Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3747972" data-attributes="member: 2011">One person's better is another person's worse.I see bigger.I see virutally every PC in each example they gave so far doing multiple things per round.That's bigger.I see PCs attacking and knocking opponents backwards. That's extra rules. They might be simple rules (i.e. they always get knocked back 10 feet and no other distance, but that is unlikely).I see additional saving throws after a spell has already affected the PCs.That's more rules which means that less is more.The Ranger got 3 arrows off in what appears to be a first level module in a surprise round.The Rogue rushed to the farmhouse and threw open the door in a surprise round.The Ranger got to shoot 2 arrows off as presumably an immediate action.I'm talking about multiple actions or attacks in what previously were single action time frames in 3E.In Star Wars, characters can do multiple attacks (on a Full Round Action, not a Surprise round), but all attacks are at -5 (for two attacks, -10 for 3). If the same is true of 4E DND, then the Ranger should not have been hitting the Goblin quite so often. It seems like the DND maneuvers might not have the same penalties of multiple shots like Star Wars does. Course, we do not know for sure.No doubt. But, they are playtesting. They are supposed to be stressing the system. Either the DM threw something wimpy at them (which is not what his job is for a playtest), or they are finding out that the synergies of these "multiple actions per round" are creating some devastating results that allow them to do fights "without breaking a sweat".If it's the latter, than it could be the bigger, badder, broken syndrome rearing it's ugly head.From your response, you might not have understood my concern.I understand the desire for an attack and a boost in the same round by the same PC. It sounds cool.But, I also understand the complexity of the concept. I've DMed for 30 years. I can keep track of 12 things at a time at a game because I have trained myself to do so. I write a lot of things down with shorthand (like the fact that this opponent is stunned for 2 rounds whereas this one is only dazed for one round whereas this PC is staggered for 3 rounds).My players do not do that. The only things they write down are their current hit points and how many rounds their spells/special abilities have been in use. They are used to keeping track of only a few things at a time. Sure, the ones who have DMed before can keep track of more things, but two of my players barely remember the basic rules, let alone the complex ones.From the very first Dragon example given, it is becoming clear that multiple actions per round per creature is the norm (upwards of 5 or 6 for some creatures). I have no worries about that for myself as DM, but I have worries about that for some of my players.Just like the player of the Bard PC having to remind everyone that they get the +1 to attacks and damage every round in 3E, now in 4E every player has to remind other players about the bonuses or advantages that they have given them. It is no longer just the players of Bard and the Cleric, it is every player.It might get out of hand. In other words, bigger.I'm not saying that it will get out of hand. I'm saying that there is a disturbing pattern in the information we have so far.For myself, this is a great thing. For some of my players, it might be a problem. I'm not just looking at it from the cool point of view that utility PCs get to buff and still do something else useful. I'm trying to look at the meta-picture of what happens at the table and how this affects the players.Some players might quit if the game becomes too complex for them. I personally know of two players who quit when 3E had game complexities that they did not like.So, WotC is touting simplicity, but I am seeing the opposite in their examples.</blockquote>

Verification