• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

pawsplay's dealbreaker list

D'karr

Adventurer
Charwoman Gene said:
Orc are tactically different because they have a killer charge range, and non-minions have a bloodied minor action to use a healing surge.
Kobolds can shift a ton, making them harder to keep in melee or control their position. They have an easier time hitting you when they gang up.
Gnolls do extra damage when attacking in packs.
Hobgoblins can shake off negative effects easier than others.
Goblins slip away from you if you swing at them and miss.

This doesn't talk into account other themed powers of leaders and soldiers and such.

I agree. This seems to be an edition where they made a conscious effort to have the tactics of the creature match the theme for the creature. Each creature does seem like it is different, specially because they fight differently.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AllisterH

First Post
Ok, admittedly, this edition seems to actually give different play experiences based on the monster you choose...

Heh...well we do get a Giants preview on Monday so maybe this edition we'll actually get different play experiences with giants.
 

ProfessorCirno

Banned
Banned
AllisterH said:
Seriously, is there ANY difference between running an encounter with kobolds--->hobgoblins other than HP and attack bonuses? So exactly what makes a gnoll for example, iconic?.

Fluff. Traps. In and out of game memes.

Also, one major difference is that kobolds are pure awesome made flesh, whereas hobgoblins are old, boring, nondescript, and generic.
 

Primal

First Post
DandD said:
He won't. He will stay and observe the threads in the 4th edition forums. Then, he will buy the 4th edition rulebooks. He will be playing and enjoying them months later, and he will be embarassed to have started this thread. Then, he'll participate in other discussions about what sorts of campaign might be fun to play, what classes might need tweaking, if it's a good idea to advance the campaign in a higher tier and so on.
The longer one rants against a new edition on a message board dedicated to it, the more you can be sure that the one who "dislikes" it is in approval of it. :D

Hmmm.... please don't generalize. I have "ranted" a lot against 4E, but I have also honestly admitted that I like some stuff in 4E (e.g. the Skill Challenges). I don't doubt that *most* D&D fans will "go with the flow" in the end, but I have enough 3E/PF material to sustain my campaigns until 5E comes out (or Pathfinder RPG 2nd Edition ;). Therefore, I can promise you that my group is not switching to 4E -- not now and not in the future, either. ;)
 

Primal said:
Therefore, I can promise you that my group is not switching to 4E -- not now and not in the future, either. ;)
Can you make that promise on behalf of all of the other players in your group? What would you do if everyone else (or even just a majority) wanted to just try 4E?
 

med stud

First Post
Moon-Lancer said:
When I read your first post that talked about experience, I had a hunch it was about boffer combat. twf is easer done with lighter weapons (although i still manage to suck at it somehow). I dont have the knowledge or experience to debate if twf was historically true or not, but i do know some maneuvers with boffer combat do not apply to real fighting due to the nature of how light boffer weapons are, and how blade orientation is almost never considered (in the group i attend at least)
Yes, that's it. Boffer combat is a skill in it's own, it has little to do with combat with heavier weapons. You have far too much mobility with the "blade".

An important thing to consider with two weapon combat is that much of the attacking with weapons is about range. To maximize range you generally keep one shoulder closer to the opponent. To switch that alignment doesn't take long time, but it's time enough for the opponent to backstep and avoid your second attack. I'm not talking about an elaborate dodge here, just a regular backstep. If the two weapon guy switches dominant arms in an attack sequence he is also in a great risk to expose himself to a stab from the one he is attacking.

Generally speaking, few people went into a duel with one empty hand; you almost always had a buckler or dagger in the off hand. The main role of that weapon wasn't to attack with it as often as you attacked with the main weapon, the main role was to provide an effective defense.

About fighting with two long blades: There are two examples from history about fighting with two long blades of equal length. One of them, the Musashi one, was practised by a guy who could make a broken toothbrush into a lethal weapon. There are countless fighting styles that include a long blade and a short blade or just one long blade.
 

DandD

First Post
Primal said:
Hmmm.... please don't generalize. I have "ranted" a lot against 4E, but I have also honestly admitted that I like some stuff in 4E (e.g. the Skill Challenges). I don't doubt that *most* D&D fans will "go with the flow" in the end, but I have enough 3E/PF material to sustain my campaigns until 5E comes out (or Pathfinder RPG 2nd Edition ;). Therefore, I can promise you that my group is not switching to 4E -- not now and not in the future, either. ;)
Yes, yes, sure, tell yourself whatever you like, but if you're still hanging out on a forum dedicated to a particular part of the hobby and talk and talk and talk about it for all the time, you're drawn to it, and you will finally succumb to it. It's not like there are tons of other websites dedicated for the actual rules. Heck, you can easily go to the general gaming forum of ENWorld. But if you're telling yourself that you won't change, but still hang around the part of the message boards that you despise, you're clearly in denial. That, or you're somehow a masochist, who likes to waste his time and his nerves in ranting. ;)
 

ProfessorCirno

Banned
Banned
We're getting a bit arrogant here.

People talk about what they don't like all the time. I can't walk in these forums without tripping over the same people loudly declaring their hate for 3.x for the upteenth time. But I don't think that means they have some secret dark pleasure in their soul that declares adoration for the ruleset.

This is about pen and paper games. Not BDSM. I don't think anyone here has to go into a little dungeon, excuse the possible pun, to play a setting they publically claim no love for.
 

Wormwood

Adventurer
D'karr said:
I agree. This seems to be an edition where they made a conscious effort to have the tactics of the creature match the theme for the creature. Each creature does seem like it is different, specially because they fight differently.
Agreed---a definite upgrade.

When I ran Oakhurst, one of the comments I got from my players was, "These Kobolds really *play* like Kobolds should"
 


Remove ads

Top