Combat issues: slayer + at-will magic missile.

[Inez Hull]

Wow, seems to be a lot of strong opinions based on theory and preferences from previous editions. Perhaps after people have done more than just browse the rules and have played multiple test sessions we can get some opinions on how things actually play. Or just skip through and read Fifth Elements posts for some calm responses to the chicken littles

 

[Fifth Element]

Speak for yourself.

It's the "dying constantly" at low level that makes the awesome that comes later that much more special, because you've earned it.

If you want your PCs to be awesome, play them long enough to get there. If you want them to be awesome RIGHT NOW, I'm sorry but you'll find very little sympathy here.

I think you're interpreting the term "awesome" differently than was intended.

I also find the concept of "earning" something in an imaginary fantasy world that doesn't exist a bit strange.

 

[Dragonblade]

Speak for yourself.

It's the "dying constantly" at low level that makes the awesome that comes later that much more special, because you've earned it.

If you want your PCs to be awesome, play them long enough to get there. If you want them to be awesome RIGHT NOW, I'm sorry but you'll find very little sympathy here.

Lan-"already being awesome at 1st level really limits the room for growth later"-efan

I disagree. I want to be cool at level 1. I want to be cool at level 10. I want to be cool at level 30. I don't want to have to "grind" through the lower levels just to get cool abilities.

Its ironic that some people feel like 4e is more video-gamey. This grind through the lower levels mentality has always felt far more video gamey to me.

 

[IronWolf]

I think you're interpreting the term "awesome" differently than was intended.

Then define it as you see it rather than post a dig at someone's idea of fun.

I also find the concept of "earning" something in an imaginary fantasy world that doesn't exist a bit strange.

So you play at the same level all the time? Don't take your share of treasure? Refuse more powerful weapons and spells?

The RPG environment is full of examples of characters earning imaginary things to increase their character's power as time goes on.

 

[Fifth Element]

Then define it as you see it rather than post a dig at someone's idea of fun.

That was no dig, that was an opinion that I saw people talking past each other.

I believe the term was used in the sense of "being good at what your class says you're supposed to be good at".

So you play at the same level all the time? Don't take your share of treasure? Refuse more powerful weapons and spells?

The RPG environment is full of examples of characters earning imaginary things to increase their character's power as time goes on.

And in this case, I don't think you're using the term "earn" as Lanefan intended it. You're talking about things that a character gets in-game. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that Lanefan was talking about a sense of real accomplishment.

It's often said about 4E by its detractors that it's D&D on "easy mode", that you're "supposed to win" and so winning is not really an accomplishment. Even if that were true, it would still be a game of make-believe and thus not really subject to real accomplishment. It's a game, and not a competitive one. Rolling dice and pretending to kill imaginary goblins is not an accomplishment.

EDIT: Make sure to read "IMO" wherever needed, just to be clear.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

The whole slayer thing doesn't bother me due to other abstractions in the game.

HP isn't just physical damage, small bruises, using up luck etc.
Armor class isn't just dodging an attack and it not hitting you, it also includes weapons bouncing off armor and such without HP damage.

The HP on a miss just seems to me an attack that made a minor bruise through armor, or used up a bit of luck and ends up putting the person hit in a worse condition.

As for killing kobolds on a miss - that isn't unlike the whole AD&D Fighters get 1 attack on any 1 HD creature per level thing - the creature is weak enough that the character with Slayer just doesn't even have to work to kill it. It's a target dummy.

 

[Mercutio01]

As for killing kobolds on a miss - that isn't unlike the whole AD&D Fighters get 1 attack on any 1 HD creature per level thing - the creature is weak enough that the character with Slayer just doesn't even have to work to kill it. It's a target dummy.

That was how I justified it in my head, and it applied to any creature that had fewer hit points left than the slayer's minimum damage. It was still anti-climactic, but with that bit of fiction added into my head, I could accept it without too much of a problem.

 

[ren1999]

B.T. This also ties in with the idea that some spells just always hit and characters should roll to take half damage.

Did Conan take half damage when he snapped out of Thulsa Doom's hypnotic stare?

NO! Magic can be defeated if someone has a strong enough intelligence do disbelieve, wisdom to have greater faith, constitution in the ability to withstand, and in some cases, if the spell is just a slow force projectile, they can even use dexterity to avoid the spell.

Nothing should be an automatic hit and damage unless it is against an enemy with the helpless condition.

 

[slobster]

The whole slayer thing doesn't bother me due to other abstractions in the game.

Can't xp you yet, but this is my take on it exactly.

When looking at the new stuff in this playtest, I basically have a two-pronged evaluation. First there's the game-design perspective: is it balanced, interesting, and adding to the fun at the table? Then there is the plausibility metric: can this mechanic make sense in context of the world that it's seeking to simulate?

I allow a large degree of abstraction on the second criteria.

For me, the slayer passes on both counts. Players love it. It lets a fighter be useful even in the middle of a string of bad rolls, and means that the opposition can never just ignore him. He always hurts!

On the second count, Lord Mhoram already stated my position. The fighter might not hit you solidly with every swing, but he's good. Real damn good. Every swing of his comes uncomfortably close, and you have to exert yourself and use every ounce of stamina you've got just to keep him from nailing you each time.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

On the second count, Lord Mhoram already stated my position. The fighter might not hit you solidly with every swing, but he's good. Real damn good. Every swing of his comes uncomfortably close, and you have to exert yourself and use every ounce of stamina you've got just to keep him from nailing you each time.

My love of martial arts movies, and the fact I have taken different styles helps me on that. A good 6 or 7 move combo can hit, but if the opponent is good enough each bit of the combo sets up the next and the next, then when the opponent is out of position completely he is hit with a huge strike that drops him. That is what immediately came to mind with Next's HP description (not that it didn't to some extent before it) - Each of those set up are the slayer miss, whittling down some HP until the hit really delivers the damage.

Matix - Neo dodging the bullet until he falls down and "Trinity Help!" - perfect use of hit points there.