Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[Betote]

¡Saludetes!

I don't think it has to do so much with ease of play as indistinguishable mechanics. Rolling 1d20+mod for everything ever means the game feels monotone.

Real life is in color. It needs a variety of mechanics to satisfactorily simulate and stimulate. I'd actually much prefer if they added dice pools, card pulls, betting chips, and whatever else they felt worked in addition to the d20 mechanic, instead of oversimplifying even more.

For me, it's the opposite. The thing that really won me of d20/OGL [D&D, M&M...] was, in fact, that it was just that easy to explain: Want to do anything? Roll d20, add something, try to beat DC.

 

[Cadfan]

So, facing down a lich wielding save-or-die spells you know could snuff your life out at any moment is not heroic? To me, forging on when the risk is great is the essence of heroic.

No, its really not.

I mean, honestly, how is it? You walk around a corner, there's a lich. He says, "WAIL OF THE BANSHEE!!!!" You roll a fort save at DC 30. The wizard in the party has a 6 base fortitude save, +4 constitution, and a +5 cloak of resistance. So he's at +15. He needs a 15 or better. Same problem for the rogue. The cleric and the fighter are a bit better off, they just need a 9 or better.

Statistically, over half the party dies.

WOOT! That was heroic! Or rather it wasn't.

So the two remaining party members do their thing, and the next round the lich proclaims loudly, "WAIL OF THE BANSHEE I MEMORIZED IT TWICE SUCKAS!"

Yeah...

Now, lets think of a way to make this heroic for real. What if the lich had, I don't know, some method of attacking the party which posed a credible risk of killing the characters, but didn't do them all in with one spell and one die roll? In such a case, drama could build, risk could mount, the party could become fearful for their characters survival, better in-game tactics could lead to characters lasting longer while poor tactics dooms the foolish, and when the final blow comes that drops a character, everyone knows that it was after a good, dramatic fight.

 

[Bishmon]

See, i just don't get it. i would much rather have a game where the players say, "Oh, crap, a wizard! Take cover!" and think their way through the battle than one in which they say, "Oh look, a wizard! Let's see if he has some wands!" and just rush pell-mell in because they know he's got, at worst, a lightning bolt.

You're arguing extremes. There's a whole area of grey between the black and white of "An unknown wizard! Let's run away because he might be able to outright kill one of us the moment he sees us" and "An unknown wizard! Let's all recklessly charge him because there's no possible way he could hope to kill any of us."

I suspect 4E isn't going to do away with a wizard's ability to kill things, especially when his opponents act foolishly. He might not kill them in the first round by viture of an eventual low die roll on his opponent's part, but I'm guessing he'll still have plenty of ways to kill things at his disposal.

 

[Psion]

No, its really not.

I mean, honestly, how is it? You walk around a corner, there's a lich.

So, let's see then. Your entire argument is based around something I specifically call bad: save or die as part of a trivial random encounter. No, if you just walk around a corner and walk into a death spell casting lich, it's functionally the equivalent to a save or die trap, which I don't believe in either.

Now take on the other hand, that this lich is the lich-king. His powers are well known. At the culmination of a great campaign, the players know the day of reckoning has come. They know the peril is great. But they proceed anyways. That, my friend, is heroic.

 

[DandD]

There are creatures that will slice through your HP in a single hit.

These are creatures that are far too strong for the heroes, aren't they? Then again, this for example is rather true to D&D 3.X. We don't know for now about the lethality grade in D&D 4th edition, but I do guess that monsters who are far too strong for the heroes will also deal insanely high damage that make them fall instantly. This however is rather more of having faced an enemy that you never stood a chance to begin with, no matter what you do, because he's too strong. So, no fun fight to begin with, no encounter that will bring excitement at all. It's the same as saying that you all died when you woke up.

That's functionally equivalent to "save or die." (Indeed, note what happened to harm and disintegrate in 3.5.)

Yes. It seems that they did the right thing to these two spells. Hopefully, in D&D 4th edition, the spells will be somehow this way, and not like in 3.0.

 

[bowbe]

Seems to me like a lot of people had their favorite character or BBG wacked by a save or die spell!

Maybe we could start a thread about that... folks cold get together and have a support group or something.

Yes that was snarky... It was also meant to be in good fun. It's all just games folks.

I for one was more annoyed with the plethora of No Save and take 150+ points of damage (maximized) spells that came out of such latter day classics as Complete Divine, and Spell Compendium. Sure, those offered Spell resistance... sometimes... if you read the fine print. Did I use the ban cannon on those when PCs started using them against me? No.

There's no save for ray of enfeeblement and its ilk either... because they require a RTA. It looks like all the spells require an RTA now (in essence, as a caster has to roll something to see if it works) and you have a "Spell Defense" score rather than a save. Again I say. Whats the diff? A little change in language, and a fresh soap and scrub of the mechanics and its the same thing.

Case

 

[Reynard]

No, its really not.

I mean, honestly, how is it? You walk around a corner, there's a lich. He says, "WAIL OF THE BANSHEE!!!!" You roll a fort save at DC 30. The wizard in the party has a 6 base fortitude save, +4 constitution, and a +5 cloak of resistance. So he's at +15. He needs a 15 or better. Same problem for the rogue. The cleric and the fighter are a bit better off, they just need a 9 or better.

Statistically, over half the party dies.

WOOT! That was heroic! Or rather it wasn't.

So the two remaining party members do their thing, and the next round the lich proclaims loudly, "WAIL OF THE BANSHEE I MEMORIZED IT TWICE SUCKAS!"

Yeah...

Now, lets think of a way to make this heroic for real. What if the lich had, I don't know, some method of attacking the party which posed a credible risk of killing the characters, but didn't do them all in with one spell and one die roll? In such a case, drama could build, risk could mount, the party could become fearful for their characters survival, better in-game tactics could lead to characters lasting longer while poor tactics dooms the foolish, and when the final blow comes that drops a character, everyone knows that it was after a good, dramatic fight.

You assumption seems to be that the presence of save-or-die effects automatically assumes a DM that is going to run the game as a meatgrinder and create unfair challenges to the party at every possible opportunity. Such a DM isn't likely to have players for very long.

In your example above, your assuming no initiative roll, all abilities and gear of the lich directed at enhancing a singular ability, and a purely adversarial attitude on the part of the DM. So he is a cheater, a munchkin* and a jerk. Why that assumption? Why the idea that a DM who wants to challenge his players with a dangerous enemy is doing so to cackle with glee as his players cry into their mountain dew?

*And not a very good one, either, because in the scenario you propose a single spell -- death ward -- complete hobbles the uber-specialized bad guy.

 

[Reynard]

I suspect 4E isn't going to do away with a wizard's ability to kill things, especially when his opponents act foolishly. He might not kill them in the first round by viture of an eventual low die roll on his opponent's part, but I'm guessing he'll still have plenty of ways to kill things at his disposal.

So the issue then is specifically the save-or-die, or, to put it another way, the single roll=death. I quite frankly don't see the difference if you are going to take out death and leave in the maximized, crittable lightning bolt.

 

[Psion]

These are creatures that are far too strong for the heroes, aren't they?

Unequivocally? No.

For an every day or random encounter? Certainly.

This however is rather more of having faced an enemy that you never stood a chance to begin with, no matter what you do, because he's too strong.

But that's not what save or die constitutes, is it? It's a chance a PC could die.

 

[Bishmon]

So the issue then is specifically the save-or-die, or, to put it another way, the single roll=death. I quite frankly don't see the difference if you are going to take out death and leave in the maximized, crittable lightning bolt.

What's the damage of a maximized lightning bolt in 4E?