Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bardolph" data-source="post: 5041980" data-attributes="member: 2304">I was assuming a context that, as it turns out, wasn't obvious. The assassination table's main flaw was that it was unclear what the table actually represented, or how to use it. Do you roll on the table after rolling a successful hit? Do you roll it instead of a hit roll? Does the table assume an unaware or helpless opponent? Does the table replace the entire encounter, from infiltration to assassination (I believe this is the case). What are the consequences of failure on this roll? Can NPC assassins use this chart against PCs? Does this mean that a PC can simply &quot;wake up dead&quot; one morning without any chance of survival?&nbsp;Agreed. However, the endless array of subsystems each with their own set of rules doesn't exactly lend itself to playability.Better would be to list the specific gear, rather than the AC value on a chart. Another example: why did leather armor +3 have the same properties against specific weapons as chain mail?And if the chart did not represent &quot;pierce or punch factor,&quot; then what the heck did it represent?!I really don't think these questions were thought through before going to press.No, because they are given alternative ways of improving their armor class. Monks weren't even allowed to include their Dexterity bonus into their AC calculation!This makes some sense, but still does not explain why the AC chart starts at &quot;ten.&quot;&nbsp;The most compelling &quot;evidence&quot; in my opinion, is the quality of the game itself as it plays over the table in my personal experience. 4e runs very smoothly, with very little need for DM fiat to resolve encounters. 1e, not so much. While not evidence in a strictly objective sense, it was enough to convince me.If you do a google search on &quot;D&amp;D 4th edition playtesting&quot; you can find plenty more evidence of 4e playtesting. However the NDA that playtesters were required to sign limits the results quite a bit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bardolph, post: 5041980, member: 2304"] I was assuming a context that, as it turns out, wasn't obvious. The assassination table's main flaw was that it was unclear [i]what[/i] the table actually represented, or how to use it. Do you roll on the table after rolling a successful hit? Do you roll it [i]instead[/i] of a hit roll? Does the table assume an unaware or helpless opponent? Does the table replace the [i]entire encounter, from infiltration to assassination[/i] (I believe this is the case). What are the consequences of failure on this roll? Can NPC assassins use this chart against PCs? Does this mean that a PC can simply "wake up dead" one morning without any chance of survival? Agreed. However, the endless array of subsystems each with their own set of rules doesn't exactly lend itself to playability. Better would be to list the specific gear, rather than the AC value on a chart. Another example: why did leather armor +3 have the same properties against specific weapons as chain mail? And if the chart did not represent "pierce or punch factor," then what the heck did it represent?! I really don't think these questions were thought through before going to press. No, because they are given alternative ways of improving their armor class. Monks weren't even allowed to include their Dexterity bonus into their AC calculation! This makes some sense, but still does not explain why the AC chart starts at "ten." The most compelling "evidence" in my opinion, is the quality of the game itself as it plays over the table in my personal experience. 4e runs very smoothly, with very little need for DM fiat to resolve encounters. 1e, not so much. While not evidence in a strictly objective sense, it was enough to convince me. If you do a google search on "D&D 4th edition playtesting" you can find plenty more evidence of 4e playtesting. However the NDA that playtesters were required to sign limits the results quite a bit. [/QUOTE]

Verification