Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

On a side note I suppose it you use save or die monsters you could put in heavy hints that they would be around, putting in clues like crumbled stone statues or a ritual book describing a summoning of Bodaks which the PC's could use knowledge roles to predict they would be facing these things and prepare, but then that would take the point of the effect away as the PC's with the correct protections would just walk straight through it.

The good thing here is that it rewards players intelligence and ability to understand clues or search for them. The bad thing is it invalidates the entire power. Instead of leaving clues there might be a Medusa or Bodak around the next corner, why not use clues to advance the plot, tell us something about NPCs, the history of the setting, the big bad plan of the enemy?
Using your smarts to cast Raise Dead before opening the door to the Bodak room is so... technical and cold. Using your smarts to figure out that it was actually the Blacksmith that is allied with the Orcus Death Cult and is just using the Gnome as a scapegoat sounds more compelling.

Of course, it's not an XOR-relation - you could have both. But - I also like fast-paced action, and having to find all the clues to one me for the guaranteed TPKs if I am not forewarned stands in the way of it.

 

[Steely Dan]

I particularly dislike mind flayers' psychic blast and would've majorly nerfed it if I hadn't moved to 4e.

Yeah, I house-ruled the blast to being stunned for 1 round, instead of that 3d4 rounds malarkey. It was especially motivated after I saw how bummed out one of our recently joined players was when his character was stunned for 3 rounds, which in 3rd Ed was often half the entire encounter.

 

[Imaro]

A point was made by Imaro that no save or die = no tension, because players can survive 4ever, I'm not sure what your experience has been of 4th edition, But our party of 6 has been in a few dire situations, cornered from both sides in a cave 2 of our party on the floor dying, 3 of the other 4 bloodied with the main bad guy still standing, a role of natural 20 got the cleric back up and helped change the tide of battle again.

This is wrong, This was never my point. My point was that some players enjoy the big risk feel of D&D 3.5 as opposed to the safer 4e style. Let's take critical hits at low-levels as another example. In 3.5, my players loved rolling a critical it was a time of high fives and cheers... in 4e it's not that big of a deal...now in 3.5 they could easily have had a critical rolled on them as well (in fact mathematically I as DM will roll more criticals than they do over time), but for my players it was worth it for them to get those moments in the game. With 4e it feels sterile and kind of ho-hum to roll a critical.

It's not a binary thing, but as I said before some people enjoy the risk and sudden danger of certain things, especially in a game where raising the dead can be accomplished. Others enjoy tactical, mathematically based in their favor fights that rely on their skills in strategy...There are different people in the world, some enjoy chess...others enjoy shooting craps, but I don't think one type of fun is superior in a general sense to another. IMHO, some of those SOSO or SOD abilities gave the game a sense of wild chance and sudden doom, similar to the Sword and Sorcery tales I have read. To me 4e really doesn't capture this feel very well, though I think it does high fantasy very well.

 

[Nifft]

And other people don't see the problem nor do they understand why that first group of people is so adamantly against it that they shout their hate from the rooftops, because it's still just a game, and they really don't mind being able to take a breather and snarf down on the pizza.

If sitting out and taking a breather are so attractive to you, why don't you just watch others post?

That, or admit that participating is more fun than not participating.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

Okay, Prof, we seemed to have reached the point where the content of posts is not addressed, but niggly little details are picked on. For instance:

Define "large-scale." If we're talking armies, then what do you expect? D&D has never been made for big armies. Or ANY large-scale fights for that matter.

I didn't have a particular scale in mind. The point is that sometimes combats in 3.5 take a long time to resolve. Not always, but sometimes.

Is your complaint "I died from a 1" or is your complaint "I had to sit out?" Because you started on the latter, but it seems you're switching to the former.

It's the same complaint. Just different words used. Some suggest death is actually preferable, since you can at least start working on a new character while the others play. But with the prevalence of raise dead etc, I'm not sure that's really true.

Besides, doing 50+ damage all at once makes someone sit out too, don't see you complaining about that

Is it a save-or-die effect? Yes, it is. So my complaints about save-or-die apply to massive damage as well.

And other people don't see the problem nor do they understand why that first group of people is so adamantly against it that they shout their hate from the rooftops, because it's still just a game, and they really don't mind being able to take a breather and snarf down on the pizza.

"Shout their hate from the rooftops"? And you're implying others are overreacting?

Are you actually saying you don't understand why some are opposed to it, or do you mean you understand it, but you prefer it the other way? Because preference is fine, but it's been explained in some detail, and I don't see how you can claim to not understand the reason.

4E still imposes breathers on players sometimes, but mostly only for a round or two, which is plenty of time to scarf down some pizza. The point is that the breathers imposed on players in 3.5 sometimes give them enough time to go watch a movie while the others play.

