Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eh, yeah, sorta.

It is sort of free form, but it also is sort of not. If you really want free form D&D you have to use Buy the numbers to totally get rid of the class and levels. But even then there are still feats and classes that have restrictive requirements of race or ability scores preventing a character from taking it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I dunno, I think the interweb would be a much better place if (outside of certain exceedingly rare exceptions) people wouldn't assume that the games people prefer are indicative of any personality or intellectual flaws on their part. :)

-O
 


Teeball? Hardly. I think it is more needlessly complex than it needs to be rather than too simple. Mechanics aside, the rulebooks speak to the reader as if he/she had just learned to read and try hard to convice those readers that the game is as simple as teeball. I don't see the "dumbing down" aspect of actual gameplay but I do notice it in the writing.

This doesn't stop the actual game from being as simple or complex as the participants want to make it.
 


If I set "free form" and "programmatic" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most programmatic, 4e would be a 9. 3e would be an 8.5.

Seriously, what else can you say about a system that assigns a vast number of abilities to specific levels of specific classes or prestige classes, requiring you to jump through numerous hoops to combine them as you please? You must have six levels of this in order to get that class ability, you must have these prerequisites to dip two levels of that to get this other class ability, you need these other five prerequisites to get that feat you wanted so you'll need some levels of fighter to qualify before the end of your career...
 

Wait... That was an editor's mistake?

Hilarious. What was it supposed to be?

As I understand it, cumlative d6 per 10. (10 feet would be d6, 20 feet would be 3d6 (1d6 for the first 10 feet, 2d6 for the next 10 feet)). This would make falling 60 feet 21d6 (I think...It's very late here). In 1E, I'm pretty sure that would normally mean roll up a new character.
 

However, a sharply up-curving scale of damage is not accurate to real world physics. My physics may be rusty, but I believe the amount of force you hit with after 1 second (~30 ft. fall) is half that you hit with after 2 seconds (~90 ft. fall).

Of course, both a 30 ft. fall and a 90 ft. fall are probably going to kill or at least cripple you.
 

However, a sharply up-curving scale of damage is not accurate to real world physics. My physics may be rusty, but I believe the amount of force you hit with after 1 second (~30 ft. fall) is half that you hit with after 2 seconds (~90 ft. fall).

Of course, both a 30 ft. fall and a 90 ft. fall are probably going to kill or at least cripple you.

Yeah, I always got a chuckle over the years when people tried to argue real world physics and apply them to AD&D falling damage in a game that uses hit points.
 

As I understand it, cumlative d6 per 10. (10 feet would be d6, 20 feet would be 3d6 (1d6 for the first 10 feet, 2d6 for the next 10 feet)). This would make falling 60 feet 21d6 (I think...It's very late here). In 1E, I'm pretty sure that would normally mean roll up a new character.

That's correct - although it capped at 20d6, IIRC.

Gary Gygax assumed that the rule had appeared correctly in the books, which caused a lot of scratching of heads when Unearthed Arcana where he used the system he intended to use in the description of the Thief-Acrobat and the editing changes were discovered.

Of course, then you got d6 per 10' in 3e, where it made falling one of the safest things that could happen to a high-level character! :)

Cheers!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top