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

[hennebeck]

From JD:
"There could be 40 pages devoted to educating DMs on how to run exciting games, where the players can literally do anything, and it doesn't take more than a moment's thought to decide how to rule whatever they dream up."

I read that and immediately thought, 'Why can't someone ANYONE please just set this straight. Maybe I should ask Mouseferatu on the EN boards.'

And lo, later in the post here he comes to save the day...
"4E has reversed a lot of that. Without going into detail, the base task resolution system is so simple that... Well, I hesitate to say it covers any action you might want to try, because I'm sure someone can find an exception, and because I sound like advertising copy. But it certainly covers almost everything."

I'm still stoked. I thought he was pretty harsh, being a designer and not seeing the full rules.
And really, to me, he's just one more hater that I ignore.

PS. Thank you Mouseferatu.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am constantly amused by the notion that 1st edition was superior at opening up options for players by virtue of it not having rules for them.

It's an interesting observation, but I believe that indeed a rule can open up an option as much as closing it.

A 3e example I always make. As soon as I read the Rapid Shot description in the 3.0 PHB in 2001 I suggested the players that they could pretend to be shooting 2 arrows at once (Legolas style) when using it, or otherwise just shoot them quickly ater each other.

Come 3.5 and Manyshot, which specifically makes you shoot 2 arrows at once. The rule itself doesn't prevent you to still allow pretending when using Rapid Shot, but the gamers' perception is that you cannot do it, unless you have Manyshot. As usual, the problem is in the players, but the rules do the problem a favor.

 

[bramadan]

I think they should have allowed JD to become a playtester. An NDA would work on him as well as anyone. He shouldn't have been given a spot automatically as a former employee, but it would have been wise to make him a playtester due to his influence in the community. But, hey, what's done is done.

....

Color me confused.... I thought I am fairly well versed in who-is-who of gaming but I first heard of this guy on this thread. Not a dig into him really - he may be awesome fellow (and I don't think his attack on DnD4 is particularly outrageous) but I just fail to see how he is an influential fellow in the DnD community. Monte Cook should have been a play-tester for sure, but JD Wiker... not sure about that.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Interestingly, 4e actually provides a framework for abilities like "throw salt in their eyes" in a manner that previous editions did not.

So your player wants to throw salt in an enemy's eyes, but you're afraid that if you allow it your game will turn into a 1e style salt-throwing fest after you permit it?

Make it a power. Restrict it to per encounter or per day, and make the player take it as part of their regular power progression.

One of the problems with something like salt throwing in earlier editions is that if it was good enough to do at all, it was good enough to do ALL. FREAKING. DAY. So you had to make it worse than regular attacking, ie, worse than you might want, so that your characters don't spend the rest of the game abusing it.

With limited use abilities, you can afford to make it worthwhile. They can't spam it anymore, can they?

Throw Salt
You suddenly draw and throw salt into your opponent's eyes, and lunge at them as they recoil.
Prerequisite: Trained in Theivery
Per Day, Melee, Must have one free hand, Must have salt or some other caustic substance, Opponent must have eyes.
Make a reflex attack opposed by your foe's fortitude. On a success, your opponent grants combat advantage to you, and you may make an immediate follow up attack at 3[W]+Dex. On a failure, you may make an immediate follow up attack at [W]+Dex. Your opponent grants combat advantage until a save ends. This save counts as being versus poison for the purposes of abilities like Cast Iron Stomache.

That's just something I tossed together, I'm sure lots of you could do better. You could weaken it and make it a per encounter ability, you could do lots of different things. And it will meet the basic criteria- make it a good ability to have, something players will want to do, and something that doesn't break your game or end up getting spammed every round.

Funny...3E allows just the same, except you don't have to limit it to "Once per Day".

Throw Salt: You can try to throw a handful of salt into your opponent's eyes in an attempt to blind them temporarily. Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity. Make a ranged touch attack (Range Increment 5', max range 10') against the opponent, with a size modifier applied to its AC. Eyes are treated as 4 size categories smaller than the target creature. For example, the eyes of a medium-size creature would be of Fine size, causing a +8 size bonus to AC. If you hit, your opponent is Blinded for 1d3 rounds. If your opponent has no eyes, or any kind of protection that covers his eyes completely, this attack is useless.

Dunno what's so complicated about the whole problem.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Funny...3E allows just the same, except you don't have to limit it to "Once per Day".

Throw Salt: You can try to throw a handful of salt into your opponent's eyes in an attempt to blind them temporarily. Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity. Make a ranged touch attack (Range Increment 5', max range 10') against the opponent, with a size modifier applied to its AC. Eyes are treated as 4 size categories smaller than the target creature. For example, the eyes of a medium-size creature would be of Fine size, causing a +8 size bonus to AC. If you hit, your opponent is Blinded for 1d3 rounds. If your opponent has no eyes, or any kind of protection that covers his eyes completely, this attack is useless.

