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

[Brentos]

Plot options?

I actually agree that D&D already has too many options. There's too many feats, too many spells, too many PrCs, too many books, too much stuff in general.
I just find it funny that the Hasbro designers are the ones who keep "chanting" empty slogans like "options, not restrictions" over and over, while at the same time, it seems like they're removing actual tactical and plot related options from the DM's repertoire.

What are some examples of plot options being removed from the game? Fluff? Trading one option for another? I'm not sure on this one. As far as tactical, sure, they've removed a few, but it looks like the game will be a lot *more* tactical in 4e, based in my impressions of the data-dribble so far.

 

[Victim]

Wall of Force doesn't work like that. Maximized and Empowered doesn't work like that. There's not much precedent for denying saves simply because a character can't leave the area. Without line of effect courtesy of his own walls of force, a counterspell isn't going to work. The initiative mechanic makes it somewhat unlikely that the lich beats everyone. And Disjunction is BS - it's not unlikely that there's a Contingency floating around in the group designed to counteract it.

 

[Psion]

I'm not being disingenuous - my entire point was that you want the inclusion of save-or-die because they have been included before. It's fine if you want them, but you need more of a reason than "more options are better". If options were all you were after, you would want the inclusion of chain swords and light sabres.

I just love how the anti-crowd here so vigorously banks on the excluded middle. "If you want to include something I don't like, then you must allow everything, whether or not it has any sensible correlation to the topic of the game." Yeah, right.

 

[hazel monday]

What are some examples of plot options being removed from the game? Fluff? Trading one option for another? I'm not sure on this one. As far as tactical, sure, they've removed a few, but it looks like the game will be a lot *more* tactical in 4e, based in my impressions of the data-dribble so far.

By plot options, I generally am talking about how the mechanics can affect the flow of the story. if an NPC villain takes down a PC in a single round, the remaining PCs have to react to that. The story changes organically based on the players decisions on how to deal with this new problem. Do they run ? Can the PC be saved? If they stay and fight, what will be the cost? That sort of thing. Removing save or die, or save or be hindered effects changes the type of stories that result from play, and removes a great deal of uncertainty and fun from the game.
Drastically changing the mechanics of the game will obviously have a condiderable effect on the types of games that actually play out. I don't know if that effect will be a good or bad one with 4.0.
As for what you call "fluff", I don't really care too much about what Hasbro does with that.I've managed to ignore the implied flavor of 2 previous editions. If I switch to 4.0 I'm sure i'll be able to do the same thing.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I see no reason not to include save or die effects. It's a lot easier to not use them than it is to house rule them in.

Except it doesnt follow their combat model (more opponents per combat). Unless you just want every DM to have to apply meta-game kid skin gloves and have their NPC's use sub-par tactics and spell selection.

 

[Remathilis]

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

I want a sidebar in the DMG RIGHT NOW that will allow me to continue using THAC0 and Vancian Magic in Fourth Edition. Keep them cows holy.

 

[Brentos]

Gotcha!

By plot options, I generally am talking about how the mechanics can affect the flow of the story. if an NPC villain takes down a PC in a single round, the remaining PCs have to react to that. The story changes organically based on the players decisions on how to deal with this new problem. Do they run ? Can the PC be saved? If they stay and fight, what will be the cost? That sort of thing. Removing save or die, or save or be hindered effects changes the type of stories that result from play, and removes a great deal of uncertainty and fun from the game.
Drastically changing the mechanics of the game will obviously have a condiderable effect on the types of games that actually play out. I don't know if that effect will be a good or bad one with 4.0.
As for what you call "fluff", I don't really care too much about what Hasbro does with that.I've managed to ignore the implied flavor of 2 previous editions. If I switch to 4.0 I'm sure i'll be able to do the same thing.

Although I find the first situation...as the player with the dead PC..pretty boring. Now, if I'm in a group where everyone runs more then 1 character, that could be very cool and I totally agree!

