The "real" reason the game has changed.

[pemerton]

I was being sarcastic.

No matter how you spin it, surges are just a way of ramping up the amount of damage a character can absorb each day.

Sorry, I missed the sarcasm. It seems that you're saying (and still saying) that surges are just a way of increasing damage-absorption capacity. I've tried in multiple posts to explain how they're more than that - in particular, they're a combat pacing device.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed this in your 4e play.

I don't think copying the structure of movies as making the campaign "fun." I see it as stripping it down to its most essential scenes (encounters), because that's what happens to stories that are made into movies. Movies don't have the luxury of their story going off on unrelated tangents because the characters got a wild hair. Nor do novels. That's why it's more fun to play DnD than just read a novel--you have control over narrative flow.

I haven't found that 4e has any great trouble with tangents. It's true that the system rewards prep, especially of combat encounters, but improvisation is far from impossible.

As for stripping down to essential scenes, I'm a fan.

I align more closely with Gygax, that the game was intended to be a lot more than just the combat. Gygax's invention was about exploration, wandering monsters, randomness and uncertainty, all setting the stage for combat--all that "small stuff" that's getting tossed aside in this thread.

Encumbrance matters.
Food matters.
Water matters.
Shelter matters.
Party watch matters.
Wandering monsters matter.
Travel details matter.
Mapping matters.
Timekeeping matters.
Noncombat spells matter.

What used to be half of the major challenges in the game is now tossed aside as "small stuff," undiscernable from quibbling over menu selections.

In the games I GM, time matters and noncombat spells - rituals, in 4e - matter. The other things on your list - roughly, elements of operational/survivalist play - haven't mattered much in any game I've GMed, be it AD&D, Rolemaster or 4e, since about 1986. Heck, in my 4e game one early item the party was gifted (by some elves they helped) was a basket of Everasting Provisions. And the solution to encumbrance worries is "the dwarf carries it". Me and the friends I play with just don't enjoy spending time on this sort of record-keeping. I'm not sure that this means that we're doing it wrong, or failing to roleplay.

As for exploration in the game, I have posted an actual play report of an exploration scenario run in 4e. I found that the 4e mechanics actually supported the exploration scenario very well.

 

[Hussar]

What counts as an improvised tool is not in the books - so your rogue's spoon could be considered an improvised tool by the DM - and this wouldn't violate the rules. /snip.

Y'know, the reason I played 3e almost exclusively for years is because IME, it almost always has the answers in the book. While the SRD failed me on this one, I went back to the rule books and found the answer. This is the one place where 3e still holds a gold star in my heart. Every question has an answer.

So, ladies and gentlemen, let us open our hymn books to page 79 of the 3.5 PHB:

Open Lock:
You can pick padlocks, finesse combination locks... The effort requires at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort (a pick, pry bart, blank key, wire, or the like). Attempting an Open Lock check without a set of theives' tools (page 130) imposes a -2 penalty ...even if a simple tool is employed.

It's pretty clear there. Not only do they specify what qualifies as a tool, they specify the fact that you are required to use one, even if it's a paper clip. I do notice a distinct lack of cutlery in the list provided.

So, no, I cannot, by RAW use a spoon as an improvised tool, at least not without a LOT of work.

No matter how you spin it, surges are just a way of ramping up the amount of damage a character can absorb each day.

Whether it's a second wind, a fatigue issue, a bit of extra luck, those are just semantics. A character that used to have 50 HP with no easy means to replenish now can enjoy the de facto luxury of three to four times that much, and with daily restarts to boot.

Yes and no. Many groups featured fairly easy healing. A wand of cure light is achievable by second or third level in a party that follows the wealth by levels guidelines. That, right there, means that the group can take several times their total hit points in punishment per day without spending a single memorized spell.

But, at the end of the day, you're simply arguing preference. Mechanically, there is no difference as to whether it takes 1 day or 7 days in game to heal completely. It's the same mechanic and it's still the mechanics dictating narrative. A person might prefer one narrative or another, that's up to the individual, but neither approach is particularly better than the other. It's all about what you want to get out of the narrative.

 

[Imaro]

Reducing someone to zero hit points 'puts them out of the fight'. That doesn't have to mean dead. I'm not sure whether it's in a PHB or DMG, or a Dragon article, but I'm sure I've seen something describing a variety of ways to do that. And I've certainly seen it done in a game, where a PC chose to finish off an enemy in a formal duel not by killing them but by cutting their hand off and leaving them helpless. And repeatedly we've knocked people unconscious to interrogate later rather than killing them outright. Whether taking someone's eye out would count as a 'finishing move' would be up to an individual GM, but I would allow it if it seemed genre-appropriate. Swashbucklers, or Norse heroes, and pirates, though it wouldn't seem right for Arthurian knights.

My PHB states that an opponent can be knocked unconscious instead of killing him, but makes no mention of permanent blindness or any other kind of permanent condition being placed on an opponent without DM fiat.

