Cynicism of an AD&D refugee

[I'm A Banana]

I wish they'd done something similar to Mutants & Masterminds, with effect-based powers to which you could add descriptors and modifiers.

So, instead of, say, 30 different "[w]+ability damage, X side effect" powers, we could have 1 "[x]+ability damage" power with 30 possible modifiers as "stun", "push", "shift"...

And that's still "exception-based design", just done right.

That wouldn't be bad. The big case against that is that D&D is (and probably should be) class based, and that the classes should have some big differences in how they do stuff. Design like that often leads to (but doesn't HAVE to lead to) a more point-based/classless system, which is probably unappealing for D&D.

I'm totally OK with those differences being in things other than 20 different ways to squish goblins, though. You could address a LOT of the criticisms of 4e with less powers (including, funnily enough, the "sameness" of powers and the use of that system as a grand unifying mechanic).

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. Phantom Chasm, level 1 wizard daily. The target believes a chasm just opened up beneath them and they are plummeting to their death. They take 2d6+int psychic damage and are prone and immobilized until end of next turn.

Sounds good.

They are more prevalent. I'm thinking you haven't actually read much of 4e?

I've bought and read the PH, the DMG, and about 3 adventures, one of which I'm currently running ret-conned to 1e...I'd like to think that's enough to at least get the basics.

I don't mean that sarcastically or anything, but you said you've avoided the wizards website since 4e came out and a statement like that and the above tells me you don't exactly grasp how many powers work. Most of the powers in 4e do damage + an effect. They may immobilize, slow, stun, daze, weaken, knock prone, knock unconscious, blind, deafen, etc., etc. Their power is a bit more balanced than in 3e, with the removal of save or die effects and instant combat enders like petrification, which still exists, but powers that can cause petrification require you to fail at least two saves.

Sounds like the difference is that pre-4e lots of things did damage *or* an effect, where in 4e they've been combined.

Phantasmal Terrain, Phantasmal Assailant, Enemies Abound, Illusory Wall, Ghost Sound, all got you covered. And in a few months, with PHB 2, the actual Illusionist class will be out with dozens of Illusion powers; which, incidentally, will most all do damage as well.

Again sounds good, though I think I'd prefer it if the damage only occurred if the illusion was of something that would really hurt if it was real. A "pit" to fall into: check. Phantasmal Assailant: check. However, and this might not be answerable yet, how creative will the spells allow one to be with the illusions? For example, I was playing an Illusionist once - we'd just arrived in a foreign port and our ship had been boarded for inspection. The customs agent was such a prat that my Illusionist wanted to show him up a bit, so she spent about 10 minutes on a Minor Image (it was a 3e game) to ever-so-slowly "move" the gangplank to the dock about 3 feet to the right of its real location - and sure enough, he walked right over the side into the bay! Now if a 4e Illusionist can do *that*, we're good to go!

Lane-"but I still prefer gonzo Fighters"-fan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sounds like the difference is that pre-4e lots of things did damage *or* an effect, where in 4e they've been combined.

That seems an accurate description.

In 3E, many "tricks" were easily repeatable - you could trip, bullrush or disarm at will. It would have been totally unbalanced if these options also allowed to deal damage, because they would be superior to regular attacks.

In 4E, they took away the repeatability by making stuff encounter or daily powers, allowing you to still deal damage with such powers. In a way, this makes a lot of sense - why shouldn't an attack that knocks you down not damage you? Especially if we're not talking about spells (magic can work as it likes, it's not based on reality), but about weapon attacks - a stunning fist attack certainly should deal damage, because you're hitting the guy hard enough to stun him!

In this context its interesting that the designers decided that Trip (not a standard combat option) was still way more powerful then Bullrush (anyone can do this at will, and some at-will powers grant the benefits together with damage, like Tide of Iron or, effectively, Scorching Weave), while 3E still treated them as mostly equivalent. Maybe it's just because being prone now grants Combat Advantage (and thus sneak attacks are allowed), or it is because it grants you a bonus to your next attack and costs your opponent an action (move) to undo. A bullrush might require a move action to undo, but any bonuses are highly situational...

I've bought and read the PH, the DMG, and about 3 adventures, one of which I'm currently running ret-conned to 1e...I'd like to think that's enough to at least get the basics.

Hmm. I don't really know if that is enough for the basics (but what does "basics" really mean) - of any game system. Many people assumed the 3E Monk was overpowered, but once they saw them in play, working in a party and applying stuff like the wealth by level guidelines in practice, things looked different. I am not sure even the designers understood the implications of being able to create/buy a magical item worth 750 gp that could heal a party after one or more encounters to full hit points.

The customs agent was such a prat that my Illusionist wanted to show him up a bit, so she spent about 10 minutes on a Minor Image (it was a 3e game) to ever-so-slowly "move" the gangplank to the dock about 3 feet to the right of its real location - and sure enough, he walked right over the side into the bay! Now if a 4e Illusionist can do *that*, we're good to go!

