pawsplay's dealbreaker list


First Post
pawsplay said:
Whereas does it any other way is very problematic when it comes to deciding whether you hit, how much damage you cause, and what "procs" activate. How would you do it?

Well, maybe you can choose which one is your primary weapon, and if you hit with your one attack, that's the "proc" you get and the damage you deal. You can't get both "procs" but I'm thinking that might be a feature, not a bug.

As far as non-proc benefits, like proficiency bonuses or other bonuses to hit granted by the non-primary, it's not as clear how I'd handle that. I'm already assuming you have a feat that gives you some simple bonus just for attacking with two weapons - flat +1 or +2 to hit, perhaps. Perhaps the feat would also allow you to apply some or all of the secondary weapon bonuses. It's hard for me to say what would be appropriate in a vaccuum, without knowing how high those bonuses might go.

In the end I don't see that a two weapon fighting implementation requires that the fighter be able to take full advantage of all the properties of both weapons.

log in or register to remove this ad

Falling Icicle

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

I don't like this either.

pawsplay said:
*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.

Totally with you on this one.

pawsplay said:
*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...

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If it's metallic dragons, I say bleh. They never really appealed to me to begin with.

pawsplay said:
*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?

I disagree with you here. There's only a few spells that a Wizard can cast at will and they're no more powerful than a normal attack. I've never thought crossbows were really thematically appropriate weapons for wizards anyway, but that's just my opinion.

pawsplay said:
*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.

I'm not happy about Gnomes being put in the MM, but as far as illusions go I'm taking a wait and see position. If they really did remove almost all of the illusion spells, I will be very unhappy.

pawsplay said:
*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.

I agree with you, but to me it's a minor annoyance.

pawsplay said:
*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

I don't really get why so many people flip out over the once-per-encounter 25 ft Eladrin teleport. I mean, seriously, it's a whopping 25 ft. Whoop dee doo, I say.

pawsplay said:
*Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.

You lost me here. But then, I've never seen Sailor Moon.

pawsplay said:
*The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?

I can understand why people are upset, but as someone who has stuck to official material anyway, it doesn't really affect me.


ZetaStriker said:
I'm honestly asking you: given the above, what's wrong with minions?

Look at your post again. Every suggestion you made involved either changing the scenario, or using less minions. I just don't see how they are useful, and I do recognize how they trip up certain scenarios. Since minions basically have a negative effect on that scenario, I'd say that's a problem.


First Post
pawsplay said:
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.

Believe it or not, minions are not intended to be used for every single encounter in the game. There are stats for regular orcs and regular dwarves too that you are free to use. Complaining that minions are useless because you can come up with an encounter idea they are inapropriate for is rather silly.


pawsplay said:
Can you substantiate that? I'm looking at a 1e Player's Handbook and I do not see a reference to fighting with two weapons at all.

Well, of course you don't see it there. The rules are in the 1E DMG, page 70. Use a dagger or a hand axe as the second weapon, take a -2 to hit with your primary weapon, -4 with the secondary. Modify these with your dexterity reaction/attacking adjustment (note- this will only reduce the penalty, it cannot provide a bonus).


First Post
Well how large is this battle supposed to be? You seem to want the Goblins and Dwarves to be evenly matched, which eliminates my first and last examples, but I don't see how the 'leader' and 'hidden elite' examples fail to mesh with what little information was provided. I assume you have more to the encounter in mind that you didn't put up for simplicity's sake, which puts me at a disadvantage.

I also want to ask how you'd deal with a large scale battle in 3E. Would you compartmentalize it, having the PCs fight in one small skirmish of the overall war, with reinforcements constantly coming in from both sides, at a time, having them secure the lines area by area? If so, replacing just one regular NPC on either side with an equal XP value number of minions could be used to add drama to the situation. If the PCs aren't told what's a minion and what's not, seeing half again the normal number of Goblins could create good dramatic tension, while having half again the number of Dwarves could add dramatic impact when the line crumbles from the minion's deaths. You don't necessarily need to use them in massive numbers, remember, just swelling an enemy party enough for dramatic tension is enough to add something different to an encounter.

If you'd do it all the math at once with a battle consisting of more than 20 NPCs and PCs, I feel bad for you, I really do. Minions might help speed things up a little, but using them in smaller numbers as I suggested above, as you've said, just doesn't solve your problem. It's a specific design choice, and I will admit that minions just don't fit into every encounter, in the same way Elites and Solos don't. I for one will use them in small numbers or not at all most of the time, only putting them out in large numbers every so often so that kind of encounter doesn't begin to feel underwhelming.

Final question before I head off for the night: what exactly is your problem with minions? You've been somewhat vague, only talking about unspecified problems. I assume it comes from the view that any one of these Dwarves or Goblins should be the equal, or at least close to, the PCs in terms of strength. Is this correct? Especially at lower levels, you want the PCs to feel that they're a part of the world, not somehow better than a large number of its inhabitants. This is you specifically deciding minions don't fit into the situation, which is fine, but shouldn't be a deal breaker. After all, in another ten levels, what's wrong with the Goblin threat having grown larger in the PC's absence, but given their new level of power, Goblins are now merely level appropriate minions with much greater numbers than before?


First Post
pawsplay said:
Look at your post again. Every suggestion you made involved either changing the scenario, or using less minions. I just don't see how they are useful, and I do recognize how they trip up certain scenarios. Since minions basically have a negative effect on that scenario, I'd say that's a problem.

If they have a negative effect, you're using them wrong. If you can't imagine a scenario where they'd be useful, just skip them. They're a tool that's being provided, and they're not a requirement.


First Post
GnomeWorks said:
But if they were going to be given so few hit points as to only need one hit to take out anyway, then what's wrong with the idea?
It's the Minion "template" which obviously feels wrong to him -- 27th level "mooks" that grant you thousands of XP and yet die from one attack. And there's a difference between 1 HP and 2, 3, 4 or even 5. For example, my 3E Halfling paladin only does (on an average hit) 3 points of damage, so there's a huge difference there.

It's not that pulling out the crossbow is the problem, it's the resource-management game. It's the idea that a low-level wizard can toss one, maybe two spells a day, which is dull and not really evocative of fantasy fiction. While being able to throw spells all the time may be a bit much, it is a step in the right direction.

Oh, I think it's definitely essential to the genre. There are a lot of fantasy books about apprentices (who cast a spell or two or none at all) learning magic and slowly becoming wizards. And you still have resource management in 4E, don't you?

But it beats "I stand there and full-attack it." You have to admit, having more options is rather neat, and gives somebody other than the wizard and cleric some fun things to do and consider. It makes the game a bit more tactical.

I think this is a matter of taste and preference. I don't want the game to be more tactical, or combats to play out like a hybridization between chess and M:tG. And I liked combining Feats to full-attack.


First Post
Guild Goodknife said:
Yeah, i understand that everybody is welcome to share their personal thoughts about 4E with us here...but reading a collection of (highly subjective) dislikes of one member every now and then just becomes a bit... tedious after a while. I mean i like to read lots of different opinions in thematical focused threads, but guys, come on what do we gain from these 'collection of previously posted likes/dislikes of one single member' threads? And what does the OP gain from this thread? Most of his points were discussed to death elsewhere by now...
Yes clearly what this thread really needed was a post telling us how useless it is.../rolls eyes

An Advertisement