Scott Rouse blog - Rogue ability

[Wulf Ratbane]

They said that they wanted to emphasize movement on the battlefield and not have characters stay in the same square and swing for the entire length of combat.

I keep seeing this thing about "standing still and swinging for the entire combat," but it bears no resemblance to any 3e game I have ever played in.

EDIT: Lest this comment provide any more fodder for trolling, what I meant was that, with the exception of having to stand still to get a full attack, my 3e combats haven't been particularly static. My solution wouldn't be to provide more "cool movement maneuvers," rather, I'd just remove the existing disincentives to moving (loss of full attack and AoO).

 

[hazel monday]

I keep seeing this thing about "standing still and swinging for the entire combat," but it bears no resemblance to any 3e game I have ever played in.

Wrong! 3e is broken and busted. The 4e designers said so. If you say you're players ever moved at all in a fight, or if you say grappling didn't make your entire gaming group fall to the floor, twitching spasmodically in their confusion, you must be lying.

 

[mmu1]

Things like "a cool attack that gives me a 3 step shift" is why a lot of the stuff I read about 4E leaves me cold.

It's yet another example of the way the game seems to be moving away from the "simulationist" and closer to the "gamist" style of play, and I can understand why it'd remind someone of WoW. (Edit: Or it's what reminds me most of computer gaming, rather than terms like "tank" or "grind".)

Instead of having a system that tries to model the actual actions that will get you from A to B, you simply activate an abstracted "special ability" and bam, you're there... To me, the whole point of playing a PnP RPG is the ability to use the rules to do things even when they aren't spelled out as "special abilities" or "special attacks" - 3E was hardly perfect in that respect (it tended to have too many "Well, do you have Improved Trip? No? Then you don't really want to do that" moments), but it seems like 4E is paradoxically going to, despite slews of new special abilities, make the system even more restrictive in that respect.

 

[Reynard]

Never having played WoW, what part of that was "WoWisms"?

In this instance, it is "grind" (the worser of the two) and "tank" (I know, I know, everyone has been using that term since 1977). But it isn't just this post -- it is all the time.

D&D isn't a MMORPG or a video game and it can't be. They are entirely different kinds of entertainment with only superficial similarities. Using WoW-ish terminology carries connotations that don't necessarily translate to tabletop play. You wouldn't use sailing jargon to discuss car racing, would you?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wrong! 3e is broken and busted. The 4e designers said so. If you say you're players ever moved at all in a fight, or if you say grappling didn't make your entire gaming group fall to the floor, twitching spasmodically in their confusion, you must be lying.

Take that crap somewhere else before I find the Report or Ignore button.

 

[hazel monday]

Take that crap somewhere else before I find the Report or Ignore button.

Sorry. I was kidding. My bad.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Read the rest of the sentence.

If he's not talking about movement, then what else could he possibly be talking about?

Well duh, of course I read the rest of the sentence.

Including the conjugation 'and'.

It doesn't have to imply that what comes after the 'and' is directly a result of what comes before it. It might do, but equally it might not.

Quoting the whole sentence "I was then able to use a cool attack that gives me a 3 step shift and got back behind our two tanks." I think that the most sensible reading of this could be phrased:
"I was then able to use a cool attack that gives me a 3 step shift"
"and got back behind our two tanks" (e.g. by taking a move action?)

"3 step shift" seems like an unlikely, clumsy, description of movement; as a result I think it is more likely to be referring to something else.

Cheers

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Sorry. I was kidding. My bad.

Then you might want to consider getting some fresh material.

 

[Testament]

In this instance, it is "grind" (the worser of the two) and "tank" (I know, I know, everyone has been using that term since 1977). But it isn't just this post -- it is all the time.

D&D isn't a MMORPG or a video game and it can't be. They are entirely different kinds of entertainment with only superficial similarities. Using WoW-ish terminology carries connotations that don't necessarily translate to tabletop play. You wouldn't use sailing jargon to discuss car racing, would you?

Except that these are common terms these days, nor is grind being used in a form even remotely similar to its MMO context. Honestly, it seems like some people are actively looking for the WoW Bogeyman in every announcement like McCarthy looked for Reds.

And on the matter of static combat, my experience has been that most of the time, fighters would rather cut their own foot off than give up a full attack.

 

[glass]

It's yet another example of the way the game seems to be moving away from the "simulationist" and closer to the "gamist" style of play, and I can understand why it'd remind someone of WoW. (Edit: Or it's what reminds me most of computer gaming, rather than terms like "tank" or "grind".)

As I understand it, D&D has always been the quintisential gamist RPG. Of course I don't actually understand it very far, because nobody does (GNS theory being largely bollocks).


glass.