I hope the designers had some such "at-will" minor illusions in mind. (I wonder if Illusionist will also have access to cantrips...)

 

[justanobody]

The problem is that TSR had so many problems it’s hard to say that any one move they made is poison.

There were two actually, both made by Gary.

Let the Blumes buy in, and then got LW to come in to clear out the Blumes, but Gary was ousted instead.

Everything else was a result of those two things. But what can you do when your partner in business passes when things are starting to heat up and get rolling.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In 3E, many "tricks" were easily repeatable - you could trip, bullrush or disarm at will. It would have been totally unbalanced if these options also allowed to deal damage, because they would be superior to regular attacks.

In 4E, they took away the repeatability by making stuff encounter or daily powers, allowing you to still deal damage with such powers. In a way, this makes a lot of sense - why shouldn't an attack that knocks you down not damage you? Especially if we're not talking about spells (magic can work as it likes, it's not based on reality), but about weapon attacks - a stunning fist attack certainly should deal damage, because you're hitting the guy hard enough to stun him!

3E did make certain tricks do too much for the effort/risk expended but making a non magical maneuver limited on an encounter basis, while possibly balanced, comes up really lacking in the versimilitude department.

One way to limit overuse is to make a particular trick valuable and easy to perform in a given combat the FIRST time. Once your opponents see the trick performed it will be less and less effective against that group. Thus the effctiveness could be based on the suprise factor which is easy to believe, but still possible to do again at ever worsening penalties.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3E did make certain tricks do too much for the effort/risk expended but making a non magical maneuver limited on an encounter basis, while possibly balanced, comes up really lacking in the versimilitude department.

Yep. In fact, Yep

One way to limit overuse is to make a particular trick valuable and easy to perform in a given combat the FIRST time. Once your opponents see the trick performed it will be less and less effective against that group. Thus the effctiveness could be based on the suprise factor which is easy to believe, but still possible to do again at ever worsening penalties.

That's a possibility. Encounter powers in 4E could just work like that - you just take a -5 penalty if you want to perform an encounter power again, or a -10 penalty if you want to perform a daily power again. (Unfortunately, these numbers don't work; I remember at least one fighter encounter power that grants a bonus to attack higher then +5 while also dealing more damage. But you get the idea...)

Of course, what do you do if one opponent simply wasn't around watching you perform the maneuver? Does he get his "warning" telepathically? Do you keep track? Do you handwave it? Does it work?

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a possibility. Encounter powers in 4E could just work like that - you just take a -5 penalty if you want to perform an encounter power again, or a -10 penalty if you want to perform a daily power again. (Unfortunately, these numbers don't work; I remember at least one fighter encounter power that grants a bonus to attack higher then +5 while also dealing more damage. But you get the idea...)

You could say that, in any case where there is an attack roll bonus of +4 or higher, the bonus is ignored and the attack roll has a -5 penalty.

 

[vagabundo]

3E did make certain tricks do too much for the effort/risk expended but making a non magical maneuver limited on an encounter basis, while possibly balanced, comes up really lacking in the versimilitude department.

One way to limit overuse is to make a particular trick valuable and easy to perform in a given combat the FIRST time. Once your opponents see the trick performed it will be less and less effective against that group. Thus the effctiveness could be based on the suprise factor which is easy to believe, but still possible to do again at ever worsening penalties.

This is how 4e tends to work. The First "trick" is a an encounter power. After that you can do something similar but it is more difficult, e.g the Tumble utility and then Acrobatic stunt.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Of course, what do you do if one opponent simply wasn't around watching you perform the maneuver? Does he get his "warning" telepathically? Do you keep track? Do you handwave it? Does it work?

LOS works ok. This could lead to some fun maneuvering of bad guys around corners before you " use your stuff" so that you could emerge and use it again on the other bad guys.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You could say that, in any case where there is an attack roll bonus of +4 or higher, the bonus is ignored and the attack roll has a -5 penalty.

If we were to assume that the powers follow a certain "balancing" scheme by level or tier, we could translate the encounter or daily power advantage into relation to an at-will power, and then again translate this into a modifier to the attack.

For example, if the system assumes an average hit probability of 50 %, and an encounter power deals twice the damage (assuming a purely damaging power is somehow balanced on "average" with damage + effect powers) at heroic tier then an at-will power deals, you could reduce the hit chance to 25 %. (-5 penalty). That are a few iffs, short-cuts and some averaging involved, of course, which still might make some powers a little better, or (which might not that bad) be better in certain situations.

I am fairly certain that the designers have a few guidelines regarding this, but I am not sure if they are solid enough. In either case, the rules are more complicated - and in the end, you're basically adding a complex framework of rules to achieve the same as in the original, basically just attaching an illusion.