplete picture enough if that portion of the picture pushes the right decision-driving buttons?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think one of the advantages of 4E is that it's easier to compare powers and special maneuvers, since there is a more or less clearer scale.
We have:
- Basic Attacks. Nothing fancy. Attack, deal damage, no special effects.
- At Will Powers: Attack with or plus minor special effect (pushing, higher bonus, small rider buff)
- Per Encounter Powers: More damage + minor effect, or normal damage and better effect
- Per Day Powers: More Damage, plus strong effect.

If you want to rule a unusual maneuver, you can use this as a base-line:
- Throw Salt is easy to do if you stack up on salt. So, it deals no damage and grants a minor benefit. Making it on par with basic attacks, maybe at-will powers.
- Turn Tables to trip multiple foes: Requires the presence of a table, so it should compare to a per encounter power.

It's a bit more difficult to compare this in 3E, but I think Mikes Iron Might rules might provide good enough guidelines for that.
The only problem: You stack up on a lot of penalties. -4 (or -5) for "unproficient" use, attack of opportunity.

And here is the 4E "secret" at work - it's opportunity cost. Sure you can throw salt every round, but you could also use your at-will power every round, and that one is pretty decent, too. 3E is not totally free of this - at higher levels, anything that negated your full attack as a fighter was probably inferior. But the more or less standard maneuvers (trip, disarm, sunder) did only require an attack (or was it different for sunder?). And you could negate all other penalties. And some (read: Trip) could be used very effectively with the right feats and not-to-large monsters, without having to sacrifice a potential damage dealing attack (at high level, whose last attack has a chance to hit anyway? Better trip the enemy and set him up for a 4 point power attack, or give the Non-Full-BAB classes a better chance to hit.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the easiest fix to encounter powers is allowing reuses, but with drastically reduced chances (-5), because you won´t let someone throw salt at you more than once. You can also apply circumstance bonuses/penalties to the salt throwing, if the enemy knows your trick, has seen the salt in your hand.

But the most important thing: you don´t use it regularly, because it is not imbalanced... it seems to perfectly scale in level in respect to the attack bonus (which it should, because everything does so in D&D, and after all its a certain fighting technique), but doesn´t scale at all in its effect (because salt is salt) maybe you could do a followup vs constitution to prevent using acid in such a cheap way... with salt having an inherent +15 bonus or such...