New Staff Blog: Run Away!

[El Mahdi]

The Players Strategy Guide (is that the right name?), the book with the illo by Gabe from PA, had a prominent section on the effectiveness of Focus Fire. A section I had my son point out to the rest of his fellow players who needed to be told about it.

First, not trying to split hairs, but I'd hardly call The Player's Strategy Guide a core book. However to be fair, Evil_Reverend's blog did not differentiate between core, supplement, or splat. Also, I only have the three core books of 4E, so I don't know anything about the book you've mentioned.

I would however, like to see an actual quote.

And, I'm betting there are similar suggestions or advice in similar books from preceding editions.

 

[Ratskinner]

What I use in most of my 4e games now is a morale algorithm. "If X, then Y."

"If the leader dies, the rest of the enemies flee."

"If the roc looses half its hit points, it escapes."

"If the party starts using fire magic, the yeti runs away."

"If the leader is attacked, the bodyguard focuses attention on those attacking the leader."

Modified and expanded, I think this is what the morale module is. That way, we don't need to have a special "Morale" line on every single NPC/monster entry and sheet ever. Even if you have a Morale check, I'd rather a module that included modifiers, etc. Especially if such a module took the time to explain how to change the modifiers for different settings and campaign circumstances.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

He does portray the need for focus fire as a negative, and says that 4E is the edition that taught it's necessity to the fan base. Boiled down, that's saying: Focus Fire is bad, and 4E is responsible for it.

As an avid 4E fan, that is not what I got out of it at all. He was discussing how a morale rule could open up new options in a particular system. Those options would allow those who don't like focused fire to approach combat encounters from different angles, while those who do like them would still have their favorite tactic at hand. He was discussing why 3E decided to remove morale rules and explained why he thought they did. The reasons he gave were not bad reasons, many DMs use them. He did discuss the negative impact of not having a 'morale reminder' in the stat block had on his games.

I think you are attributing a tone to what he wrote that isn't necessarily there.

Such communication with the fans, communications with this kind of tone, is what turned off a lot of people to 4E even before it came out.

It's not like he said 'I want skill challenges to die in a fire.' End of comment. He was discussing why he thinks the morale system still deserves to be looked at for inclusion in 5E.

That blog entry came dangerously close to the type of things that caused problems in the run-up to 4E, and needs to be avoided as if one is walking through a mine field (which in essence, those on the design team are doing just that). Forgetting those lessons, and not remaining vigilant about avoiding those problems could be catastrophic to 5E's chances.

Maybe if you pointed out where specifically he used inflammatory and/or dismissive language I could understand your outrage better. Right now all I see is the windmill.

 

[Gryph]

First, not trying to split hairs, but I'd hardly call The Player's Strategy Guide a core book. However to be fair, Evil_Reverend's blog did not differentiate between core, supplement, or splat. Also, I only have the three core books of 4E, so I don't know anything about the book you've mentioned.

I would however, like to see an actual quote.

And, I'm betting there are similar suggestions or advice in similar books from preceding editions.

Yep, clearly not core. It was a glossy cover hardcover devoted entirely to teaching players how to optimize their play, from character building, party building feat choice optimization and combat strategies. I'll pull it out when I get home and post some relevant text. IIRC it even included an chart showing the expected damage the party would take using focus fire and not using focus fire.

I've certainly seen plenty of other sources promoting focus fire as a strong tactic from both TSR and WoTc. I do think this is the only place its part of a supplement rather than Dragon articles or online company blogs/articles. Though I am prepared to be wrong because I bought 2e/3e splats like you bought 4e .

If I wasn't treaching my then 12 year old son on a new edition, I doubt I would have bought this particular book either.

Without getting into Rob Schwalb's wording, 4e rewards focus fire at earlier levels than previous editions did. With the level of hit point inflation in 4e they moved most monsters (minions aside) to a point beyond the possibility of a one attack kill, even for a critical hit sneak attack from a rogue. That wasn't really a problem at low levels in previous editions where typical low level threats had a good chance of dying from a single attack.

I tried to word that as judgement neutral as I could because I don't believe it is either good or bad. It is a style difference.

 

[kevtar]

I understand older-editions morale rules, but they weren't used frequently in AD&D (they weren't in the MM, nor included in monster entries). I agree with the author that they provided good guidelines about what enemies should do.

Morale could be a good rules option, and even could be an "optional option": one could use morale, except in certain circumstances (such as a climactic battle).

On the other hand, in modern game design, I fully expect that if the game has morale rules, there will be feats, spells, items, and other effects that interact with them . . . thus creating the "morale check build". That would be a sad, and predictable, consequence.

