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

[Grog]

All deaths in D&D come down to a single die roll.

Oh, come on. That's not true and you know it.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Well, obviously certian monsters are better designed for random encounters and others for end encounters and the like. Just because a creature is a certain CR and the PC should be able to deal with it doesn't mean they should.

A baby red dragon, the lowest CR for a red dragon, a wyrmling, has a CR of 4. I don't care what kind of party of first level PCs you kit bash to try and beat it the Dragon will win about 75% of the time if not higher, especially if it is the main big bad boss which it would tend to be since it is 3 higher thant he PCs and the PCs will be low on resources when they meet him.

The CR rating system is not perfect and not all encounters should be faced by the PCs based on CR. Some situations are better than others and some monsters should be played in a different manner than you might think.

I'd like you to indulge me in an exercise.

Pretend that I've played a couple 6-month campaigns of 3.5, so I know how the rules work, but always in pre-written adventures. Let's assume they've all been pretty good modules, and the GM was workmanlike but not remarkable. Now I've stepping up to the plate to run some 3.5, and the levels 1-3 and 3-7 modules I bought have served me well. Now I'm striking out on my own, writing the next arc based on PC intentions to take them from 7 to roughly 11, and I'm writing some undead encounters I want to be challenging, but not disastrous for the party.

Now for whatever reason, I don't read gaming forums and basically trust the 3.5 design team to have made a balanced game with the core books. Tell me what would make it obvious, while I'm sitting at home with my core books and a notepad, that I shouldn't use a bodak just like any other CR 8 undead.


EDIT: Because the DM I've just described is the most important one the hobby has; the first-timer new to the game, whose future gaming likely hinges on how his first DMing goes.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

All deaths in D&D come down to a single die roll.

Sure, that final die roll may be the one that pounds the final nail in the coffin but it took multiple rolls to get there... The attack, the confirmation of the critical, the d10 from the bow shot or the ten dice of damage that the fireball caused. That last die from the fireball may be the one that puts you at -10 but there was more than one die involved.

With SoD you get one die. From "Good Morning" to "You're Dead": one die.

edited - changed 'one roll' to 'one die' in last sentance.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Oh, come on. That's not true and you know it.

Well, it's a gross oversimplification, but it contains a nugget of truth bereft of context and intellectual honesty.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, come on. That's not true and you know it.

Okay. Sometimes you are rolling multiple dice, as in damage from a fireball.

But, in D&D, death always comes down to one roll (of one or more dice). Before that roll you were alive, after that roll you are dead.

RC

 

[Grog]

Okay. Sometimes you are rolling multiple dice, as in damage from a fireball.

But, in D&D, death always comes down to one roll (of one or more dice). Before that roll you were alive, after that roll you are dead.

So, I take it that you also believe that victory or defeat in chess comes down to a single move?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure, that final die roll may be the one that pounds the final nail in the coffin but it took multiple rolls to get there... The attack, the confirmation of the critical, the d10 from the bow shot or the ten dice of damage that the fireball caused. That last die from the fireball may be the one that puts you at -10 but there was more than one die involved.

With SoD you get one roll. From "Good Morning" to "You're Dead": one roll.

So, no other rolls got you to that point? There was no surprise? There was no initiative? There was no check to see if you met something's gaze (such as a bodak's)? Prior to adventuring, you gathered no information about the area you were exploring? You just woke up one day with a bodak between your sheets?

What the hell were you drinking the night before, then? And where can I get some?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, I take it that you also believe that victory or defeat in chess comes down to a single move?

Of course I do. If I don't checkmate you, I don't win. No matter how skillfully I manuver, if I screw the pooch at the last second, I lose. And often, following a game of chess, I can mull it over and determine at which move I erred, and the game was lost. A great many people can do so, IME at least.

RC

 

[brocktoon]

You are being disingenuous. Chain swords and light sabers are not legacy elements that have always existed as a part of the game...
snip....

adventure, better milieu and better game (in the at the table sense) than the player/DM.

prior to 3e, some previous editions limited a character's stats based on gender, should that have been kept? they were legacy....

broad assumptions are being based on little teaser nuggets being given.

eliminating SoD in favor of massive amounts of damage allows a DM to almost kill everyone in one round.

in a broader sense, i think eliminating spells that are all or nothing effects would be great. if you save, nothing happens.

it seems like they are trying to make spells as robust and diverse as physical attacks, a fighter can miss, can hit, can crit, can (possibly) cleave, imprve their AC sacrificing the ability to hit, etc... a caster casts fireball, 10d6 again (yawn...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, it's a gross oversimplification, but it contains a nugget of truth bereft of context and intellectual honesty.

Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

Claiming that SoD affects are "one roll" without taking the context of the adventure/encounter into consideration is also a gross oversimplification. Pointing that out is not intellectual dishonesty.

Making an ad hominem attack, though, may be.

YMMV.

RC