Finally got the 4e core books

[LostSoul]

I'm really not sure I understand you here.

It seems to me that if I'm a kobold, every attack I make against the PC wizard is going to be a DEX attack vs. his AC to trip his ass and silence him.

In fact I'm at a loss to figure out why I wouldn't use that on everybody. It's going to be one huge scrum of flailing legs and gagged mouths.

I think you can still cast spells while silenced. I may be wrong.

The "silence and prone!" attack did no damage. In the "Who wins, who dies" race, the kobold guard was ahead by 8 points or so. Should have called it a stunt.

So you wouldn't want to do this if you actually wanted to kill the other guy. Or if you have a Power that's better at doing this.

 

[LostSoul]

You could do this with every edition ever printed. 3E did go a little too far in trying to define everything that you could possibly do with a rule and that wasn't a good thing. 4E is attempting to go back to the days of "let the DM decide" on one hand and smacking you with the mega-thick " heres a zillion pages of exactly what you can and cannot do" on the other.

I personally don't think there are many rules saying what you can and can't do. I think the main restrictions are your actions in combat. You're limited to a standard, a move, and a minor.

I see the Powers not as what you can't do, but special moves that you have that break the rules! They are all exceptions.

That's what I paid all this money for: all those cool exceptions. That, and the rules that tell me how to fairly adjudicate the actions.

Does anyone here who supports the 4E "power back to the DM" design concept remember all the "mother may I" arguments that flew back and forth during 3E rules discussions?

This is a concern I have, but since I'm the DM right now, I'm okay with it. But seriously, I think that if you follow the advice in the DMG - say yes - then it should be okay. You will have to get your group's expectations lined up, but that's a common feature to all RPGs.

 

[The Little Raven]

It's not that 4e is "dumbed down;" it just doesn't ask as much of the DM and does a little more hand-holding.

Yeah, it makes encounter creation fun, instead of a chore.

But it doesn't exactly explain where the Great Wheel went...

To the graveyard of needless creations based on alignment symmetry.

4e is easier to stomach if you aren't.

I'm an experienced DM and it's because of that experience that I prefer 4e over any previous edition, because it reduces the amount of time devoted to work, which maximizes the amount of time devoted to fun.

 

[Mercule]

Yeah, it makes encounter creation fun, instead of a chore.

To the graveyard of needless creations based on alignment symmetry.

I'm an experienced DM and it's because of that experience that I prefer 4e over any previous edition, because it reduces the amount of time devoted to work, which maximizes the amount of time devoted to fun.

Agree with all of the above.

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, it makes encounter creation fun, instead of a chore.

I'm an experienced DM and it's because of that experience that I prefer 4e over any previous edition, because it reduces the amount of time devoted to work, which maximizes the amount of time devoted to fun.

If it was a "chore" and "work", then you weren't experienced enough.

 

[Scribble]

If it was a "chore" and "work", then you weren't experienced enough.

Hrmm... In that case I need more levels...

Roll initiative XP sack!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So you wouldn't want to do this if you actually wanted to kill the other guy. Or if you have a Power that's better at doing this.

Are there any powers that give you a DEX attack vs. AC to trip and silence the opponent?

That is, I assume in your original case, he was also able to maintain the trip, or the silence, or both, beyond one round.

I sort of read the intent of the attack as ongoing, otherwise-- if the guard stands up or cries out on his turn-- there doesn't seem to be much point to launching the attack in the first place.

I guess in a roundabout way I'm saying you said YES when you really probably should have said NO-- and if it is difficult to pull this "stunt" in 3e, it's for good reason: You said YES to an attack/stunt that can be resolved in one roll-- one roll pretty solidly in the PC's favor in most circumstances.

And in another, similarly roundabout way, I'm saying that you are as capable of hand-waving the rules in 3e (in pursuit of player fun and happiness, of course) as you are in 4e.

4e has a lot to recommend it, but explicitly granting you permission to "Wing It! Have Fun!" isn't at the top of the list.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If it was a "chore" and "work", then you weren't experienced enough.