Sooo... 4e is no better or worse at this than any edition and is just as dependant upon whether a DM does or doesn't decide to allow this after an opponent is beaten.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Have you read the REH story in which Conan pulls himself of a cross?

No.

And neither have you.

You may have read the REH story where Conan was crucified, and survived when someone else pulled him off the cross, and took a long time to heal to his normal health (long enough to politic himself high in the group that rescures him), but there is not REH story where Conan pulls himself off a cross. There is certainly none where he is crucified and performs a healing surge!


RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Fumetti - point blank, have you played 4e?

Lacking that, have you read through the PHB?

Your increasing show of ignorance of how surges work do not paint your arguments in a favorable light.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If we're going to draw in Gygax, EGG always tried to have mechanics reflect some real world component in a reasonable way. Surges don't come close to that.

Realism is rust eaters and wizards and monsters designed from little kids' toys.

I don't think copying the structure of movies as making the campaign "fun." I see it as stripping it down to its most essential scenes (encounters), because that's what happens to stories that are made into movies. Movies don't have the luxury of their story going off on unrelated tangents because the characters got a wild hair. Nor do novels. That's why it's more fun to play DnD than just read a novel--you have control over narrative flow.

Let movies be movies and DnD be DnD.

D&D has always been a set of encounters. ALL tabletop games are. And until 4e, most tabletop games had a name for them. I know "scenes" is a popular one.

An encounter isn't a fight. An encounter is Something Happens. And there is space between encounters, where something - not a capital c - happens. This is true of every game, be it video or tabletop, that has ever existed. This was true in 1e when you saw wandering monsters. The only difference in 4e is that they've given it a name

 

[BryonD]

It's pretty clear there. Not only do they specify what qualifies as a tool, they specify the fact that you are required to use one, even if it's a paper clip. I do notice a distinct lack of cutlery in the list provided.

So, no, I cannot, by RAW use a spoon as an improvised tool, at least not without a LOT of work.

OK

First, I completely endorse and embrace that rule.

However, I think you could talk to any person involved in the design of the game and they would tell you that this rule preventing your scenario is a million miles away from the intent.

Characters need appropriate tools to perform tasks and the presumption of this need is a solid default foundation. But the rules bend over backwards to disclaim that the story and DM's judgement should take precendent. You have not used an improvised tool in your description. You have simply painted a different skin over the otherwise required tool. As described by you, this character without his spoon would be just as limited as a "normal" roue with his thieves tools.

To me that level of re-skinning is beyond an obvious consideration. And, frankly, if anyone truly got hung up on that distinction, I would doubt their ability to provide a really good game experience in any system.



I also wonder if the concept of lock picks are completely absent form 4E. I truly don't know that answer. But it wouldn't suprise me if you are ignoring the rule guidance in 4E but treating it as absolute in 3E.

 

[Abraxas]

It's pretty clear there. Not only do they specify what qualifies as a tool, they specify the fact that you are required to use one, even if it's a paper clip. I do notice a distinct lack of cutlery in the list provided.

So, no, I cannot, by RAW use a spoon as an improvised tool, at least not without a LOT of work.

There is a distinct lack of office supplies on the list also - so the DM would have to decide the paper clip was a suitable tool - or would that not be by the RAW? (Now, before you say "well a paper clip is a wire, I'll counter with the spoon is a pry bar or any other number of possible ways it could be a potential usable tool for this)

The rule says "or the like", the DM is the final arbiter of what or the like means - so, in 3E, by the RAW, he could just as easily said your rogue's "magic spoon" was a suitable tool, just like your DM in 4E allows your rogue to fonzerelli bump a lock with it in 4E even though the rogue isn't really picking the lock.

I have to ask, would you really give your DM grief if he said your crazy rogue can't open the lock by hitting it with his "magic spoon"?

Regardless - we're arguing play experience and semantics - which is pretty OT.

IMO, YMMV, and all that...

 

[Imaro]

Thieve's Tools: To use the thievery skill properly, you need the right picks and pries, skeleton keys, clamps and so on. Thieve's tools grant a +2 bonus to Thievery checks to open a lock or disable a trap.

Now I'm curious... how is the first sentence any different than what is in the 3.5 books? In fact it doesn't even mention what happens if you improvise... and it implies that you cannot use Thievery skill in this manner without the proper tools.

 

[Abraxas]

I would like to hear, if they offer an answer, at least.

I'll ask - actually I'll ask my pathfinder group why they are always trying strange stuff and my 4E group why they aren't trying strange stuff and see what answers I get.

Just an aside - after the last pathfinder game session I played in a couple things happened that are really interesting to me. 1) The other players are planning to use materials at hand to create hazardous terrain to funnel the bad guys to my fighter. 2)One player is making an improvised sap to use to subdue opponents (because when I tried to subdue I accidentally critted and did enough damage to kill the target - pathfinder rule change caught me by surprise - but in game the PCs have just decide I'm not very good at the whole subdual thing). These are both the types of things I would really be surprised about if my 4E group even suggested.