Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[MerricB]

Thanks for that info -- I will look into those rules.
(For some reason, I had always assumed that the miniatures combat system would be more complex than the standard system, given that it requires, well, miniatures, and is focused on combat.)
Out of curiousity: how do they handle rogue sneak attacks without AoOs?

The same you handle them with - if the Rogue flanks, it can sneak attack. (Alternatively, if it is hidden - due to Invisibility or the Hide ability).

OTOH RC D&D has always seemed remarkably well balanced IMO -- and reasonably modular as well. (Discovering it in the 1990s made me give D&D a try again.) Don't cringe, though, we RC fans don't hit!

Heh. I like the RC rules quite a bit, myself. I was delighted to pick up a secondhand copy some ten years ago or so...

Cheers!

 

[FireLance]

Out of curiousity: how do they handle rogue sneak attacks without AoOs?

Um, you might be misremembering a rule here. Rogues don't need to make an AOO to sneak attack. A rogue can make a sneak attack against an opponent that he flanks or who is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC (or would be denied one if he had one). You might be thinking of the rogue's Opportunist special ability which allows him to make an AOO against an opponent who is hit by someone else in melee.

 

[Akrasia]

Um, you might be misremembering a rule here. Rogues don't need to make an AOO to sneak attack. A rogue can make a sneak attack against an opponent that he flanks or who is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC (or would be denied one if he had one). You might be thinking of the rogue's Opportunist special ability which allows him to make an AOO against an opponent who is hit by someone else in melee.

I guess I was unclear.

I meant, how does a rogue move through a threatened square to flank an opponent (and thereby get the sneak attack) when you get rid of AoOs as a way to limit this? (As the rules stand, IIRC, the rogue has to succeed in a tumble check vs DC 15 in order to avoid the AoO.)

If you get rid of AoOs, then he can either (a) move through threatened squares and sneak attack with impunity; or (b) cannot move through threatened squares at all (or perhaps only with a successful tumble check?).

The latter (b) seems like the better option (as I think sneak attack is already overpowered).

Sorry for the tangent! (But on p. 13 of any thread, tangents are inevitable.)

 

[MerricB]

I guess I was unclear.

I meant, how does a rogue move through a threatened square to flank an opponent (and thereby get the sneak attack) when you get rid of AoOs as a way to limit this? (As the rules stand, IIRC, the rogue has to succeed in a tumble check vs DC 15 in order to avoid the AoO.)

Oops. AoOs still exist - but in this greatly reduced form:

Any time you move from a square adjacent to an opponent, that opponent gets a free attack on you.

Two special abilities can counter this:
Mobility gives you a +4 AC on these attacks.
Sidestep allows you to make a 5' step (normally not allowed in DDM).

Cheers!

 

[Umbran]

No, not at all. PLayers are just likwe everyone one else. It's a case of intelliggent people manipulating intelligent people. Just because your aware of manipulattion doesn't make you immune to it.

Being aware has nothing to do with it.

The entire history of the game is dependant and devoted to playing the game in ways other than the rules as written. AD&D1e would not exist if people didn't deviate from playing Basic D&D. 3e would not exist if folks didn't deviate from what the 2e books said. 3.5e would not exist if people didn't have problems with what was in the books. White Wolf would not exist if gamers stuck to what D&D did. Etc.

Look at the list of different foums on this site - yes, there is a D&D rules forum. But there's also a house rules forum,which is about playing other than in the way mentioned in the core rules. There's the d20/OGL forum, again about playing the game other than in the way the D&D rulebooks are written. The General forum, too, depends upon the existance of other ways to play. This very discussion is based on the idea that gamers already have relaized that there's more than one type of game you can play by the core rules. People are questioning the way the books say to play the game all the bloody time! Constantly. Insessantly.

You keep saying you have this fear - buy you have produced no evidence that it has ground in which to root. The history of the game up to this very day almost literally screams at you that gamers do not, in general, stick to what the rulebooks say. They play in the way that they have fun.

Stop blaming subtle book-induced hypnosis for what is simply the way some folks like to play.

Manipulation of the sort you suggest does not function when the intended victim has lots of time to think and full information at their disposal. The full information is right there in the rulebooks. Time we have aplenty. There is no reason to believe that gamers are somehow manipulated into behaving in one way and only one way and never should they deviate.

 

[UniversalMonster]

You know what I think this is?

Honest: the idea that the new D&D versions is like M:Tg all comes back to one thing.

With the new D&D, you can be good at it. No previous RPG had this quality. Previously- in D&D as in many other games: you could be a good player in the sense of being inventive or a good roleplayer or well-behaved. or know the rules really well.

But as far as being good at the game? There aren't any winners and there was very little point at being good at them anyhow.

In the new D&D, thats no longer true. You can be good at the game. You can research your options and build your character to be death-dealing beyond others. You can pick up just the right items to combo with your abilities and cover your weak spots.

Then when you play, you can play tactics. You can use formations and cover, special weapons, strike from a distance, take out closing enemies with
attacks of opportunities, leverage off of skills and 'aid other's to put together an offense like a trained SEAL team.

Conversely, you can also suck at this, when the GM whips out his team of kobolds with a few levels of warrior and the combat reflexes feat, striking from cover and then sallying forth. If you don't have the skills, you will get cut to pieces, even if you are above the CR of the adversary.

It used to be two guys standing toe to toe marking off hit points in turns. All you needed to win was more hit points, or possibly a higher armor class. Tactics consisted of striding to the center of the room to begin the slugfest. The only possible factor in a win or lose situation was if someone failed a roll.

Now, the rolls of the dice are important, but it's what your character actually does that matters in a battle.

I can see why people would dislike the new way of doing things, but I know why I prefer it.

 

[fredramsey]

Tactics

Hell yes, there are tactics in combat now! Woo-hoo! It's about damn time, too.

If anyone cares to remember, a lot of other game system (Runequest, Rolemaster) were created at least in part to make up for the lack of tactics in D&D combat. Now you can tumble into a flanking position, use your sneak attack to do more damage, etc. It's great.

It does not, however, have anything to do with MtG. Tactics in RPG combat were around long before the card game.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Manipulation of the sort you suggest does not function when the intended victim has lots of time to think and full information at their disposal. The full information is right there in the rulebooks. Time we have aplenty.

Fine...can you lend me some of yours, in that case? Mine seems to be missing.

 

[fredramsey]

"How can we ever take time if we never make time?" - The Merovingian

Fine...can you lend me some of yours, in that case? Mine seems to be missing.

 

[robberbaron]

Looking at this from two different perspectives:

As a player I find some of the feat/prestige class combos, as well as some alternative races/templates, very interesting and want to try many of them out.

As a GM I am not allowing Prestige Classes at all as I want them thinking about what their characters are going to do NOW, not what feat they want to take in 4 levels time so they can be a Something or other Wossname of Doom.
I did significantly expand the list of feats to give them more flexibility in their characters' progression, and they haven't complained so far.