This might be true for me, but certainly not for other members of my group who have DMed games 10 years longer then me. And they still prefer 4E.

So I consider this .

4E is easier to DM for, and even an inexperienced DM can get good results, thanks to the "hand-holding". But if you're already an experienced DM, it's still easier to get good results. I just don't see how 3E can give me better results. I just see where DMing because more difficult - I have mastered D&D (or rather Arcana Evolved) in the 10+ regions of D&D, and I've seen others master it at that level. It was a lot of work.

When players were to go back to a new session, they usually refamiliarized themselves with their PCs in maybe an hour or so (some take less, if they don't do too complicated stuff with the PCs). But the DM has to do this for dozens of monsters, and each time he has to look up special abilities, tactical options, spells and so on.
And as a DM, I still missed options that could have made encounters more interesting (or just make the monster worth its CR)

In 4E, I read up the encounters and the basic plot points (taking no longer then 2h), and are ready to go. Heck, I am not sure I really need to read up the encounters (in fact, in our last session; I didn't look too close at most of them, mostly focusing on the adventuring details - what kind of information is hidden where, any special hazards I need to be aware of, and so on). And trust me, the encounters were all interesting, challenging and never boring. And the whole XP budget system and monster levels also made things a lot easier - I even reshuffled the encounter groups a little after the PCs retreated (remanning the entrance defense and stuff like that). (Just as I did in 3E, but even faster.)

I don't think it has anything to do with experience that I don't like to study monster stat-block and reference the PHB spell descriptions to understand what a monster does (possibly re-reading stuff during a running encounter). It's just the kind of work I don't like to do, that bogs down my preparation and my game. Others may like this kind of "explorative" DMing - I am not one of them.

 

[LostSoul]

Are there any powers that give you a DEX attack vs. AC to trip and silence the opponent?

That is, I assume in your original case, he was also able to maintain the trip, or the silence, or both, beyond one round.

I sort of read the intent of the attack as ongoing, otherwise-- if the guard stands up or cries out on his turn-- there doesn't seem to be much point to launching the attack in the first place.

"Until the end of your next turn" was what we went with. If he wanted to maintain, I think he'd have to spend another standard action to do it. (Though I might have gone with a "Sustain Minor" in the moment...)

I don't think there are any powers that Silence someone at all, though there are powers that trip - apply the Prone condition - as well as do damage. (The stat used to attack is a wash, I feel.)

I guess in a roundabout way I'm saying you said YES when you really probably should have said NO-- and if it is difficult to pull this "stunt" in 3e, it's for good reason: You said YES to an attack/stunt that can be resolved in one roll-- one roll pretty solidly in the PC's favor in most circumstances.

Any reason why I should have said NO? I mean, yeah, I can see it being nice in some circumstances - such as the one that happened in-game, where the PC was faced with a guard who would have woken the PC's intended assassination target on his turn.

But as a regular course of action? Prone + Silence for a standard action that deals no damage isn't a gamebreaker - I'd think that doing 1[W] + Dex + Cha mod damage is usually better.

This is exactly what I want - a stunt that's great sometimes, in limited circumstances, depending on the fiction (my original point!) - but generally not worth it.

Now maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Prone + Silence is too good; maybe it'll be used all the time, and the PCs will never use their Powers. I am just not seeing it right now.

 

[Gothmog]

If it was a "chore" and "work", then you weren't experienced enough.

No, it was a "chore" and "work" because the 3e encounter/NPC/monster generation system was badly designed, and hard to use by RAW. Adding class levels (especially spellcasing levels) or advancing a monster was a royal PITA. When the system by RAW requires you to spend more time statting out adversaries than it does designing the adventure, plot, or mapping, then the system is the problem, not the DM or his experience with the system.

4e fixes this, and thank the gods it does. We now have approximate numbers to shoot for when designing NPCs and monsters, and can flex those standards back and forth a bit to get the end result we want easily, and without an insane amount of work. BIG improvement over the clunky old system.