Something Awful leak.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Somewhat getting back to the topic of the 'Leaked' information.
I don't know if Wizards have debunked this or not, anyone see any notes, comments about it from Wizards personnel?

If it's from an actual leak of the 1.0 or earlier alpha version of DND Next(although it seems to be heavily paraphrased), all I really care about is the open playtest.

Hopefully the open playtest will start shortly after PAX East, maybe by May, then I can get my hands on it, and put it through the wringer, and submit feedback.

Until then speculation is fun to read and write, but is nothing to base any sort of decision on.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Funny you should mention that. This is what I ended up doing for minion in 4e; well actually I gave minions HP equal to their average damage, which is 4 + 1 / 2 levels. The advantage of using this particular value has been that I almost never track minion hit points because they either go down on the first or second hit. Since I use tokens to represent minions, it's a simple matter of flipping the token to the bloodied side. That's all the tracking I usually do for minions.

Then you've got all the advantages of the monsters keying into the HP system, so there can be situations where a minion monster is dropped on a missed attack, or a fireball doesn't necessarily wipe off all the minions monsters from the field, or an NPC "minion" villager at risk of dying who needs healing.

A concept similar to this is what I think they should do for 5E.

In 4E, there are minion rules that change the paradigm. Some people like them. Some people do not.

But, the problem with having special rules for a type of monster is that it can mess up other aspects of the game.

For example, when the Battlerager first came out, that class basically ignored minion damage. The Battlerager could be surrounded by minions and it didn't matter. Here's an example of the one set of game mechanics interfering with another set of game mechanics. The Battlerager had to be errata-ed (and quickly).

But if minions follow the basic rules of all other monsters, then the problems that some people have with minions (and the problems with future WotC content forgetting about special rules) could be minimized.

HP: 11(1)

Could be how a given minion is statted. For DMs that want wimpy but not cardboard, they can use the 11 hit points. For DMs that want 4E minions, they could use the 1 hit point. This is an example of how both 1E to 3E can be merged with 4E WITHOUT having to add a special set of 4E module rules.

The same for damage:

Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +6 vs. AC
Hit: d6+1(4) damage.

DMs that want to roll and want to hide the fact that these are minions from the players can. DMs that want to cut to the chase can use the 4E equivalent damage of 4.

Another advantage of this system is as you stated, the ability to remove special minion rules like "does not take damage on a miss". That's just another arbitrary 4E rule that doesn't necessarily make sense. Everyone else takes damage on a miss with a Fireball, but the minion is immune. Why? Because some designer thought that it was unbalanced throwing Fireball type spells at minions because they would always die with no real die roll involved. But when minions follow the same hit point rules as all other monsters, that problem goes away and so does the special rule needed to handle it.
 

Not true. All damage rolls in 3.5 do at least 1 damage, no matter the penalties. A House-cat full-attacks for three attacks. A House-cat could win initiative against an average 1st level Wizard, and knock him out before he can act, without needing to crit. If the Wizard has already cast his spell for the day, he's unlikely to survive even if he gets a turn, unless he simply flees.

You are correct. We've played with the house rules so long (removing minimum 1 pt of damage) I forget that was one of the stupid things they left in 3.5
 


Or we could... just... you know... wait to see the actual rules of the DDN game first before assuming us 4E players won't like it.

Eh, we can do both. If we wait for 5E and find out that yes, it's not as fun for 4E fans as 4E is then it'll be a real slog to get it going. If we start now, the worst that can happen is that we did something fun with a fun system and then moved to an even more fun system.
 

Dausuul said:
In 4E, a house cat is a house cat. Unless it's a familiar or something, it doesn't have a statblock. It's not in the Monster Manual. Because it's a friggin' house cat! If it attacks you, you don't take damage, you just get scratched up a bit.

FWIW, this is not an argument in favor of 4e for me.

Because I don't know if that house cat is going to be a skill challenge or a combat challenge or a possible familiar or an ally for the druid or secretly a polymorphed archmage or whatever...until the rubber hits the road. This works against an improv-heavy game. I don't know what this housecat is going to have to do before I put it in the game. Once it's in the game, I'm going to need some way to figure out what happens to it, no matter what the players do to it.

Housecats were in the 3e MM because they were familiars, or wildshape possibilities, and familiars and wildshape possibilities needed stats, and those stats were frequently relevant in combat (the 3e MM was chock full of player-relevant statblocks like that). Because they were there, and because 3e was nothing if not a comprehensive ruleset, I got the rules for a cat I could use in many different circumstances when I needed to.

And when I didn't need to, I didn't need to bust out the MM for it, and its presence didn't hurt my gameplay one bit.

Like I said, I like that 4e monsters are fairly free-form, but from WotC, I'm going to need more than combat stat blocks for my creature-statting needs.

And ultimately, if you give housecats the stats of a level 1 minion in 4e, they can still kill your level 1 minion blacksmiths in one hit, so this whole debate is really just wagon-circling. Housecats are what I say they are, and if I say I need stats for them, WotC isn't going to convince me otherwise by going "Pssshaw, no you don't!"
 
Last edited:

Housecats could actually make interesting non-damaging creatures.

Trait: Underfoot
Try to move through its space, and you make a saving throw to avoid falling prone.

Attack: Feline Fury
Dex vs. Reflex. Hit: Target grants combat advantage until the end of cat's next turn.
 

And I consider it an advantage of 4E that it doesn't bother to stat things like housecats.

If I need a housecat to have some game effects, then I'll make it have game effects. The fact of the matter is that it's NEVER going to do damage to the PCs. Incenjucar's abilities looked fine if I wanted to, say, have a fight in a Crazy Cat Lady's house.

See, the thing about giving everything a stat block is that the stat blocks need to make sense. In 3E, a battle with 'the angry cats in a crazy cat lady's house' has a good chance of killing a few party members, if not a TPK (18 cats would be... a significant challenge).

This makes no sense. At all. So that stat block is worthless, because I can't use it in a game.
 

And ultimately, if you give housecats the stats of a level 1 minion in 4e, they can still kill your level 1 minion blacksmiths in one hit, so this whole debate is really just wagon-circling. Housecats are what I say they are, and if I say I need stats for them, WotC isn't going to convince me otherwise by going "Pssshaw, no you don't!"

Here, I made up some stats for you:

House-cat
Level 1 Minion
Tiny Natural Beast
Init +2
AC 12 Reflex 12 Fort 6 Will 10
Speed 6

Standard Actions:
Bite Melee +4 vs AC: Deal 1 damage to a tiny size, or smaller, level 1 Natural Beast Minion.

Minor Actions:
Claw Melee +2 vs Reflex: Grab and knock prone target tiny size, or smaller, level 1 Natural Beast Minion.
 

Somewhat getting back to the topic of the 'Leaked' information.
I don't know if Wizards have debunked this or not, anyone see any notes, comments about it from Wizards personnel?

No. Unlike the earlier Giant in the Playground leak, no one from WotC has commented on this one (at least on EN World, which they did last time). Also, no one in the "friends and family" play test has chimed in here on EN World to debunk this one (as they did last time).

As I said earlier in the thread, I believe this means either:
- WotC spread a new policy to employees and play testers, asking them not to debunk false leaks any more, or
- It's a real leak based on real play test information (though probably an early version)

My guess is the latter. But I don't actually care; I'm waiting for the open play test, too.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top