Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[ggroy]

One way around this problem of too many hit points dragging out the length of combats in 4E, is to add the player character's level number to the damage they do. Star Wars Saga Edition has something like this, but adding in level/2 to the damage for melee and ranged attacks.

For example, a magic missile does 1 + 2d4 + INT mod damage, for a level 1 wizards. For a level 8 wizard, a magic missile does 8 + 2d4 + INT mod damage.

 

[Rechan]

I don't need rules to facilitate roleplaying. I need rules to determine the success of something.

"Heroic, how is a 6'7, 300lb Dragonborn fighter in any way heroic when he's struggling to kill a 3'0 90lb mini-lizardman(Kobold Dragonshield). That ain't heroic, it's comedy."

Let's turn that on its head.

"Dangerous, how is a 12', 2Klb giant in any way threatening when he's struggling to kill a 6'7, 300lb half-orc? That ain't dangerous, that's comedy."

 

[Imaro]

I don't need rules to facilitate roleplaying. I need rules to determine the success of something.


Let's turn that on its head.

"Dangerous, how is a 12', 2Klb giant in any way threatening when he's struggling to kill a 6'7, 300lb half-orc? That ain't dangerous, that's comedy."

Actually, it depends on who the protagonist is. If the giant isn't the protagonist, yes, the half-orc is heroic because only a hero (more in the greek sense of the word) could accomplish such a feat. Now if the giant is the protagonist, then yes... he's more comedic than heroic, see the difference?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Right. You work at your fun. I'ma go play WoW and have fun delivered to me for all the effort of simply pressing a button. Hope working hard for little real benefit works out for you.

This is a point of view that I think is very common in today's world, but totally alien to me. In my experience, everything in life is more rewarding when it requires effort. "Simply pressing a button" does nothing for me. But for a lot of people, having to do more than that is an unconscionable burden.

I put a lot of effort into my D&D games. Most of the time I enjoy doing it for its own sake; sometimes it feels more like "work" than "fun." But I find the end results more rewarding, so I don't regret it.

 

[Rechan]

he's more comedic than heroic, see the difference?

Not really. I acknowledge it, but I don't agree with it.

In any action sequence where the protagonist is fighting something Small and Fast, it's always a struggle to win, becauae the things are always fast and dodgy. Something is "skittery". The "Whack-a-mole" issue has always been present. If for instance you had to fight a bobcat, it would be hellishly hard to kill it because cats (especially small cats) are fast and very nasty in close quarters. I wouldn't think fighting off a possessed cat would be comedy, it'd be painful.

I don't see it as "comedy". If you called them demons, instead of mini-lizardmen, would that help your sense of heroism?

IMHO, kobolds/goblins have always been treated with a level of comedy. They're presented so pathetic that they aren't seen as a legitimate threat. Like fighting eight year olds with pocket knives. So fighting them has always been a joke. That is not heroic to me; fighting rats and little joke humanoids is not heroic. No hero in a greek sense ever fought a few rats and called it a battle, even when he first started out.

 

[Imaro]

Not really. I acknowledge it, but I don't agree with it.

Uhm, ok.

In any action sequence where the protagonist is fighting something Small and Fast, it's always a struggle to win, becauae the things are always fast and dodgy. Something is "skittery". The "Whack-a-mole" issue has always been present.

Uhm sure, if you say so but even a small "skittery" or just plain quick PC has the same troubles with them... a Halfling Rogue, high dex ranger, etc. and that is a function of escalated hit points... not their speed. You see a whack-a-mole is quick, but it usually just takes one good whack.

I don't see it as "comedy". If you called them demons, instead of mini-lizardmen, would that help your sense of heroism?

were not talking about demons...were talking about kobolds, goblins, etc. and their place in versions of D&D.

IMHO, kobolds/goblins have always been treated with a level of comedy. They're presented so pathetic that they aren't seen as a legitimate threat. Like attacking a cluster of eight year olds with pocket knives. So fighting them is a joke. That is not heroic to me; fighting rats and little joke humanoids is not heroic, it's laughable. No hero in a greek sense ever fought a few rats and called it a battle.

SO doesn't that mean it's even more comedic when a supposed "joke monster" wails our so called hero to a pulp? And thus you agree with what I am saying?

As an example... Achilles fights hordes of men with lesser skill than him and slaughters them all, yet he is considered heroic and his story is considered heroic because he did that. No one says well if Achilles had fought a superman and won... then he would've been a hero.

Now if one or more of those lesser skilled warriors had slaughtered him or even gave him serious wounds and left him crippled... would he more heroic or less heroic because of this?


Edit: And if you go by the actual myths, Achilles was magically invulnerable on most of his body, so how was hios fighting of normal men any different than the goblin/kobold/rat analogy...at least before 4e?

 

[Rechan]

Uhm, ok.

Um, ok.

Besides, the HP isn't relevant. It's not meat being hacked off. Even if you HIT them, that doesn't mean you do physical damage; it can merely be a near miss, in narrative form, and when they hit 0 you finally HIT them and kill them. Their HP is just another representation of their skitteryness.

SO doesn't that mean it's even more comedic when a supposed "joke monster" wails our so called hero to a pulp? And thus you agree with what I am saying?

No. I don't agree with you at all.

Now if one or more of those lesser skilled warriors had slaughtered him or even gave him serious wounds and left him crippled... would he more heroic or less heroic because of this?

IIRC, a lesser man, Paris, did.

Achilles wasn't heroic because he was a Hero. He was just invulnerable. The only difference between Achilles and anyone else on the field was that he couldn't be harmed. For someone who can't be harmed to just go slaughter countless men, that isn't very heroic. In fact I'd say that's barbaric.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm more with Rechan.

Kobolds are no friggin' joke. If they can threaten a 1st level 4e D&D character, they can slaughter a dozen normal humans before being possibly controlled.

They are shifty, tricky, trappy little pikers made all the more frustrating because they should be easy to kill, but aren't.

 

[Minicol]

I believe ANY system can be fun in the hands of a good DM, even when the rules are an awful bug-ridden mess, and the adventure is a senseless bloodbath of hack and slash. (I am not particularly targeting 4e here, as I have seen this elsewhere).

Now it requires the players and GM to be in a certain positive mood to achieve this, and some skill at gaming. That's not happening often. If you don't meet these requirements, and the game system and MUCH more importantly the MODULE is not stellar, well ...

So while I believe someone can have fun with 4e, that won't be true of everyone, and in my case this is a lost bet. I have yet to read any argument anywhere that might possibly make me reconsider.

Besides there are plenty of other options for good gaming around, so why bother ?

 

[Rechan]

I believe ANY system can be fun in the hands of a good DM, even when the rules are an awful bug-ridden mess, and the adventure is a senseless bloodbath of hack and slash.

The reverse is also true; a beautiful system with an exciting adventure can be utterly awful in the hands of a bad DM or bad group.

The playing field thus is "What's it like with a decent group and a decent GM".

So while I believe someone can have fun with 4e that won't be true of everyone

I think the following is more true:

So while I believe someone can have fun with (INSERT SYSTEM HERE) that won't be true of everyone

The D&D community is split because the editions facilitate different kinds of play. They facilitate different gaming needs. It's not whether there's too many HP or not enough options, but style. And the D&D community is going to have to cope with the truism that the larger RPG community has: games suit different tastes, play what suits you.