What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[Lizard]

To answer the original question of this thread...knock someone out instead of killing them. I can't find any rules for non-lethal damage. Help?

 

[Gallo22]

Can you provide any links?

I've got your link. Just take a look at my new thread I just put up. In 10 minutes, I've got three responses all about changing to 4th edition.

 

[Scribble]

To answer the original question of this thread...knock someone out instead of killing them. I can't find any rules for non-lethal damage. Help?

When you put someone at or below 0 you decide if they are dead or knocked out.

 

[Wormwood]

To answer the original question of this thread...knock someone out instead of killing them. I can't find any rules for non-lethal damage. Help?

Attacker's choice (PHB 295)

 

[drothgery]

I find this answer someone lacking in specifics.

Well, given just the class and levels of a straightforward lightly armored/single blade character in 3e, there's not much more to say in how to do the same character in 4e. Someone who uses a single light blade in combat and is interested in blade tricks, not giving orders, is a rogue in 4e. You'll want training in Acrobatics. And max out Dexterity.

Odds are you'll want to take Weapon Prof (Rapier) (both mechanically nice and for style) and in 4e the best light armor is Hide, not Chain Shirt, so you'll probably want to take the feat for that. And there are lots of Rogue powers that are great for the 'swashbuckler' archetype.

 

[Lizard]

Attacker's choice (PHB 295)

Thanks.

That's a good example of a rules simplification which actually works. While penalties for attacking non-lethally are realistic, the net gain from tracking lethal/non lethal damage is generally not worth it, and creates extra math. While it works if you have a Wounds/Vitality system ala old SW or Hero, it really doesn't work with classic D&D. Allowing players to decide if they have killed or knocked out someone does sacrifice some realism, but doesn't lead to grossly ridiculous situations or bang you over the head with its gamism.

 

[Cadfan]

I find this answer someone lacking in specifics.

In short, a rogue 10 in 4e can do about every combat trick the swashbuckler duelist can do, plus many more the 3e character never dreamed of, all in the same character, except for the following:

1. Gain bonuses from intelligence
2. Wear no armor
3. Fight defensively and gain one of the best ACs in the game

Instead, the rogue can

1. Gain bonuses from charisma
2. Wear leather armor
3. Use ripostes

So... the biggest issue with whether a 4e rogue 10 can replace your swashbuckler/duelist is how crucial intelligence and AC tanking are to your image of a swashbuckler. For me, at least, the "feel" of a 4e rogue with a rapier is incredibly swashbuckly/duelisty.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's fairly easy to balance 5 monsters against 5 PCs. That's why its the default in 4e.

So here's the $10,000 dollar question: why aren't those sides equal and, thus, exchangable?

The easy answer is: they didn't want to do it because they thought it would be a minor issue for everyone who was likely to matter. They could be right.

No, because it functions perfectly well as-written. You are choosing to modify the game because you intend to play it differently than it was written.

I'm confused as to how this is any different than 3e, then?

I'm also confused as to how you can say a game that needs house rules is broken, in that case. Because tastes differ, every game system ever created needs house rules for someone, somewhere, and thus all game systems are broken?

 

[Scribble]

Thanks.

That's a good example of a rules simplification which actually works. While penalties for attacking non-lethally are realistic, the net gain from tracking lethal/non lethal damage is generally not worth it, and creates extra math. While it works if you have a Wounds/Vitality system ala old SW or Hero, it really doesn't work with classic D&D. Allowing players to decide if they have killed or knocked out someone does sacrifice some realism, but doesn't lead to grossly ridiculous situations or bang you over the head with its gamism.

It fits in well with the current view of hit points as well, because really the only "hit" that matters is the last one.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, but that's the point. It's fairly easy to balance 5 monsters against 5 PCs. That's why its the default in 4e.

Where did I read that the default was 4 monsters vs. 5 PCs then? I ask because 5 v 5 is *much* easier to scale up or down for different-size parties than 4 v 5 is.

Lanefan