Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[I'm A Banana]

My point is that there can in fact be things that at first seem tedious and pointless and which just seem like the game would be better off if you treated them more casually so you can get on with the story, when in fact even though it may be fun to ignore them its even more fun to consider them seriously.

IMO, ammunition and rations and the like aren't part of that. Heck, I've been tempted to use variant wealth mechanics, so GOLD is sometimes a part of that. When I DM, I don't use XP, so CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT is part of that. And with games like True20, you find no hp management, so HEALTH is sometimes a part of that. Tracking fiddly points isn't usually much fun.

With HP, I keep it, because it adds that 'slow degeneration' terror that is nice. With gold, I keep it, mostly because I haven't found a better system. XP I ditch without a second thought.

Ammo and rations I don't really worry about.

I kind of do. I use an 'upkeep' mechanic where the PC's pay a fee at each level to train/get new arrows/replenish suppies/sharpen their swords/etc. Moments where they run out of arrows or food just don't happen IMC, because I find it remarkably dull to make PC's go without their favorite weapon or starve to death. The rules I use are an abstraction -- they pay upkeep, so they have enough food and arrows to last them until they pay upkeep the next time.

I also think that spell effects, even if they use summoned monsters, and mounts, and animal companions, are all part of a PC's ability, so the PC gets to control them. I let the PC control cohorts, too. I retain some veto power, but it's largely in their hands, not mine.

 

[Wormwood]

So, I'll have the same level of options in five years, when the PHB V comes out? But I shouldn't complain that I don't have a whole game in the initial release?

Did you complain that you couldn't play a Warlock in 2000?

 

[LostSoul]

My point is that there can in fact be things that at first seem tedious and pointless and which just seem like the game would be better off if you treated them more casually so you can get on with the story, when in fact even though it may be fun to ignore them its even more fun to consider them seriously.

Maybe people know what they like and what they don't, and for some it's not more fun to consider them seriously.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Bold type is mine for emphasis.



We have the winner. The new talking point for the anti-4e crowd is: 4e edition is not an RPG, it's a tactical game.

I'm calling D&D is too much like pinochle for the next line of attack.

This is not a new taking point.

 

[Cadfan]

It is again worth noting that whether counting ammunition is a worthwhile task is a HIGHLY contingent issue. The rules can make it easy, or the rules can make it hard. The rules can also make this sort of thing more or less palatable to players depending on how the rules treat other, similar issues.

In 3e, I hate tracking ammunition for Ranger archers. I rather liked tracking ammunition for my slightly customized shuriken throwing Scout. I sort of resented in general that ammunition had to be tracked when other issues that should be similarly simulationist (or similarly NOT simulationist) were not tracked. So what was the difference?

The archer fired arrows like a machine gun, and his quiver only held 20. He typically ran out of arrows in any protracted fight, unless I carried multiple quivers. But carrying multiple quivers created a contradiction- it was realistic to count arrows, but unrealistic to imagine an archer with three full quivers of arrows on his back. Those are BIG. It became literally impossible to carry sufficient arrows for an extended journey unless 1) I found arrows on enemies, 2) I used magical means to carry more arrows. Finding arrows on enemies was not an option because I didn't want to be at risk of not encountering archers. So I had to carry arrows magically. Once I chose to do THAT, the whole issue evaporated. I got a magical quiver that held lots of arrows. Then I obtained a bag of holding, and stuffed it full of extra arrow quivers. For a relatively trivial cost, I got literally thousands of arrows, and stuffed them in that bag. At this point, counting ammunition became silly. I counted arrows to know how many were in the quiver on my back, and then after each fight I refreshed that quiver. There were two problems with this system, in terms of game play. First, subtracting 15 arrows from my stockpile of 2000 was just annoying. It wasn't like I was ever going to run out. Second, I could refill the entire bag with a 100 gp investment, which at that level, was a joke. Why was I doing all this work to find out if I spent 3 gold pieces at each visit to a town, instead of 4? I made a deal with my DM. I'd pay 10 gp whenever we hit a town, and we'd just stop counting arrows in the bag. I was probably paying for twice as many arrows as I consumed, but I didn't care. It was worth the whopping 5 gp (that's a 100 arrow safety margin) to not have to deal with this anymore.

So what made the Scout's ammunition enjoyable, when the Ranger's was not?

Well, the Scout threw only one shuriken per round, thanks to Skirmish and Shot on the Run. In a prolonged fight, that meant maybe seven shuriken. It was a lot easier to keep track of that. Plus, the shuriken I threw were generally magical after a certain level. This made them more expensive. Unlike spending 1 gp for 20 nonmagical arrows (fired from a magical bow), I was spending lots of GP for Shuriken +3, and so forth. Knowing whether I threw 5 shuriken or 6 was a difference of a meaningful amount of money. Further, I had to carry shuriken of different types to combat different foes. I wasn't counting out 1 arrow from 2000 identical arrows, I was counting out a single Good Cold Iron Shuriken +2 (demon hunting shuriken ) from my supply of five similar shuriken. This made it much more meaningful.

Finally, there was the resentment when I was playing the archer. Why did I have to count arrows, collect arrows after a fight, and generally do all this bookkeeping when the wizard had a never ending supply of bat guano? He never counted that. He never went spelunking to collect it. He never even really BOUGHT bat guano. One day he leveled up, and now he knew Fireball. Suddenly he had all this bat guano. Where did it come from? Nobody knew. How did the bat guano not ruin the other components in the spell component pouch? Was it loose in there? He had a special, non magical pouch that apparently contained every basic spell component for every spell ever written, in infinite quantities. And here I was counting arrows, counting arrows that miss, dividing by two and recovering them, and making sure arrows were wrapped in cloth so they wouldn't pierce my magical bag of holding. This didn't seem fair.