I disagree. We may never know the frequency of morale rules being simply because this depended on individual groups. If I say my D&D group didn't use morale rules (or even if I knew several groups that didn't use the rules), I can't say that "morale rules weren't used frequently." As far as the rules and rulebooks were concerned, morale was a general rule listed in the DMG, and exceptions to the general morale rules were listed in supporting materials. For instance, certain entries in the "monster books" can be found for monsters that had bonuses or penalties to their morale checks:

MM1 = Monster Manual
L&L = Legends and Lore
FF = Fiend Folio
(Couldn’t find my Monster Manual II)

P. 53 (MM 1) - Hobgoblins get a +1 bonus to their morale
P. 67 (MM 1) – Bandits get a +1 bonus to morale, Berserkers “never check their morale.”
P. 68 (MM 1) – Cavemen receive a -1 penalty to morale, Dervishes “never check their morale.”
P. 76 (MM 1) – Orc leaders get a +1 to morale.
P. 49 (L&L) – Minions of Set never check morale.
P. 106 (L&L) – The name of “Thor” is enough to make giants check morale.
P. 9 (FF) – Achaierai never check morale in groups.
p. 26 (FF) – Dire Corby never check morale.
P. 42 (FF) Giant striders never check morale.
P. 43 (FF) Gibberlings cause hirelings to check morale every round.
P. 67 (FF) – Necrophidus never check morale.
P. 77 (FF) – Sandmen never check morale.

So, while the "monster books" didn't include the rules (as a system) for morale, they did mention "special cases" or exceptions to the rules as they were printed in the DMG.

 

[avin]

Morale is an interesting rule for CRPGs... I see no reason for that rule on tabletop, I always have been able to figure out when npcs have to run.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Maybe if you pointed out where specifically he used inflammatory and/or dismissive language I could understand your outrage better. Right now all I see is the windmill.

One, I didn't say he used inflammatory or dismissive language, I said he came dangerously close.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Second, I have not said I'm outraged at what he said. I'm frustrated that just after defending WotC to those that said this is what they were doing, Evil_Reverend comes along and does exactly (or appears to do) what people have been baselessly accusing them of. That's both poor judgement and poor timing by Evil_Reverend. He gave those looking for a reason or "proof" to believe that WotC is "against them", exactly what they've been looking for.

Right now, I believe all you're seeing in my initial comment is what you want to see in it. Read it. ALL of it. IN CONTEXT. Just as I did with Evil_Reverend's blog post.

I do understand that not everyone is going to see the same thing in that blog post that I and others do. And that's okay. You're not going to convince me it isn't there, so you may as well stop trying. I am not going to convince you it is there, and I haven't tried to. However, there was enough that if I saw it (someone that doesn't have a bias for 4E and has not been jumping at shadows as pertains to their statements, but on the contrary has actually been defending them), and others saw it (and have also commented on it), then they have a problem. Even appearing to be making statements similar to the pre-4E build-up is a problem. I believe that anyone who doesn't see the danger of WotC even appearing to return to what previously got them in trouble (specifically: Evil_Reverend), is either being purposefully obtuse about this or is just naturally so.

 

[mudbunny]

I would however, like to see an actual quote.

Just a partial quote, as I have to go get my daughter from daycare.

By focusing your attacks on as few enemies as possible, you accelerate the point at which those enemies leave combat. It can be hard for some players to leave an annoying enemy alone to attack someone else, but barring some compelling reason to split your attacks, you'll win more battles with focused fire than not.

They also provide some math and a picture.

 

[RHGreen]

You could have PC morale rules without forcing the PCs to do anything. They still get to decide.

In the case of PCs you would incur a condition, 'Broken Morale' or 'Flee!' or 'Defeated!' or whatever. The condition would incur penalties to attack, but give bonuses to defence and movement if moving in the opposite direction to the enemy etc.

Something like that anyway.

The PCs with broken morale could keep fighting if they want, but would benefit from getting out of dodge.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yep, clearly not core. It was a glossy cover hardcover devoted entirely to teaching players how to optimize their play, from character building, party building feat choice optimization and combat strategies. I'll pull it out when I get home and post some relevant text. IIRC it even included an chart showing the expected damage the party would take using focus fire and not using focus fire.

Cool.

I've certainly seen plenty of other sources promoting focus fire as a strong tactic from both TSR and WoTc. I do think this is the only place its part of a supplement rather than Dragon articles or online company blogs/articles. Though I am prepared to be wrong because I bought 2e/3e splats like you bought 4e .

I may have bought all of them, but I definitely don't have all of them anymore. I significantly downsized a few years ago and got rid of all the books I didn't, never, or wouldn't actually use. I'd feel safe making a bet that in one of the 3E splats or strategy guides, something similar was said, but it's still just a bet. I'm not 100% sure.

If I wasn't treaching my then 12 year old son on a new edition, I doubt I would have bought this particular book either.

Without getting into Rob Schwalb's wording, 4e rewards focus fire at earlier levels than previous editions did. With the level of hit point inflation in 4e they moved most monsters (minions aside) to a point beyond the possibility of a one attack kill, even for a critical hit sneak attack from a rogue. That wasn't really a problem at low levels in previous editions where typical low level threats had a good chance of dying from a single attack.

I tried to word that as judgement neutral as I could because I don't believe it is either good or bad. It is a style difference.

I think you've been quite neutral and objective. I don't know the specifics of all of 4E's mechanics enough to evaluate what you said. But I do believe you're likely right. I think Evil_Reverend would have been just fine if he'd been more accurate as you have. Such as saying "4E rewarded such tactics to a greater degree than previous editions", rather than such a blanket absolute as "Fourth edition taught D&D fans to focus fire on one monster at a time."

I think it's very important for WotC to be vigilant about what they say and how what they say may be percieved.