pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[ProfessorCirno]

It disturbs me that misrepresenting the available facts about 4e and then complaining about the ensuing distortions is somehow viewed as valid.

If the facts are easily available, then it should be extra easy for a person to prove them, instead of sitting back and just going "Whiners!"

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.

It would seem that they don't, by WotC's definition. The point of minions is to create a class of faceless, nameless orcs that Legolas can kill instantly because he's Legolas and they are orcs, but they can still hurt Legolas if they get too close, rather than just auto-miss. It isn't particularly realistic, but it doesn't have to be.

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

I don't appreciate the fact that two-weapon fighting isn't seem to be available without using powers...of course, we don't know that that's true. It's an assumption.

*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...

This is definitely a opinion thing that can't be argued with. I don't know what all monsters are in the MM, so I don't know if I approve. However, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the designers weren't thinking "let's just throw some random monsters in there, for the heck of it." Every edition has opted for different monsters in the core monster manual, and each time there was a reason.

*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?

'Cuz it isn't what Wizards are meant to do in a setting chock-full of magic. I approve of Gandalf, the dude who was full a Wizard and acted more like a Fighter or Cleric; but the setting was filled with passive magic, not active. The Vancian magic system was incredibly silly, and this is better--especially for settings that have lots of magic--even if it has its problems.

*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.

Personal preference. I feel that good, "realistic" effects of illusions would require intensive collaboration between player and DM, which toes the line between who is and isn't in control.

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.

If you don't like it, you can always change the point-buy method or make it 4d6 drop highest or whatever you want. This way WotC can emphasize more than one ability score, which adds to the character of races and makes me happy.

*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

Sorry that upsets you.

 

[ryryguy]

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

I find this "two weapons must grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting. Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.

Why do people feel so strongly about this? I mean, I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se. It does have a certain thematic symmetry. But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs. "Attacks" are really an abstraction... we know that "one attack" might represent several feints and swings in the imaginary action. Having two weapons and the right training (feat) might enable more feints and swings, translating perhaps into a game abstraction of a bonus to hit, and a resulting boost to average damage as a tradeoff for not carrying a shield. This has a similar outcome to enabling two attacks; perhaps also advantages in ease of play (one attack roll vs. two is quicker, maybe easier to balance). Yet I think to the "two attacks" crowd it's just not going to be satisfying. Somehow, "two attacks in the round" has been transformed from a game mechanic almost into reality. Taking away the two attacks is like denying reality.

A slow guy with a greatsword gets as many attacks in a round as a quick guy with a dagger... why doesn't this "lack of realism" get anyone upset?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

.... I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se. It does have a certain thematic symmetry. But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs. .....
A slow guy with a greatsword gets as many attacks in a round as a quick guy with a dagger... why doesn't this "lack of realism" get anyone upset?

This argument here highlites the problem with people being too obsessed with a simulationist style of game. To many people, the idea that having a weapon in each hand is more "realistic" because that is the way they have always imagined it. This comes from D&D "teaching" all of us that this is how it works. For many real life fighting styles, the extra weapon just allowed better feints or extra defense, not any weird idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment". The idea of extra attacks was a fun but exploitable gamist interpretation in previous editions. I was so good that almost everyone had to have it (that or power atack). This just devolves into everyone being the same. I am glad that the gamist constructs of 4e are putting more character concepts on even footing. Sword and board deserves some love, along with an einhander concept. Abstraction, to a degree, makes for a more diverse, fun, and smoother gaming experience in my opinion. And it works very well, to quote Hong, as long as you don't think too hard about fantasy.

 

[Will]

I like the idea of one-hit mooks that can be built more powerfully.

The problem, in 3e, with throwing a horde of low-hit point creatures at a moderately leveled party is that the horde's hit bonuses and damage are so low they pretty much just stand there waiting to be hit.

It'd be more interesting (to me) to have some hordes of dangerous creatures that remain mown down by the party.

 

[Darth Cyric]

I like the idea of one-hit mooks that can be built more powerfully.

The problem, in 3e, with throwing a horde of low-hit point creatures at a moderately leveled party is that the horde's hit bonuses and damage are so low they pretty much just stand there waiting to be hit.

It'd be more interesting (to me) to have some hordes of dangerous creatures that remain mown down by the party.

Well, to be fair, the 3e low HD creatures could all use Aid Another. But yeah, 4e's minions seem far more interesting overall.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Nevermind that those who sing 4e's praises are not required at all to provide any amount of rational argument or thought into why, that their arguments tend to fail just as poorly as some of those made against 4e.

Some of us have chosen to be positive about the game we enjoy. That is a rationale in and of itself. As I said, it is a matter of opinion and whichever chosen is that person's prerogative.

You may interpret a positive attitude however you wish.

 

[ryryguy]

This argument here highlites the problem with people being too obsessed with a simulationist style of game. To many people, the idea that having a weapon in each hand is more "realistic" because that is the way they have always imagined it. This comes from D&D "teaching" all of us that this is how it works. For many real life fighting styles, the extra weapon just allowed better feints or extra defense, not any weird idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment".

Exactly... what I find so fascinating is how you can go from the idea that "this is how it works" to that idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment" being the only way it can be modeled. To the point where somebody in another thread, FallingIcicle I think, was suggesting that you try getting two kitchen knives and seeing if you couldn't stab faster than with just one knife. I mean, how does what I do in my kitchen with one vs. two knives translate into "attacks" in a "round"? There are no "attacks" nor "rounds" in my kitchen...

There's a cool factor to two-weapon fighting and I don't want to see it gone, just better balanced vs. some of the other options like you suggest. And if part of the way the designers accomplish that goal is to keep the "two attacks" option very limited, that's fine by me.

Finally I think folks maybe be underestimating the benefit from the rule that you can attack (once) with either of the two weapons without penalty. It's not going to come up a whole lot, but in some cases it will provide a useful option, and in those cases it's an option anyone can use without a feat or anything. Of course in real life all people aren't so ambidextrous, but so what?

 

[pawsplay]

I find this "two weapons must grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting. Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.

Why do people feel so strongly about this?

Maybe it has something to do with 15+ years of combat sports experience that tells me two longswords is better than one longsword. For much of history, two weapons has been the preference. A single weapon is used for some kinds of dueling. A shield is useful for some kinds of warfare. But for individual combat, you want a two-handed weapon or two weapons. Not using one hand for attack would be like going into a boxing match and only using one hand for punching.

I mean, I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se. It does have a certain thematic symmetry. But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs. "Attacks" are really an abstraction... we know that "one attack" might represent several feints and swings in the imaginary action.

I'm completely okay with that, but wielding two weapons with some reasonable level of skill should be an advantage. Which currently it is not. And since in D&D you could have a situation where one weapon does flaming damage and the other crits extra hard, using some kind of mechanic that involves two separate attack rolls is probably best.

 

[pawsplay]

Honestly, that thread supplies pretty much a textbook example of a problem that only exists on the internet, and will almost certainly never come up at the table.

Once again, I am startled to learn that other people play RPGs apparently in an entirely different fashion than I do. Just as an example, the campaign I'm running now kicked off with the PCs joining a team of dwarf soldiers fending off an attack by goblins. If I give the goblins and the dwarves 1 hp, strange things happen. And if I don't, then the minion rules have not assisted me in the encounter design at all. It's just a really bad design. The only advantage is that you can say, "Well, they die in one hit, so that's pretty much like having 1 hp," which is a conclusion most DMs can handle on the fly. What I want in the MM is stats for stuff I would prefer not to have to make up on the fly.