 

[Ginnel]

This is wrong, This was never my point. My point was that some players enjoy the big risk feel of D&D 3.5 as opposed to the safer 4e style. Let's take critical hits at low-levels as another example. In 3.5, my players loved rolling a critical it was a time of high fives and cheers... in 4e it's not that big of a deal...now in 3.5 they could easily have had a critical rolled on them as well (in fact mathematically I as DM will roll more criticals than they do over time), but for my players it was worth it for them to get those moments in the game. With 4e it feels sterile and kind of ho-hum to roll a critical.

I do apologise unreservedly it was something I picked from one of your posts and I didn't check the quote until your comment now, my bad, sorry.
It was a line in brackets that you said some people have mentioned 4e being a bit stale and lacking in adrenaline

The thing is 4e has decided that shooting craps is the wrong type of fun for D&D (I often wonder if this could be the bland feeling that has been expressed by some people trying the game. There's very little adrenaline rush moments in the game now.)

On the crit thing you get extra D6's for plus' on magic weapon which started appearing for us at level 1 and 2, you get high crit weapons which roll the damage dice again I believe.

some quick maths for a greataxe with 20 str and +1 enchantment

this is 18 + D12 + D6 on a crit a total from 20-36, which will most likely kill a mook but won't kill an elite or solo.

I also find it quite gratifying to bring enemies to bloodied myself.

It's not a binary thing, but as I said before some people enjoy the risk and sudden danger of certain things, especially in a game where raising the dead can be accomplished. Others enjoy tactical, mathematically based in their favor fights that rely on their skills in strategy...There are different people in the world, some enjoy chess...others enjoy shooting craps, but I don't think one type of fun is superior in a general sense to another. IMHO, some of those SOSO or SOD abilities gave the game a sense of wild chance and sudden doom, similar to the Sword and Sorcery tales I have read. To me 4e really doesn't capture this feel very well, though I think it does high fantasy very well.

Fair enough on the point that some people like one style and other another style.
I guess I just like a bit more control and effect on the outcome - chess compared to the will of lady luck - craps
I've got nothing against an instant sleep/fear/stun/funky chicken/immmobilize effect that lasts 2 rounds max, instant death is just something I can't quite grasp.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is wrong, This was never my point. My point was that some players enjoy the big risk feel of D&D 3.5 as opposed to the safer 4e style.

My point would be that the idea that 4E is that describing 4E as "safer" is... misleading. Sure, it avoids save or die, but is it really "safer" style therefore?

 

[Imaro]

My point would be that the idea that 4E is that describing 4E as "safer" is... misleading. Sure, it avoids save or die, but is it really "safer" style therefore?

I don't understand how you can argue this... not only does the removal of SOD and SOSO but the math of 4e supports this as well... unless the designers are lying when they say combat is less "swingy". See in 3.5 combat there is a chance to loose big time, but also to win big time (Don't PC's get SOD and SOSO effects as well?). In a less swingy, mathematically tested situation where probability is firmly in the players corner... how can you argue it isn't safer? This coupled with the fact that there is still nothing (mechanically)that actually prevents characters from doing the 5min adventuring day means 4e is alot safer than 3.5.

EDIT: I just want to say I'm not trying to use "safer" in a negative way...I just couldn't think of a better way to express what I'm trying to get at.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't understand how you can argue this... not only does the removal of SOD and SOSO but the math of 4e supports this as well... unless the designers are lying when they say combat is less "swingy".

Just because death is less swingy doesn't mean it's less common. Combat can still be very deadly, it just takes more than a single die roll to kill a character.

The 4E math was supposed to make combat less swingy, you're right. But monsters are still nasty. It may take your character three or four rounds to die, instead of one, but he'll still die.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't understand how you can argue this... not only does the removal of SOD and SOSO but the math of 4e supports this as well... unless the designers are lying when they say combat is less "swingy". See in 3.5 combat there is a chance to loose big time, but also to win big time (Don't PC's get SOD and SOSO effects as well?). In a less swingy, mathematically tested situation where probability is firmly in the players corner... how can you argue it isn't safer? This coupled with the fact that there is still nothing (mechanically)that actually prevents characters from doing the 5min adventuring day means 4e is alot safer than 3.5.

EDIT: I just want to say I'm not trying to use "safer" in a negative way...I just couldn't think of a better way to express what I'm trying to get at.

Swingy is not the same as safe. For one of those bad examples: Jumping from a 5,000 ft cliff is not safe, but absolutely not swingy. I don't know if a minefield might be a good example for something not safe but also swingy, because I actually have no idea how deadly "real" minefields are to an individual (as opposed to a large force moving through them).

Maybe it would be better to say something about "chance" vs "skill". Save or Die is a lot about chance, less about skill. Of course one could argue that avoiding to face a SoD-effect is about skill, but avoiding a fight against superior forces is then also about skill, so the net difference between SoD and no-SoD is the same if we expand the parameters this far.