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

[Henry]

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.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/J.D._Wiker

His main claim to fame at WotC was his work on the Star Wars RPG, but he's done some 3rd party work under his Game Mechanics imprint. (I've used his Swords of the Fathers material before there ever was a Weapons of Legacy, and I still use their freebie initiative cards to this day.)

 

[shadowguidex]

I'm the GM in a fake 4E combat, and my player wants to throw sand in the orc's face (I have never seen the rulebooks, this is based off what I know of 4E):

Player1: I want to throw sand in the orc's face to blind him!!

Me(DM): Cool. That will take a standard action to grab some dirt and throw it. Roll Dex vs. his Reflex...no wait, Fortitude, he is just going to tough it out.

Player1: I rolled a 12, plus my Dex thats 14.

Me(DM): The sand gets in his eyes and impairs his sight but doesn't blind him. The orc grants combat advantage till the end of your next round.


WOW..thjat was tough..... How does this adjudication example not feel like D&D... Also, how was this handled in 3E....not nearly as well.

 

[Henry]

...Which leaves the post looking like FUD, which shouldn't impact on people's opinion of him, since, well, people who follow ENWorld seems to have more information about 4e than a lot of other people out there, but at the same time, because of that, a lot of people here are getting quite tired of the repeated FUD wafting around the internet, and that's making people surly.

Which I can understand, but I still take umbrage whenever people take any disagreement, and assume it's an unreasoning rant. It's not really any more reasoned than the rants they are reacting against.

One thing I'm keeping in mind: He has first-hand knowledge of some things that we don't, and it's colored his opinion of the material he has seen so far. It could be that since 2002, the entire direction of the design staff has changed (as well it might, since two-thirds of them aren't the same people any more!) and the leanings he remembers has behind the scenes turned around completely. Or, come June we might have the rules and realize it's changed subtly from what the playtesters know! (I remember when on 2000, they released the XP table, with its much lower xp requirements, and Piratecat said something to the effect of, "wow, I don't remember it looking like that!" with a little bit of dismay.)

The blog post also underscores how the rules won't be good for everyone, and there will be a percentage that won't switch, and that percentage may be more than a tiny fraction.

 

[Henry]

WOW..thjat was tough..... How does this adjudication example not feel like D&D... Also, how was this handled in 3E....not nearly as well.

Probably with an attack roll and a saving throw, same as it likely was since 1st edition, and it would result in either the orc being blinded, OR more reasonable the orc loses his action that round as he recovers. In 4e, it would probably involve a save each round until the orc recovered, like any other condition.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Problems
1) touch AC + 4 size categories? something that requires table look up is not "simple".

If you need a table to check (2^X, X=0 for first size category), there's a lot of other problems with D&D than throwing salt in somebody's face. This is NOT 1E with its emphasis on tables.

2) touch AC doesn't scale, size bonus or not, making this pathetically easy against most monsters at high levels.

Right, because every high-level character would risk an AoO from his melee +20 opponent to throw some salt in his face. Apart from the fact that you wouldn't reach the face of half of the monsters at that CR in the first place.

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.

Huh? Why should different DMs come to that conclusion when somebody wants to THROW (thrown weapon) something into somebody's face? Do you ask for a Dex check when somebody throws a flask of acid, or holy water? Would you seriously expect some "different GM" ask for it? We ARE talking 3E still, right? Just to make sure.

4) is that balanced? probably not? who knows since there's no guidelines?

And where are the guidelines for "balance" for 4E that demand throwing salt being a 1/day ability? Didn't find any last time I checked. We're all just blowing smoke here, so trying to make yours nicer colored is not helping.

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.

You might be be surprised, but Attack Rolls are a pretty unified mechanic as well, even the ranged touch ones. I'm not sure I see your point. If you would like to enlighten me, point out the other different 3E mechanisms that exist for throwing something at somebody, or your reasoning why you expect DMs to rule hither and yon in 3E.

Edit: But to amend this a bit...you could also rule the handful of salt as an improvised throwing weapon (-4 to attack) and that after a certain size of eye, the blinding won't work anymore.

 

[shadowguidex]

Probably with an attack roll and a saving throw, same as it likely was since 1st edition, and it would result in either the orc being blinded, OR more reasonable the orc loses his action that round as he recovers. In 4e, it would probably involve a save each round until the orc recovered, like any other condition.

Is it a touch attack... If so figure out the AC. If not, whats the AC. This can't be a normal touch attack because I'm not trying to touch any part of him, just the eyeballs....is their a size modifier....Whats a fricken AC I'm trying to hit...come on dude, we're waiting.

Whats the DC? 10? 15? 20? 25? No high CR monster is ever gonna fail a DC 10 fort check vs. common salt. Is this MAGIC salt?...Does magic salt have a higher DC?

How long is it blinded for? Permanent, 1 round, 1d4 Rounds, 1d6 Rounds...is there a mechanic somewhere to tell me, or am I choosing arbitrarily....Whats the effects of Blinded again (Look up in back of DMG)? Ok, It loses it's Dex bonus ands you guys get bonus to hit, wait...it has blind fight so no you don't. Ok, so his new AC is lower, and I gotta roll all my 50% Miss chance a second time because of blind fighting...damn it has 5 attacks per round... (Commence 5 minute monster die rolling round - the players all decide that this is a good time to take a leak and/or grab some chips and soda, or start talking about Heath Ledger as Joker..till you interrupt them with the damage that resulted from the 40 die rolls)

In the end, the DM still has a mechanic that requires arbitration that 4E doesn't require. 4E eliminates the DC and the duration, and just causes a straight Roll X vs. X Defense. There is no more arbitrarily chosen DC - the only arbitrary arbitration is the choice of what you're rolling (Dex, Athletics, Thievery, etc vs. Reflex, AC, Fortitude, Will) but those exist already in 3E and seem very apparant when you roll a 4E test game.

