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

[catsclaw]

I'd WANT the ability to be useless, or nearly so, at anything over mid level, hence my original low fixed Fort save.

And I hate when I can no longer do things I love to do because I've outleveled their usefulness. You see this with sneak attack--it's incredibly powerful at 1st level, and between undead and constructs and fortification it becomes less and less useful, until by about level 11 you're only rarely adding those extra dice. It's like the game auto-nerfs you as you level.

You should be looking forward to leveling, either because you get a new toy or a better toy. I've been able to watch characters as they slowly become more and more useless the higher they go. Some builds just work at peak efficiency at particular levels. If 4e can avoid that, I'll gladly take it.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, I don't know that it's relevant, but from Ari's comments on the Livejournal, I know who his DM is, as should anyone else who's been following the various leaks and reviews. We've now heard the tale of "the rogue who kicked over a table with two guys standing on it" from both the perspective of the DM and the "game designer friend" who got him into the playtest.

I have nothing else to add, but when you've heard the story from both sides, it's pretty informative.

 

[Stalker0]

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!

Yeah....except in 3.5 once you get to around 8th level or so, that touch attack is so easy to make its pathetic, and that DC 15 Fort is so easy few are likely to fail it. So that improvised move is simply telling the dm you want to fail that round.

In 4e, the dexterity attack scales on par with the reflex defense. Whether I'm 1st or 21st, that trick could work.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or I could say that an ability equally effective at all levels is bland and fails to distinguish high- and low- level play. Throwing debris is a street-level move; you don't do it to an elder wyrm. Perhaps my ad-hoc ruling is overpowered for low level play, but that's why it's ad-hoc...and we don't know how the alternative 4e ruling actually works in play because, well, no one's seen the full rules in context.

I'd WANT the ability to be useless, or nearly so, at anything over mid level, hence my original low fixed Fort save.

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

 

[eleran]

grrr to the double post gods.

 

[eleran]

This would be one of the pictures I would put in the dictionary next to the word stale. But I have never been either a fan of chess or adept at it. Although I respect the people that can play it at a high level quite a bit.

 

[Lizard]

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

Slashing your blade through the slits in the foe's helmet.

Fact is, D&D handles any kind of explicitly targeted attack badly, because there's no hit location. Is it easier to blind a beholder than a kobold? How about a knight in a full helm vs. one in a partial helm? We could craft specific rules till the cows come home...

Here's a diferent take:

Distracting attack: As a standard (maybe full?) action, you try something surprising to confound your foe. This could be kicking mud into his face, drunkenly stumbling to duck under a blade, shouting "Hey! Your shoes are untied!", or whatever. You may choose to roll Bluff vs. Sense motive or opposed dexterity checks, depending on the nature of the action -- the DM may decide if it's inobvious. If you succeed, the opponent suffers a -2 to attack rolls and armor class for the next round; on a natural 20 (which is also a success), this lasts 1d4+1 rounds. If you fail, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent you targeted. Each successive attempt to do this (succeed or fail) in the same encounter gives all opponents a +2 on their saves, as they are now alert for your tricks. (Improved Distracting Attack eliminates any risk of AOO; Master Of Distraction removes the multiple use penalty on opponents OTHER than one you've already targeted.)

Even more alternatively, one could argue all such moves are basically Feints, even if they're not called that, and use Feint mechanics with some appropriate circumstance modifiers.

 

[Wolfspider]

It needs a duration. I can't tell whether its good or bad without a duration.

Sorry, left that out.

It's one round plus one round per point of Dexterity bonus that the attacker possesses.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

picture of chess set[/QUOTE]

Other than being niche games, DnD and chess are too dissimilar to make that kind of comparison.

But I'll assume for a moment that chess and DnD are appropriate for comparsion. As great a game as chess is, I doubt that it simply popped into existence, fully formed and functional. The game probably developed over a period of time into what it is today. In other words, it [I]changed[/I].

The hobby is only 30 years old. If one wants to compare it to timeless games, 30 years is nothing. So expect some variation for the next few hundred years before we get the ultimate, immutable edition of DnD.

 

[billd91]

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?

My responses to this:

Digging out a handful of sand/salt is a lot like digging out a potion or some other item. Check the table for actions for "Retrieve a stored item". AoO is indicated. Surely that will go a long way toward making sure it's not used constantly.

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.

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?