Dragon Editorial: Fearless

[FireLance]

Wow, just wow. First off, if the majority of you feel that your character can only be "brave" and "do daring things" if most of the danger of death is gone, your characters and your play style is simply cowardly and anti-heroic, you just don't get heroic as a concept which is no surprise to me, but saddens me none the less.

I wouldn't frame the issue in such absolute terms. Most of the time in 3e, the PCs weren't in much danger of death, either. The chance of rolling a 1 - the 5% chance of death - wasn't likely, but it encouraged a cautious style of play that some gamers feel is at odds with how bold adventurers should behave. Opening the door, reading the scroll, taking the gem off the plinth, etc. were all approached with caution even if 19 times out of 20, the outcome was no different from the character simply Just Doing It. What the rules seem to me to be doing is to replace the very small chance of a very bad thing happening with a larger chance of a not-so-bad (but still bad) thing happening. On average, the same amount of bad will happen to the character, but the character gets to act more like a daring adventurer, and to keep acting like a daring adventurer because one bad roll isn't going to kill him.

This to me has nothing to do with heroism. There is nothing particularly heroic about either deciding to take 20 to search for traps on a door, or just opening it and walking through. There is nothing particularly heroic about either choosing to stay on a runaway mine cart, or choosing to drop off. I reserve the term heroic for more significant decisions on the part of the character: Risk his life to save the NPC, or run away? Give up a prized magic item to ransom a prisoner, or leave him to his fate? Agree to help a ruthless Duke expand his holdings in exchange for assistance against a more evil foe, or refuse his offer? Minor decisions of the sort previously mentioned have more to do with fun and flair than what I would consider to be heroism.

"You can be brave because the rules support it! Because you could never play a real daring hero before 4E! Oh noes! It wasn't even possible, because you always died if you tried!"

You believe this?

I believe that the 3e rules encouraged caution (even if they did not discourage heroism), and if the 4e rules encourage a bit more risk-taking in between acts of actual heroism, I'd be all for them.

 

[StarFyre]

design

this design method IS more metagamey, as mentioned, because people will say "that can't possibly kill me so I'll charge in" where as it probably should be more of a risk ala older editions.

People jumping off towers, etc...the way we deal with that is regardless of damage, it does an instant critical hit to the legs and we have specific critical hit tables for stuff like that.

For most people, it would mean broken legs/shattered knees, etc.

The party can then have the fun of roleplaying dealing with a companion who they have to haul around...

(my players are used to it)

Sanjay

 

[Aus_Snow]

So what's different in 4E? The implication is that he knew his character *could* survive the 40-foot drop. Or that he knew his character wouldn't fall. One or the other.

I think that either could be (partly and perhaps, anyhow) explained by the fact that "Action Points are core" - as extracted from the EN World 4e news page.

 

[Ipissimus]

Oh I get it, and yeah I'm done because I do see the uselessness in explaining heroism to cowards. No wonder 4e is going to be the way it is if you're the average playtester.

Dude, playing a game isn't heroism. If you want to be a hero, join the army.

 

[Derren]

Got a reference you can refer me to? I'd dearly like to read it, because if it is true, I wonder how they solve the problem of hit points and save DCs just for starters.

Maybe this evening after an extensive search (unless someone is faster than me)

In 4E you are expected to take 5 monsters (not completely clear, it might also be just 1 monster per PC) of the same level as the PCs and you have a "good encounter" for them.
Special tags the monsters have can change the number of monsters in the battle. Minion monsters count as 1/2, elite counts as 2 and solo probably as 4-5 (a whole party).

HP and DCs are linked to level. Monster of level X have (roughly) Y HP and Z attack, no matter if that monster is a dragon, a undead or NPC. The only thing which changes these stats are the monsters role. Striker monsters have higher attack and lower HP, defender monsters have higher AC, etc.

 

[Ipissimus]

In 4E you are expected to take 5 monsters (not completely clear, it might also be just 1 monster per PC) of the same level as the PCs and you have a "good encounter" for them.
Special tags the monsters have can change the number of monsters in the battle. Minion monsters count as 1/2, elite counts as 2 and solo probably as 4-5 (a whole party).

HP and DCs are linked to level. Monster of level X have (roughly) Y HP and Z attack, no matter if that monster is a dragon, a undead or NPC. The only thing which changes these stats are the monsters role. Striker monsters have higher attack and lower HP, defender monsters have higher AC, etc.

Ok, I'll leave off this until I see more. I can see the point of it, making monsters more equal would make tem more easily classified, but if a monster's role is the only thing that modifies their stats, then Solo monsters are going to be woefully underpowered with HP and DCs unless being Solo gives you a bonus.

Quite simply, a solo monster with HP, AC and DCs equal to a non-solo monster od the same level that's expected to face a party in groups is going to die before they get to show off all their cool moves, no matter how many actions they get a round. "Rogue wins inititive and sneak attacks = dead beholder" is not fun.

 

[Xath]

Friendly Moderator Warning: Keep it Civil.

Let's try to stay on topic and leave the name-calling out of it please.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

this design method IS more metagamey, as mentioned, because people will say "that can't possibly kill me so I'll charge in" where as it probably should be more of a risk ala older editions.

Maybe you're right, and it's still metagaming (after all, we're taking rules into account).
But it's at least not less metagaming then saying: "I take 20 on my Search check to find all traps in this room, because if I accidently trigger it I could roll a 1 and die due to some bizarre save or die effect or just from a powerful con-draining posion".
But it has on advantage: Metagaming in the "save or die" case meant either not doing things that sounded interesting or fun because there is a chance of unavoidable death, while metagaming in the "no single roll determines life and death" means that you are willing to try things that sound interesting or fun, but there is a risk that you fail...

If you want to be a hero, join the army

I'd prefer (him or any other hero-in-the-making) doing something more constructive. Maybe becoming a human rights activist in China, or a construction worker in Iraq.
But anyway, I think it's a bit unfair to post replies towards him, since he stated that he didn't want to post anything regarding the topic.
(But on the other hand, us cowards need to fight dirty, so feel free to be unfair... )

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Good article. This is the way D&D should be played, IMO.

 

[Umbran]

Oh I get it, and yeah I'm done...

Yes, you are. JLXC, we have rules against insults around here. Please do not post in this thread again.

I strongly urge other to not follow suit - keep things civil and respectful in here, folks. Thank you.