 

[Henry]

Is it a touch attack...

Nope - why would it be? He could use his arm, his shield, a weapon, etc. to block the attack to his face, so regualr attack roll would suffice. DC would be probably a 15, which would be an entry-level DC, so any higher wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the DM still has a mechanic that requires arbitration that 4E doesn't require. 4E eliminates the DC, and just causes a straight Roll X vs. X Defense. There is no more arbitrarily chosen DC - the only arbitrary arbitration is the choice of what you're rolling (Dex, Athletics, Thievery, etc vs. Reflex, AC, Fortitude, Will) but those exist already in 3E and seem very apparant when you roll a 4E test game.

in 4e, you have the reflex defense, then the save per round for most effects, so I don't see it as any more or less difficult.

 

[shadowguidex]

Nope - why would it be? He could use his arm, his shield, a weapon, etc. to block the attack to his face, so regular attack roll would suffice. DC would be probably a 15, which would be an entry-level DC, so any higher wouldn't make sense.

Yeah, that Full Plate he is wearing is really gonna help against salt....right...Chain Mail...yeah, right....?

Why 15? You're basically saying that salt to the eyes will never be effective against a monster with high enough level to get a high fortitude. In 4E it can always be effective because the ratio of your attack will always be in line with an equal level monster's defense. Salt doesn't really ever dimish in power just because of the level of the guy you're chucking it at, only the relative abilities of the two combatants should change, not the salt....also note that a Fighter with a high fort defense at low levels will have a high fort at high levels, all relative to same level opponents, so if a level 1 has to roll a 17, then a level 30 will also have to roll a 17 if they have the same base attributes. Again, the salt doesn't change, only the abilities of the combatants.

4E does away with DCs. DCs are terrible because they added an unnecessary component that was always an arbitrarily chosen number by the DM. Your "DC" is your opponent's Defense and nothing more.

in 4e, you have the reflex defense, then the save per round for most effects, so I don't see it as any more or less difficult.

It certainly isn't more difficult, and everyone [will] knows the mechanic going in. You're gonna roll X vs. X, and you roll saves on your round to end effects. Period. That's the simplistic yet amazing beauty of the 4E system.....you can do a massive array of chosen actions with the easy X vs. X system that is always in perfect ratio for equal level monsters. You wanna throw salt at level 1, roll Dex vs. Reflex (+2 vs. 12). Level 10? (+7 vs. 17). Level 30? (+17 vs. 27). Easy as pie, and beautifully crafted system.

 

[small pumpkin man]

If you need a table to check (# size categories x 2), there's a lot of other problems with D&D than throwing salt in somebody's face. This is NOT 1E with its emphasis on tables.

As the Angry Alien says,
Size Categories Do Not Work That Way
If you don't feel like clicking on the link, suffice to say, moving size down 4 sizes would be +8 for a medium creature, +5 for a large, and +4 for a Huge. I'd say that requires a table lookup.

Right, because every high-level character would risk an AoO from his melee +20 opponent to throw some salt in his face. Apart from the fact that you wouldn't reach the face of half of the monsters at that CR in the first place.

Because he can use his fourth attack and still hit easily? Because Blindness is really nasty? because after the first time he can do it without provoking? But none of that really matters, the point was that the difficulty doesn't scale in any appreciable way, and the OA is an annoying balancing factor which actively discourages cool and interesting combat moves.

Huh? Why should different DMs come to that conclusion when somebody wants to THROW (thrown weapon) something into somebody's face? Do you ask for a Dex check when somebody throws a flask of acid, or holy water? Would you seriously expect some "different GM" ask for it? We ARE talking 3E still, right? Just to make sure.

I moved this bit to the end, look for the *

You might be be surprised, but Attack Rolls are a pretty unified mechanic as well, even the ranged touch ones. I'm not sure I see your point. If you would like to enlighten me, point out the other different 3E mechanisms that exist for throwing something at somebody, or your reasoning why you expect DMs to rule hither and yon in 3E.

The problem is, I can absolutely see my old GM ruling kicking sand in someone's face requiring a dex check and then a ref save or a will save, or saying it just gives a bonus on a feint check, yet it's essentially the same thing as throw salt in someone'S eyes. That's why it's not unified.

And touch attacks are a good example of a non-unified corner case, which only exists to screw over High level Fighters and low level Spellcasters, it's a great example of a clunky 3.x mechanic that nobody ever looked at and went "what exactly do we want this to do".

*And where are the guidelines for "balance" for 4E that demand throwing salt being a 1/day ability? Didn't find any last time I checked. We're all just blowing smoke here, so trying to make yours nicer colored is not helping.

Actually, I didn't say anything about it being once per day, I know it can be hard to respond the posters instead of what you see as "positions", I fall into that trap too, but I never mentioned anything about daily powers. I don't see why you couldn't make it an at will, or more likely something equivalent a bull rush which anyone can use.

I'm talking about how defenses scale while touch ACs don't. I'm talking about how in 4e kicking sand in someones face, throwing salt in their face, throwing magic glitterdust in their face, and say, cutting their forehead so blood gets in their eyes all use the same mechanics. Which makes it much easier for GMs to decide how to simulate something when a character says they want to do it.

 

[Fifth Element]

Which I can understand, but I still take umbrage whenever people take any disagreement, and assume it's an unreasoning rant. It's not really any more reasoned than the rants they are reacting against.

I think the reasons that people think this is an unreasonable rant have been quite clearly explained in the thread. I don't think you should assume that others are assuming things. Most of the posts in this thread have been quite well-reasoned.