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

[Doug McCrae]

Sir Brennen: Excellent point about the d20 rules providing a framework. Imo the two d20 systems - 3e and 4e - are better for 'going outside the rules' than 1e, with its plethora of subsystems. If a PC throws mud in someone's eye in 1e then as a DM I don't really know where to begin because everything works differently. All I know is I need to write a new table, with a bunch of modifiers. And at some point a d12 will have to be rolled.

One thing I really liked about 3e is the default assumption that every advantage or disadvantage gives a +2 or -2 on a d20, which makes on the fly rulings very easy. In fact I'd like to have seen that made universal in combat. Higher ground? +2. Opponent prone? +2. Cover? -2. Would have been so much easier to remember.

 

[Dinkeldog]

does the 4e feel like d&d? or not
a long blogpost with interesting reply that shed light on the position of a lot of ex WotC employers (like Reynolds and Cook) that rightly would have liked to playtest 4ed.... but were denyed (a mistake IMO)

here
http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/43482.html?view=343770#t343770

I'd take exception to the thought that ex employees inherently deserved a playtest slot. While it might be a nice idea, I've never worked at a company that gave me beta releases of software to help test out on virtue of my being a previous employee.

 

[Doug McCrae]

So, how would we rule a "I shoot the Tarrasque in the eye!" in 4e?

Striking a vital area is already covered by the critical hit rule. It's assumed combatants are always trying to hit an opponent somewhere vulnerable.

 

[JohnBiles]

My experience of playing 1E for 5 years wasn't flexibility and freedom; it was that 1E was a crazy quilt of rules with no clear underlying guidelines on how to do anything at all outside them. It pretty much encouraged you to stick to 'I hit it' or 'I cast a spell at it', rather than encouraging anything beyond that.

Plus, at this point, we really don't have enough of the 4E rules to make the kind of judgement this guy is trying to make.

Also, is there any actual evidence that these former WOTC staffers the OP talks about wanted to playtest but were denied? Or is the OP just assuming that?

 

[Sir Brennen]

Also, is there any actual evidence that these former WOTC staffers the OP talks about wanted to playtest but were denied? Or is the OP just assuming that?

Sean K Reynolds made several comments on the blog the OP linked to regarding this (which, although I think SKR is a good designer, I found the comments to sound both a bit whiny and not terribly relevant.)

 

[Remathilis]

See, there's a flip side to the "no rule to cover X", and that is "X can't be done". To whit.

There is no rule in D&D for striking at a spellcaster's throat to prevent him from speaking/casting (and possibly breathing).

Option 1:

The DM can devise a called-shot method of resolving this particular technique. The DM must weigh the benefits and hindrances of such a technique, so that is no so weak/difficult to be ineffective* or so good as to be matter of course.

Option 2:

Since there is no rule for it, it cannot be done. Hp is abstract, so no blow can strike and silence a spellcasting foe.

For every DM who would attempt to create option 1, there is another who will assume option 2. This puts the game in an odd place; do you cater to the "Make rules up as they come" DMs or the "No rule, no action" DMs? 1e/2e catered to the first crowd, 3e/4e caters to the latter. For DMs who grew up on Option 1, the complexity of feats, combat actions (bull rush, etc), and martial techniques seem unnecessary and stifling. To those in the latter, they are welcomed additions to the game by providing more official (and therefore easy to resolve) actions to the game.

* unless of course, the DM WANTS it to be ineffective, which is really no better than option 2. It just creates the illusion of PCs being able to do anything, not PCs who can actually DO anything.

 

[Sora Justice]

does the 4e feel like d&d? or not
a long blogpost with interesting reply that shed light on the position of a lot of ex WotC employers (like Reynolds and Cook) that rightly would have liked to playtest 4ed.... but were denyed (a mistake IMO)

here
http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/43482.html?view=343770#t343770

A blog post by ex-employees edited out - if you can't post without using grandma-friendly language, don't post it - Plane Sailing

 

[Reaper Steve]

Wow, what a flawed argument.
JD is passing judgment that the entirety of 4E provides less choice than previous editions, basing that decree off of a single narrow intro. Of course the latter will provide less choice than the full system!

A better comparison would be 'what choices do a 1st-level 4E character have compared to a 1st-level character in previous editions?' And that question can't even be answered in an intro adventure with pre-gen characters.

What can be determined is: how does 'Scalegloom Hall' and 'Escape from Sembia' compare to similar intro experiences to any previous version of D&D? That can be answered. I have not had the fortune to play or read either of those two DDXP intros, but everything I've read regarding them is that they provide play experiences that are leaps beyond a 1st-level game in prior editions.

 

[Bishmon]

In my opinion, the blogger was just looking for stuff to fit into his conclusion. In other words, he already had the answer, he was just looking for the questions. I can't see another explanation for why he'd hinge everything on how much control a DM does or does not have without, you know, actually having read the DMG.

 

[Sir Brennen]

As food for thoughts :

So, how would we rule a "I shoot the Tarrasque in the eye!" in 4e?

I'd rule the Tarrasque eats the archer on his turn

As Doug said, critical hit rules (which were not part of the core in earlier editions) simulate this to an extent. Of course, that doesn't cover the visual impairment which would also accompany such an attack.

I could also see the ability to blind an opponent (or at least impair their vision) with a melee or ranged attack a martial power.

Since Mike Mearls is with WotC now, it's entirely possible there might be a "stunt" style mechanic, like he introduced in both Iron Heroes and the Book of Iron Might. Essentially trading off giving the opponent some sort of general penalty to attack, defense, movement, etc (open to player descriptions of "I hit him in the eye!" or "I cut his hamstring!") for a penalty to the attacker's roll, or expenditure of an action point, or some mechanic as yet unrevealed.

* unless of course, the DM WANTS it to be ineffective, which is really no better than option 2. It just creates the illusion of PCs being able to do anything, not PCs who can actually DO anything.

Hah! Yep... let the player roll the dice and try, but with such a hefty penalty that it's either mathematically impossible to succeed, or has such a high failure rate that they'll eventually give up trying to use the tactic. Again, common occurrence in the earlier editions to handle things outside the rules.