Greg Bilsland: Prophecy of the Priestess Part IV

[Cadfan]

I don't see anything wrong with that. A party of five fighters should absolutely own in combat, given that that's all fighters can do.

Remember, attacks of opportunity in 4e are going to be stronger than in 3e.

Its built into the system. Single strikes are stronger. AoOs are single strikes. An attack of opportunity is going to be close or equal in power to what the fighter could do in a full round as the active character. Imagine if attacks of opportunity in 3e were full round attacks.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Remember, attacks of opportunity in 4e are going to be stronger than in 3e.

Its built into the system. Single strikes are stronger. AoOs are single strikes. An attack of opportunity is going to be close or equal in power to what the fighter could do in a full round as the active character. Imagine if attacks of opportunity in 3e were full round attacks.

I understand the logic behind what you are saying, but is there anything you have seen to confirm this? If that really ends up being the case that would make AoOs extremely powerful, which might work against their started goal of making combat more mobile.

I've seen repeated reference to "triggering an immediate action," which I was under the impression is the new AoO. Perhaps those immediate actions will not just be a straight attack.

 

[Cadfan]

I've seen no specific statements, but here's the reasoning.

Iterative attacks are gone in 4e. That means one attack per round, unless you have a special ability that grants you more.

This means that single attacks are going to have to be more powerful, especially given that one of the goals is fighters who do not suck.

There are two ways I can see for single attacks to get more powerful. The first is to make the standard single attack better. The second is the use of maneuvers, ie, per encounter or per day abilities. I suspect both will be used together- maneuvers will exist, but the typical melee character will make a fair amount of regular attacks per fight.

An attack of opportunity is a regular attack. I doubt it will benefit much from maneuvers, or even be compatible with maneuvers as a general rule, but I bet attacks of opportunity will also be equal to standard attacks because I doubt WOTC will inflict a damage penalty upon them.

Therefore, whatever damage output is available from the new, improved standard single attacks will also be available in attack of opportunity.

It won't be quite equal to a full round of combat from a melee fighter using maneuvers, but it will probably equal a full round of combat from a melee fighter not using maneuvers, which will still be higher than a current standard attack.

Someone who plays Star Wars Saga can tell me if I'm being crazy here.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Remember, attacks of opportunity in 4e are going to be stronger than in 3e.

Yeah. And if you get surrounded by 5 expert warriors, you should be getting completely ruined. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't really have a problem with 4 fighters dominating either. If I'm playing in a party of 4 fighters, then I'm giving up the healing of a cleric, the area effects of a wizards, and the skill use of a rogue. In exchange, my party is a melee monster. That's fine in my book.

The big question is how will it work for npcs. A party of 4 fighters attack your party sounds very scary, but that could be a good thing

Also, while AOOs may be very strong in 4e we really don't know that. Perhaps AOOs all suffer a -5 to the attack roll, and you can't apply manuevers and action points and mojo and whatever else is in the game.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I don't really have a problem with 4 fighters dominating either. If I'm playing in a party of 4 fighters, then I'm giving up the healing of a cleric, the area effects of a wizards, and the skill use of a rogue. In exchange, my party is a melee monster. That's fine in my book.

The big question is how will it work for npcs. A party of 4 fighters attack your party sounds very scary, but that could be a good thing

Also, while AOOs may be very strong in 4e we really don't know that. Perhaps AOOs all suffer a -5 to the attack roll, and you can't apply manuevers and action points and mojo and whatever else is in the game.

Y'know, that's sort of an interesting thing you've said there. In 3.x, a 4-fighter party would have had a tough row to hoe. If 4E classes are balanced such that a single class can take different paths and fulfill a role it's not usually used for...well, you could actually live the dream and run a low-magic campaign, by having your party made up of nothing but fighters, rogues, etc. And that would be pretty damn sweet for a lot of us.

 

[Mercule]

In my experience, players follow the plot about 90-95% of the time. For example in my current campaign I've only completely improvised one adventure in twenty sessions. The rest of the time it's - NPC will give you money if you do X. What do you do? Players: We do X.

Yup. IME, the less prep you've given something, the more likely the PCs will follow the bread trail. In other words, the only time my players go "off script" is when I absolutely need them not to (like last night).

 

[WyzardWhately]

In my experience, players follow the plot about 90-95% of the time. For example in my current campaign I've only completely improvised one adventure in twenty sessions. The rest of the time it's - NPC will give you money if you do X. What do you do? Players: We do X.

After all the players know the DM has done more work on the prepared adventure so its set pieces, encounters, NPCs and so forth are likely to be more interesting and just plain better than if the DM is extemporising.

So if an NPC is telling me to go down a crypt I'm guessing the DM has prepared some cool stuff down there. Whether it's all a trap or whatever doesn't really matter.

I run the game a little differently. I tend to throw a lot of material out there, and see how the players react. Even if I give them a fairly specific end, there will usually be a lot of different ways to come at it. And they do tend to surprise me pretty frequently. Planned dungeons are probably less than a quarter of the game sessions I run. For that reason, I want to see the game stress-tested to see how hard it is to go off-the-cuff. Especially with social challenges. You never know when a player is going to get fed up and try to take the King down a few notches in front of the court.

 

[Green Knight]

well, you could actually live the dream and run a low-magic campaign, by having your party made up of nothing but fighters, rogues, etc. And that would be pretty damn sweet for a lot of us.

That's why I'm hoping we'll eventually see a Martial Controller. We've already got a Martial Defender (Fighter), Martial Striker (Rogue), and Martial Leader (Warlord). If they were to make a Martial Controller, then it'd be possible to take a party which doesn't need magic but is still as balanced as a party with a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. That'd be fantastic for low-magic, or no-magic, campaigns.

 

[JohnSnow]

That's why I'm hoping we'll eventually see a Martial Controller. We've already got a Martial Defender (Fighter), Martial Striker (Rogue), and Martial Leader (Warlord). If they were to make a Martial Controller, then it'd be possible to take a party which doesn't need magic but is still as balanced as a party with a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. That'd be fantastic for low-magic, or no-magic, campaigns.

Given that no "role" is supposed to be strictly necessary, and we already have a martial striker (or maybe two), a defender, and a leader, there's nothing preventing people from running a low or no-magic campaign.

Consider the Fellowship...Boromir & Gimli: Defenders. Legolas: striker. Aragorn: Multiclass Leader.

The hobbits are a little harder to figure.