D&D eXPerience: My Experience

[helium3]

If you want to world build, knock yourself out. Just don't FORCE me to world build by handing me a game where I have no choice.

Well, I'm not really sure that I see how 3E "forced" DM's that didn't want to world-build to do so.

I will admit, however, that the way the DMG is written seems to assume readers will be engaging in world-building.

 

[LEHaskell]

TerraDave: This is great stuff. Thanks for keeping all of us "geographically challenged" dreamers up-to-date.

Question: in another thread, Insight mentioned the use of Death Tokens -- as in if you are bleeding out and fail your stablization save, you gain a Death Token. Three Death Tokens and it's off to the Shadowfell for you. Did you run into this mechanic and can you tell us what makes the Death Tokens go away? Do you lose them after you heal, after your rest or after an extended rest?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

If they are talking about the ordinary Dying Rules, Death Tokens go away when you roll your 20 and recover, or someone stabilizes you.

 

[Sphyre]

Saving throws: Mr Ryan is right: one save per source. So lets say the black dragon hammers you with the breath weapon, and you are lying there dying (lets say). Dying requires a save to stay stable, or die more. The breath weapon imposes ongoing acid damage and a -4 attack penalty. You make one save for both breath weapon effects, and one save to stay stable.

Actually, I understand that the breath weapon imposes multiple effects and one save ends all effects of that ability. It's actually written into most abilities that say "(save ends both)."

So is that one saving throw per source of giving you a saving throw, or one saving throw per entity giving you a saving throw?

For example, You've been affected by a Dragon's breath. This particular dragon also has the ability to slow. You're under the effect of both. Do you roll one save for the dragon's breath and one save for the slow?

I ask, because I think it's one per ability that causes the effect(s), but there are people on the WotC forums that think that believe one saving throw may get rid of all effects. I'd like to know what it actually is.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Zoatebix]

But it still had the same number of actions per turn? So it only affects movement?

Yup. Only movement.

 

[Mallus]

I honestly didn't think anyone disagrees with this point.

Just for the hell of it, I'll disagree (I have a few minutes to kill before a lamb dinner in Reykjavik).

3e is good for simulating a game of 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons. Anything else, not so much. While plenty of 3e D&D campaigns may have a simulationist bent, that derives from a consensus between the players, not the printed rules.

Since 3e's simulationist value is pretty close to zero, I can't see how 4e will prove to be meaningfully less.

 

[EATherrian]

Yep. W&M has actually inspired me to start thinking about D&D worlds on that macro scale again. This is the first time in ~20 years that I'm seriously contemplating using the default world-background material, rather than chucking it all out and rolling my own.

Don't say you're giving up Sosaria! I loved your stuff for that world.

 

[TerraDave]

Death tokens: the dying made their saves...so we didn't see these. But it fits.

Saves: my example wasn't good. Its per source. So the dragon breaths on you and then bites you (yes, ongoing from each). Save for each source, the save gets rid of whatever effects imparted from the source.

 

[TerraDave]

More random notes from the experience.

Shadow Dancer: My friend plays one of these (ya, I don't get it either) and asked Rob Heinsoo if we would see it. From what he said I don't think it will be in the first three books, but, "If it has an evocative name and interesting powers" they will do a 4E shadow dancer.

DDI: Crashed...and crashed again. Still looked pretty nifty, but I am typing this on a mac.

Older: First time at the con formerly known as winter fantasy. Middle age me certainly did not feel out of place...if they are trying to bring in younger players, its obvious why.

 

[LostSoul]

Nothing that has been said has given me the slightest idea that 4E provides added more incentive for non-combat stuff and lots of things seem to add incentive to the battle side of things.

From what I've read, there are a few things that make me think there's more focus/incentive to play out non-combat stuff:

- XP rewarded uniformly for non-combat encounters. The players now know that they can get XP even when they leave their swords sheated. While you could get XP for non-combat encounters in 3e, you couldn't count on it.

- The mysterious social encounter system. We haven't seen anything much about it, but we know they have some kind of system that has more complexity than what we've seen before.

- Combat and non-combat abilities "silo'ed". You don't have to worry that your face man will suck in combat now. You don't have to pass up Skill Focus: Diplomacy for Improved Initiative. Supposedly.

Maybe combat will be so awesome that no one will want to use other mechanics to resolve conflicts, but that's not such a bad thing.