Dragon Editorial: Fearless

[Derren]

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...

Being careful because you live might be in danger when you are exploring old, trapped underground ruins (or worse) isn't really metagaming. its sensible.
Storming through because "the traps can't kill me" is.

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

Considering that "this" means: Doing stupid stuff only because it looks cool without there any risk for doing stupid stuff. I disagree.

To use my trusted movie examples, in 4E Indiana Jones would behave like the original Terminator.

 

[Wormwood]

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

To be honest, that's how we've played D&D for some time now.

 

[Kraydak]

Throughout 3e's existence, there have been innumerable threads by DMs complaining about players being overconfident because the CR system meant they could walk over every "fair" encounter. DMs that thought that the CR system was a cap on what you could through at the PCs. That was, of course, a gross misreading of the CR system. It is also *precisely* what it takes to cause "suicidal lemming" style action. People will play like suicidal lemmings only if it won't get them killed. It won't get them killed only if there is an agreement with the DM that all encounters will be relatively easy, and very *very* few will be actually resource draining (and those will come with enough warning that you can avoid them if the situation warrants).

If 4e is designed for suicidal lemming action, the CR misreading that plagued 3e is becomes official rules for 4e. As for whether that is a good thing or not, I'll let you reflect on the tone of the CR based player entitlement threads...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

That's in fact the case.

There is level, which basically determines most of the monsters modifiers.
And then there is the "Veteran Status" or whatever you call it (I hope they have some name for it. I tend to use "Weight Class", but monsters aren't mechs ), ranging from Minion to Solo.

Things indicate that Minions will have less hit points and deal less damage, while Elites or Solos deal more damage, have more hit points, and usually also have more actions per round (often due to reactive abilities that activate in response to a special activity).

The Pit Fiend example presented online was an Elite monster (16th level or so) that had an ability allowing it to summon allies (of lower level, but they gained a bonus to attacks from him) and the ability to make two attacks as a standard attack, and also a fiery aura.


I don't know what this tells us about the 11th level Solo monster against the lower level PCs. They must have been either very lucky (both in rolls and circumstances), or the reasonable level differences are _a lot_ more generous then the CR / PL differences in 3rd edition. Or, off course, the game system is broken from start and doesn't actually work as advertised.

 

[FireLance]

Being careful because you live might be in danger when you are exploring old, trapped underground ruins (or worse) isn't really metagaming. its sensible.
Storming through because "the traps can't kill me" is.

Assuming, of course, that the characters are warned that the underground ruins are trapped in the first place.

In 4e, the first trap that doesn't kill you is the warning.

 

[Cadfan]

Now, these were two separate groups and, as far as I am concerned, ANYTHING that can be done to discourage this type of boring gameplay should be applied. Before anyone asks, no the party had never been poisoned by any barmaid before and no, they'd never wandered into an empty room that was trapped.

Heh, not in YOUR game. The problem is that Paranoia in a Dungeon style play has become a genre assumption for some players.

I'm worried that my character will basically be invincible until I roll initiative. Can you give any examples where screwing up a standalone trap has proved to be a Very Bad Thing?

I thought the idea was to avoid standalone traps, because they suck for exactly the reasons you listed in your post. If they kill you outright, its the most obnoxious of all the save-or-die effects available in the game. If they don't kill you outright, then you can trigger them, take damage, heal, and move on having done nothing more interesting than expending a cure spell (and using up time that could have gone to something more interesting).

The solution being to put traps in as components in larger encounters, so that the trap can contribute to the overall risk.

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.

Technically, it is equally metagamey to refuse to take actions at which your character has an extremely high chance of success out of fear of a 1 in 20 chance that you will fail and die.

 

[FireLance]

Considering that "this" means: Doing stupid stuff only because it looks cool without there any risk for doing stupid stuff. I disagree.

It really depends on what's the in-game payoff for doing stupid stuff. If there are no significant effects, positive or negative, I say let the players do the stupid stuff if that's what they enjoy.

Now, if you're a DM who doesn't like it when players do stupid stuff, do recognize that there are other DMs who do.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

I am a bit mystified to hear about v3.5 games where players check every square for traps and treasure. That does sound dreadfully dull. But surely this is a play style issue and not a system one. I've never seen any of my players become SWAT scientists as described in this thread, and I certainly don't rune games that way.

It is a play style issue.

Unfortunately, it's a play style issue that's encouraged by the 3.x (and earlier) system's save-or-die effects, single-shot death traps and inability to heal more than a number of times per day equal to your cure x potion + cure x spells.

Just like the 15-minute adventuring day is a play style issue that's also encouraged by the system.

 

[Derren]

inability to heal more than a number of times per day equal to your cure x potion + cure x spells.

Healing in 4E will also not be unlimited.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't know what this tells us about the 11th level Solo monster against the lower level PCs. They must have been either very lucky (both in rolls and circumstances), or the reasonable level differences are _a lot_ more generous then the CR / PL differences in 3rd edition. Or, off course, the game system is broken from start and doesn't actually work as advertised.

In a different thread, one of the designers describes the character classes in use in his gaming group. You can see from it that he's got about eight players. I don't know if that's the case here, but its another possible factor.