The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[brehobit]

The same way a spell mysteriously disappears from a wizard's memory when he casts it. Or the same way a swordsage can't recover maneuvers without spending a couple minutes flourishing his weapons or whatever. Why are you calling out inconsistencies that have been always been present in one form or another?

Because in one case it's "magic" and the other it isn't.

Same with the Bo9S stuff or anything else like it. A fighter or rogue aren't magical and in previous editions they weren't limited in the same way the magicy people (including a swordsage) were.

I can live with the notion that magical stuff behaves in an odd way, and I can accept magical abilities behaving in nearly any way. But if a non-magical fighter can only do a certain move once a day, I'm unsure how he perceives it. My current inclination is to go with a Bo9S style answer (it's magic). But that kills off anyone wanting to play a non-magical class...

I'd prefer if the rogue and fighter didn't have daily or even encounter powers. But that hurts game balance...

Mark

 

[brehobit]

That's the point, though. They're MEANT to be mowed down in huge numbers. They're meant to replace groups of monsters of 4 or 5 CR below your party level in 3e. You could kill the majority of those monsters in 1 or 2 hits in 3e, but they couldn't touch you on anything but a natural 20. Minions still die quickly, but can actually DO something during combat now -- like, weaken/distract you for/from that brute charging at you.

Oh I like minions a lot. I just don't think they interact well with "auto-hit" abilities.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I'll give it a shot

#1 Does he realize he has no chance of pulling off that attack? If so, he may well choose to avoid that encounter.

His intuition tells him not to push his luck and try that wild exploit again.
And yes, it would be wise to avoid a second combat, since all combats are dangerous and people die in them all the time... However, the fate of his hometown/kingdom/world/etc. is on the line and he will do his darned best.

#2 If #1 is "yes" what exactly does the character know? How does he justify it in character?
#3 If the answer is "no" and he heads out to that fight, does he realize that getting baddies set up for such a burst is a bad plan?

I see two options here, depending on taste

You could say he does know, because that exploit is something that depends on too many variables and cannot be done reliably. It is just a coincidence that it manages to work roughly once a day.

Or

You could say that he does not know, and in fact every time he is in combat with multiple enemies he attempts to setup the circumstances for that exploit... It doesn't always work, however, and he must use other attacks. However, every once in a while (coincidentally, roughly once a day), the circumstances are just right and the exploit works beautifully.

3e rules answered these questions about casters. 4e rules needs to answer them too.

Vancian casting was just as contrived: "No I can't cast that spell again, I forgot it after casting it! I have to study my spellbook to learn it again!"

Hopefully this will help narrate your 4e combats...

 

[brehobit]

Yeah, your chances of missing a 20th level enemy when you're level 10 are pretty good.

I don't see 20th level minions being sent against level 10 PCs though. It's entering the same realm of 26th level minions vs 5th level PCs.

Maybe. EXP wise, I think they are close. I'll want to look at the MM suggested encounters to see how much higher level minions tend to be than the encounter level....

 

[almagest]

Because in one case it's "magic" and the other it isn't.

Same with the Bo9S stuff or anything else like it. A fighter or rogue aren't magical and in previous editions they weren't limited in the same way the magicy people (including a swordsage) were.

I can live with the notion that magical stuff behaves in an odd way, and I can accept magical abilities behaving in nearly any way. But if a non-magical fighter can only do a certain move once a day, I'm unsure how he perceives it. My current inclination is to go with a Bo9S style answer (it's magic). But that kills off anyone wanting to play a non-magical class...

I'd prefer if the rogue and fighter didn't have daily or even encounter powers. But that hurts game balance...

Mark

Calling it "magic" is just semantics. One thing works because it's magic, yet another doesn't make sense because it's not supposed to be magic? I can just as easily say fighters and rogues have superhuman powers that drain their physical and mental energy reserves. And now they're non-magical classes.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Alright, I don't have the books, take what I say with a grain of salt.

#1 This has been addressed SO many times, I won't even go into it. I suggest everyone who has a problem read the previous explanations. But I will add this. Have your characters narrate their own stuff, and have THEM come up with an explanation. Seriously, they give you the mechanics. Do you want them to hand you a brain too?

The designers are FULLY aware of the potentiality of a lv. 5 killing a lv. 26. I suggest you read what they read, which said that you're not supposed to do that. It breaks every single rule they have set up. So my suggestion? Listen to what they have to say.

The rules actually look like they encourage diversity, especially in fighters. The fighter very well may be the most diverse class in the PHB from the little I've seen.

Multiclassing feats? I'm about to try it with the half elf (I changed that +2 Con to a +2 any stat besides Cha, jee that was hard). I'll be playing a half-elf paladin/wizard. Wish me luck.

 

[almagest]

Maybe. EXP wise, I think they are close. I'll want to look at the MM suggested encounters to see how much higher level minions tend to be than the encounter level....

The same as any other monster. No more than character level+4, or less than character level -2. And you run encounters based on the XP of a standard monster of the level you're looking for times the number of characters in the party. You then "spend" xp to add monsters to the encounter.

 

[brehobit]

I'll give it a shot



His intuition tells him not to push his luck and try that wild exploit again.

But he knows if he rests, it will be reasonable?

I see two options here, depending on taste

You could say he does know, because that exploit is something that depends on too many variables and cannot be done reliably. It is just a coincidence that it manages to work roughly once a day.

Or

You could say that he does not know, and in fact every time he is in combat with multiple enemies he attempts to setup the circumstances for that exploit... It doesn't always work, however, and he must use other attacks. However, every once in a while (coincidentally, roughly once a day), the circumstances are just right and the exploit works beautifully.

The first one is saying he doesn't know he can only do it once per day as is the second, yes?

Vancian casting was just as contrived: "No I can't cast that spell again, I forgot it after casting it! I have to study my spellbook to learn it again!"

Sure. But what the caster knows is well understood. Here, I'm not seeing it.

Party is arguing if they should push forward to fight the village of goblins (probably a big minion fight). The wizard can say "I'm down to one spell, and it's not an area attack so we should rest". Does the fighter can say "I've used my daily exploit allows me to hit lots of folks, so we should rest"? Or does he say "I'm feeling like I'd get overwhelmed by them"? Or does he say "Let's go wimpy wizard, I've got them" even though the player knows the fighter is likely to die in such a fight given his area-of-effect daily is gone?

 

[ryryguy]

Some are quick acting, but some will really stick with you. Boomslang venom for instance does nothing, for about a day, then you start bleeding from the eyes and kinda dissolve. A lot of neurotoxic poisons will leave you with permanent damage in the event you survive. And some of the tissue destroying venoms (spider is particular) can still be causing tissue necrosis for years after the bite.

Now I'll grant you this isn't terribly "heroic" perhaps but it does have precedent in myth and fantasy. In the Illiad an archer (I forget his name) drops one of hercules's poison arrows and pricks himself in the foot. He doesn't die but the wound oozes black gook and the sailors drop him off on an island out of fear. When they go back years later he is still there and the wound is still oozeing.

Any reason why these kinds of poisons couldn't be modeled using the disease mechanic? In rules its a disease, in the fiction it's a poison.

 

[brehobit]

Any reason why these kinds of poisons couldn't be modeled using the disease mechanic? In rules its a disease, in the fiction it's a poison.

That's my plan!