Dunno what's so complicated about the whole problem.

Problems
1) touch AC + 4 size categories? something that requires table look up is not "simple".
2) touch AC doesn't scale, size bonus or not, making this pathetically easy against most monsters at high levels.
3) the fact that different GMs would make you use a dex check, or give the creature a ref save, or make it an opposed check means not only the usefulness, how it works at all will completely vary from table to table.
4) is that balanced? probably not? who knows since there's no guidelines?

Again, none of this means you can't do it, but dex check vs defense is a unified mechanic, which specifically encourages easy on the fly decisions.

 

[mach1.9pants]

..... unified mechanic, which specifically encourages easy on the fly decisions.

Preach it brother! I know heaps of other games have used a unified mechanic, often poorly due to lack of depth of rules. DnD has always done great depth of rules and now it is great to see DnD use a unified mechanic.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Problems
1) touch AC + 4 size categories? something that requires table look up is not "simple".
2) touch AC doesn't scale, size bonus or not, making this pathetically easy against most monsters at high levels.
3) the fact that different GMs would make you use a dex check, or give the creature a ref save, or make it an opposed check means not only the usefulness, how it works at all will completely vary from table to table.
4) is that balanced? probably not? who knows since there's no guidelines?

Again, none of this means you can't do it, but dex check vs defense is a unified mechanic, which specifically encourages easy on the fly decisions.

this, but you could at least add: if the attack of opportunity fails, the salt throwing attack automatically fails. Then a high Level monster won´t be blinded, because their AoOs usually hit. Then you could add a feat: salt thrower, to avoid that opportunity attack and get a +4 bonus. Then you can fight a high level Monster with no chance to retaliate. Maybe you should also disallow salt throwing against monsters which are 2 or more size categories bigger than you, because you can´t reach their eyes, except when you ready salt throwing against a bite attack.

Sounds compilcated and imbalanced? Yes, it is at higher levels. An attack vs a reflex save with a reasonable penalty for beeing untrained in such a maneuver should be more balanced...

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

Preach it brother! I know heaps of other games have used a unified mechanic, often poorly due to lack of depth of rules. DnD has always done great depth of rules and now it is great to see DnD use a unified mechanic.

Hi....I'm new : )

I remember one of the 4E designers (Scott Rouse I think) talking briefly about on-the-fly rules adjudication with the new unified mechanic in one of the Gamer Zero video blogs...

From what I can extrapolate from this information, and from my ideas on the situation) I believe that throwing sand would be handled thusly:

Assuming that the PC already has the sand readied, it would be a DEX attack (factoring in penalties from using an improvised weapon if 4E still uses this mechanic) vs. Target Reflex Defense. On a successful hit, the target is blinded (with all associated penalties) for 1d4 rounds or until it spends a full round action removing the sand from it's eyes.

On a miss the target smacks the PC around and makes them look silly for not resorting to a weapon attack instead ; p

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hi....I'm new : )

I remember one of the 4E designers (Scott Rouse I think) talking briefly about on-the-fly rules adjudication with the new unified mechanic in one of the Gamer Zero video blogs...

From what I can extrapolate from this information, and from my ideas on the situation) I believe that throwing sand would be handled thusly:

Assuming that the PC already has the sand readied, it would be a DEX attack (factoring in penalties from using an improvised weapon if 4E still uses this mechanic) vs. Target Reflex Defense. On a successful hit, the target is blinded (with all associated penalties) for 1d4 rounds or until it spends a full round action removing the sand from it's eyes.

On a miss the target smacks the PC around and makes them look silly for not resorting to a weapon attack instead ; p

No 1d4 rounds for sure. Save ends!

 

[shadowguidex]

First Edition sucked...I don't understand all the nastalgia for a system that caused many a fight between the DMs and players. 1st Ed. games only worked if the most headstrong and bullheaded person at the table is the DM, otherwise you ended up with 30 minute arguments over how some idiotic cockeyed idea should be adjudicated.

1E: Nothing in the rulebooks, DM has to make it all up as he goes along, and try to remember how he ruled the last time...and hope his players don't get pissed by his decisions.

3E: Everything is in the rulebooks, to the point where it gets tedious to look up the effects of Frightened for the 18th time in that fight. No fights over rules adjudication, but lots of time spent looking up rules.

4E: This porridge is just right! Eliminate the rules that are tedious, streamline the system, yet create the framework needed for the DM to adjudicate unusual situations.