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Removing save or die, or save or be hindered effects changes the type of stories that result from play, and removes a great deal of uncertainty and fun from the game.

Fun for you maybe, but not for me.

I don't have a problem with my PC dying in a fight. I just want that death to be from being whittled down and over powered - not because my die decided it didn't like me and thus rolled a 1. I'm there to play a hero. It's not very heroic to die before I get to take an action. It's not that I'm a spotlight hog (well, my DM might disagree but...); I don't mind sitting by while the DM plays out a scene with other players. I don't mind letting other players get the spotlight for the fights either; it's just that the role-playing scenes usually don't last for hours on end without me getting to actively do something.

My group just got done with a campaign that went to level 27. If we get that high again I'm sure we're going to have some house rule with the Massive Damage save. Most (if not all) of our PCs had a Fort save of at least +14 by the time 50 damage become somewhat of a regular occurance. Whenever we got hit with a large amount of damage we usually rolled the die and declared "not a 1" before the damage was even tallied.

Yes, that is an issue with the Massive Damage Save and not a spell. When it came to SoD spells the only difference is that we might actually have to roll higher on the d20. It was almost as common (even "mooks" are casting 9th level spells by that point), just as boring (for me) and (in my opinion) sucks just as much if you fail.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm resisting the urge to scream and rant right now. Mostly because I am absolutely amazed there are DMs (and to a less extent, Players) who cannot fathom a D&D game without finger of death.

There are four types of non-damage dealing combat spells in D&D right now.

1.) Save or take some weakness/penalty. (Ray of Enfeeblement, Poisons)
2.) Save or suffer some Temporary condition that removes you from the fight (Charm, Hold, Paralyze)
3.) Save or suffer some permanent-until-removed condition that removes you from the game (Petrification, Magic Jar)
4.) Save or Die (Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee, Coup de Grace)

Nobody is complaining about one. They are useful, usually not permanent, and can add stress or tension. 2 is slightly more problematic, but used sparingly adds a different level of tactical element to the game ("Protect Bob", or "Subdue Tony before he kills us") Three can typically upset a campaign, but doesn't (at the end of the day) cause a PC's death (or, the PC can be recovered with the proper spells and items). Four is the worst and most debated. D&D currently (to many's chagrin) treats death like a level 3 combat spell (Slay Living vs. Raise Dead) and creates a revolving door of death.

So what to do? No one is advocating the removal of 1, so thats a safe bet. Few will argue 2 as well. 3 gets trickier, but (IMHO) these are fine as well since they can negated (yet still cause fear in a player's heart). However, I think four (and the spells that return people to life) should be EXTREMELY LIMITED if not OUTRIGHT REMOVED. Why? They break verisimilitude (if you could kill a man by looking at him, why would you bother to learn another combat spell? and lets not get started on Raise Dead and world-building). They ruin the players fun (while a medusa'd statue is a Stone to Flesh away from recovery, a bodak'd PC is a whole new PC away from the action) and they can create anti-climatic encounters (akin to Wild West gunfights, whoever has the fastest initiative wins the duel.) Lastly, they treat death as a status ailment: easy to inflict, easy to remedy. (Not unlike Panicked, Paralyzed, Diseased, or Poisoned) I'd rather have SoD (and Raise) restricted to extremely high level abilities (epic) or outright gone.

If the trade off is between a game with death being more difficult but more meaningful and running the Tomb of Horrors as written, I'll gladly take the latter.

 

[Puggins]

I'm resisting the urge to scream and rant right now. Mostly because I am absolutely amazed there are DMs (and to a less extent, Players) who cannot fathom a D&D game without finger of death.

I'm almost positive that there'll be a finger of death. It'll just be made a bit less arbitrary... like take 4d6 con damage, 2d6 if you save. Still lethal, but far less likely to leave the player warping the table with a death grip and mentally deciding how big a chair he's going to shove down your throat.