DMG II Preview and Mearls old work

[Saeviomagy]

Or, given that people should want to use real weapons, they are a roaring success. People only use improvised weapons when circumstances force them to.

They shouldn't feel like punching and kicking are total wastes of time, or know that in a barfight the first thing to do is to break out their swords, because they can't hope to defeat the bar denizens with improvised weapons (because bar denizens tend to be statted as normal monsters, not monsters hamstrung by wielding improvised weapons).

That said, I'm not arguing that improvised weapons should be as effective as a full blown weapon, just not as totally ineffective as they are statted as.

Here we are asking, practically begging, for DM/Player communication disasters. You see, the effectiveness of chandelier dropping depends linearly on how cool your DM thinks chandelier dropping is. Either the DM or the player might say:
even a large chandelier, especially merely dropping a modest way under the effect of gravity, unaimed, should be less scary than a strong guy with a short short sword. So damage circa 1d3, with crappy to-hits. On the other hand, that chandelier is still supported by a chain, so don't even start talking until you do 10 or 20 damage to the chain.
If the other one is expecting something like as described up-thread, someone is going to be very unhappy. Worse, a DM could run a module with it, play it straight, and then revert to less effective chandeliers elsewhere.

Playing "DM-may-I" got old really early in 1e. I'd rather not see it return.

Of course if every chandelier, pile of barrels, fireplace etc etc in every encounter is statted up as a useful contributor, then you also don't have those problems. Alternately if the DM has statted up specific ones, and reveals them at the start of the fight, you also are not left guessing.

 

[Infiniti2000]

They shouldn't feel like punching and kicking are total wastes of time, or know that in a barfight the first thing to do is to break out their swords, because they can't hope to defeat the bar denizens with improvised weapons (because bar denizens tend to be statted as normal monsters, not monsters hamstrung by wielding improvised weapons).

I think that's a rather large and incorrect assumption. If the DM plans for a bar fight encounter and fails to allow for the PC's to use improvised weapons (i.e. fisticuffs), then that's a failure on the DM to design the proper encounter. The DM knows the improvised weapons rules and should account for it, perhaps not statting up actual monsters or at least setting the appropriate defenses and such.

Now, looking at a different encounter, say one in a dungeon with armed/dangerous bad guys, if the PCs start using improvised weapons, it's neither the DM's fault nor the improvised weapons rules fault.

 

[LostSoul]

Here we are asking, practically begging, for DM/Player communication disasters. You see, the effectiveness of chandelier dropping depends linearly on how cool your DM thinks chandelier dropping is.

How else are you going to figure out how to resolve things the rules don't cover?

 

[Nebulous]

I think it's a cool idea, but i'm finding that players are SO engrossed in their power cards, they don't think outside the box. They want to do what their powers suggest and believe that outside of that their characters are useless in combat. Which sort of bothers me. I'd love to see more innovative ideas and stunting.

What i might do more is start having monsters stunt, to show PCs how to use the environment in more dynamic ways. Yeah...yeah, that's what i'll do. Above and beyond just throwing a pit into a room.

 

[Lizard]

Here's the thing. People don't USE PAge 42. At least, not in my group. If it's not a listed action option, it's not chosen. EVER. In nine months of weekly 4e play, I have not seen a single player attempt an action not already described in the rules during combat, and the one time I tried, the DM ignored P.42 and use 3e style simulationism to resolve it, meaning, it didn't work very well.

Maybe in some developer's minds, P. 42 would usher in a FATE-like era of freeform combat and cool cinematic action supported by a quick-and-easy rules framework, but when everything else in the game is explicit, mapped, and codified, this was a foolish notion -- if that's the notion the developers had, I dunno.

This? Specific, defined, terrain with "You can do X, Y, or Z and THIS will happen."? THAT'S what players want, need, and will actually use. For all the utility it's had in Actual Play TM, Page 42 might as well have been taken up with a picture of a hot elf chick.

 

[Lizard]

What i might do more is start having monsters stunt, to show PCs how to use the environment in more dynamic ways. Yeah...yeah, that's what i'll do. Above and beyond just throwing a pit into a room.

Let me save you some trouble. The players will ask "Is that an encounter power? What's the recharge on that? How did he do that, exactly?". They will (probably) not suddenly start "stunting"; they'll assume whatever the monster did, it did via good ol' Exception Based Design. ("Ah, that must be a Barreltosser Hobgoblin. I bet it can only do that once per encounter, but maybe it will do it again when it's bloodied. Try to keep it away from barrels if it looks like it's getting low on hit points.")

 

[Walking Dad]

Here's the thing. People don't USE PAge 42. At least, not in my group. If it's not a listed action option, it's not chosen. EVER. In nine months of weekly 4e play, I have not seen a single player attempt an action not already described in the rules during combat, and the one time I tried, the DM ignored P.42 and use 3e style simulationism to resolve it, meaning, it didn't work very well.

Maybe in some developer's minds, P. 42 would usher in a FATE-like era of freeform combat and cool cinematic action supported by a quick-and-easy rules framework, but when everything else in the game is explicit, mapped, and codified, this was a foolish notion -- if that's the notion the developers had, I dunno.

This? Specific, defined, terrain with "You can do X, Y, or Z and THIS will happen."? THAT'S what players want, need, and will actually use. For all the utility it's had in Actual Play TM, Page 42 might as well have been taken up with a picture of a hot elf chick.

I will take the elf chick every day.

Let me save you some trouble. The players will ask "Is that an encounter power? What's the recharge on that? How did he do that, exactly?". They will (probably) not suddenly start "stunting"; they'll assume whatever the monster did, it did via good ol' Exception Based Design. ("Ah, that must be a Barreltosser Hobgoblin. I bet it can only do that once per encounter, but maybe it will do it again when it's bloodied. Try to keep it away from barrels if it looks like it's getting low on hit points.")

You are (sadly) right. You will have to explain the mechanic before the combat, and if they choose to ignore it, then let the monster use it to good effect.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's the thing. People don't USE PAge 42. At least, not in my group. If it's not a listed action option, it's not chosen. EVER. In nine months of weekly 4e play, I have not seen a single player attempt an action not already described in the rules during combat, and the one time I tried, the DM ignored P.42 and use 3e style simulationism to resolve it, meaning, it didn't work very well.

This is my experience as well. I call it "Power Fixation." Even though I resolve things in the PC's favour when they do try a stunt, they still rarely think out of the box.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is my experience as well. I call it "Power Fixation." Even though I resolve things in the PC's favour when they do try a stunt, they still rarely think out of the box.

A "Do a Stunt" Power Card might be needed to remind players of the option. But I think it's not enough. Powers have the real advantage that the rules how to resolve them are clearly laid out on that card. You know what Fireball or Tide of Iron of Blinding Barrage does. You can rely on that. And players seem to prefer reliability about "hoping" that the DM uses the stunt rules in a favorable manner.

Telling the players the power options granted by terrain in a similar explicit manner will probably help. Though there is still the problem that they first have to understand the new tactical option and how to use them best. You know you have Tide of Iron or Fireball and have some idea when to use them based on previous experience or on just thinking a while about how to use them when picking them during character creation or advancement.

 

[Klaus]

This is my experience as well. I call it "Power Fixation." Even though I resolve things in the PC's favour when they do try a stunt, they still rarely think out of the box.

My experience as well. And my attempt at using Acrobatic Stunt to stand up with a minor action was met with cries of "system abuser!". :/