I don't know how all of this will apply to 4e, because I don't know the context in which 4e places characters who use ammunition based attacks. But I hope it illustrates a bit how the game rules can affect the entertainment value of simulationism. Creating a great deal of bookkeeping in order to achieve a very small, easily bypassed outcome is not a good idea. Inflicting bookkeeping on one player and not another, even though they are doing basically the same thing, is not a good idea. Creating simple bookkeeping that has meaningful in game effects IS often a good idea.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I choose the Ramayana because at some point Rama fires two million or so arrows during a battle. I take this as an example of 'not tracking' ammo.

I choose the Old Testament because at some point, all creatures that exhibit sexual dimorphism get shoved into an ark.

In neither case is bean-counting important to the story. The minute details get glossed over. You're confusing the existence of certain details in a text with the importance of certain details in a text.

So, ultimately, if deities can fire arrows without counting ammo, it follows that PCs should fire without counting ammo?

As I recall, in the Noah story, the "two of each kind" and the exterior size of the ark were details that were not glossed over. That the size of the ark wouldn't allow said animals to fit is either indicative that the story is not meant to be taken literally, is evidence of a miracle, or is evidence that Noah was a Time Lord and the ark a TARDIS, depending upon your viewpoint. In none of these cases are the details given meaningless. In none of these cases is this a forum in which further discussion about this topic really advisable.

If you want to pick an example we can actually discuss, I'll be here.....?


RC

 

[Dragonblade]

I personally prefer the line between 'what the DM is responcible for' and 'what the player is responcible for' to be very clearly drawn, and that distinction is increasingly being blurred with the result of making D&D more and more a tactical skirmish game and less and less of an RPG.

Lets back up the discussion truck here.

3e is the edition with the most in common with a tactical skirmish game. Heck, the entire notion that DM NPCs and monsters have to play by the same rules as PCs is essentially saying that the DM and players are basically playing DDM with some story thrown in.

4e, with its design framework of monsters and NPCs existing only as tools for the DM to facilitate adventure RPing is making D&D LESS like a skirmish game. Not more. 3e is the epitomy of adversarial tactical skirmish play.

There are valid concerns about 4e, but saying its making D&D into more of skirmish game is NOT one of them.

4e is getting away from that, which is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to it.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

What have you seen which implies the scope of play will be broadened, rather than narrowed? At best, it can be argued that the simplification of the rules will make making changes to said rules to support different playstyles easier; I'm not sure how this is superior to a ruleset which is in itself broad enough to support multiple playstyles easily.

Well, I can, and have, make FUDGE suit whatever group I play it with. Having a simple core system upon which to build is actually quite liberating, and I think it's a pretty good idea to start from an abstracted, easy-to-understand system and add complexity with optional rules and supplements.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Did you complain that you couldn't play a Warlock in 2000?

No. Of course, I don't use warlocks now, either, as the AE witch is a better class filling the same niche. I certainly would have complained had I been told to wait until 2000 to play a druid.

In any event, we are now at Point X, which has a number of options to the value Y. That value Y is the culmination of not only WotC support, but also (often superior, IMHO) third-party support. When 4e premieres, it will have options equal to Y minus C where C is an amount yet unknown, but certainly a massive amount.

Over time, 4e will grow to (Y minus C) plus U, then plus D, then plus Z, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the accumulated Us, Ds, and Zs will ever be equal to C. If we examine what bits of material that have been let loose from the vault, we see a design philosophy that is consistently about simplification, and is consistently about removing problematic options.

It doesn't take a genius to know that, if simplification remains your goal, that goal is incompatable with ever achieving the options currently present in the simplified edition. The non-OGL OGL, from what we have been told, is apparently being written to limit certain types of third party support. This is again, inevitably, going to limit options.

Moreover, as the options in 4e grow toward the previous options of 3e, those who continue to play and support 3e will continue to push its boundaries, and increase the options of the system.

I don't see 4e as ever having the same level of options as 3e does now, and I certainly don't see 4e as ever having the same level of innovation or options as 3e does when compared side-by-side at any given point in the future.

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

3e is the edition with the most in common with a tactical skirmish game. Heck, the entire notion that DM NPCs and monsters have to play by the same rules as PCs is essentially saying that the DM and players are basically playing DDM with some story thrown in.

4e, with its design framework of monsters and NPCs existing only as tools for the DM to facilitate adventure RPing is making D&D LESS like a skirmish game. Not more. 3e is the epitomy of adversarial tactical skirmish play.

4e is getting away from that, which is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to it.

This is a very bizarre statement.

The first point is that DDM was built on 3e rules, not the other way around, so that 3e wasn't a skirmish game with story thrown in, but rather an RPG that had a spin-off skirmish game that stripped the story out. The fact that PC's and monsters play by the same rules doesn't indicate skirmish one way or the other necessarily (I'm in favor of the concept, and my games certainly aren't skirmish games -- we don't use minis, or have many combats at all).

The second point is that 4e is actually making their rules CLOSER to what DDM has. The framework is different, but the framework was different in 3e, too. The combats will actually be more similar in 4e than they were in 3e. The rest of the game will be unchanged, because 3e and 4e have basically the same differences from a skirmish game. And, again, the PC/Monster rules don't really affect it's nature as a skirmish game one bit.

So 4e is actually getting CLOSER to being a game like DDM than 3e was.

So.....what was your point?