Why I'm done with 4e

[Obryn]

Ok, so how do you decide between someone being dazed, stunned or unconscious? The table would actually be so that you could balance these conditions with level, added damage and difficulty.

As a condition gets more critical, the damage gets lower and/or the DC increases.

I'd hardly ever let a PC stun something through a stunt. Stun is a massively powerful status effect, and I'd make them work for it. I'd put Blind worse than Daze, and Daze worse than Immobilize, and Immobilize worse than Slow. Ongoing damage is somewhere in there, too.

But you're right in that the improvisational DC/damage/status table requires a bit of system mastery from the DM to get it just right. You can't just turn to Page 42 and voila! You need to exercise thought and judgment; the table just helps you get the math parts right.

-O

 

[Pbartender]

All I'm going to point out here is that not once did you reference pg. 42... you made all the effects/checks/balances up yourself which while I think it's cool... I can't help but wonder how in the world do you attribute this stunt ruling to page 42?

I didn't, necessarily. I was only pointing out how the process generally works in my game. You were talking about telling a player no if they want to do something that's too powerful for what their character can do. I try to avoid that by having the players describe what they intend to do, and then giving some options with various mechanical difficulties and benefits for how to accomplish it.

Mainly, my example above, relates to the following section of p. 42:

Other Checks: If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level.​

And then, if necessary, referencing the chart for appropriate DCs.

But you're right... The actual effects of the different option are simply based on my own judgment, and what I generally remember from the actions and powers in the rulebook. That has nothing to with page 42, aside from the single example they give on that page (Level 8 Rogue: Acrobatics DC 20 = swing on chandelier, Strength attack vs. Fortitude = push one square into brazier).

At another time, in another situation, I might end up ruling it slightly differently because it's an ad hoc ruling, the situation occurs rarely, and it's simply not worth the time and trouble to write it down and dig it back up later. I've made that clear to my players, and they're fine with it.

 

[LostSoul]

Ok, so how do you decide between someone being dazed, stunned or unconscious? The table would actually be so that you could balance these conditions with level, added damage and difficulty.

Honestly? I'd probably always go with Dazed. I'm sure there are situations where I might upgrade to Stunned or Unconcious, but I can't think of any without any in-game context to play with. Maybe if you punched a guy in the face to Daze him, then choked him out to Stun him, then continued with it to knock him out.

Ok, how about restrained or immobilized... you see description is all well and good but different conditions have actual in game effects... so when I do a trick with my whip where I want to have it wrap around someone, and pull them to the ground are they...

Restrained is when you are pinned and nothing can move you. A spike through the leg would Restrained you. Immobilized is when you are unable to move on your own.

I rely on the description of the action to determine between those two effects. And sometimes I might just ignore the game-based effect and say, "Well, he can't move because his legs are jello, so -Will based movement powers won't move him, but he can be pushed by force."

helpless, immobilized, prone, restrained, or slowed? Who decides what condition I've inflicted, I or the DM? If it's the DM, why am I giving up hard numbers and facts (my powers) to try something cool that I have no idea what it may or may not do (thus it may not be as cool as I thought it was)... or what my chances are to succeed? I mean these are all questions that might help account for power fixation.

The DM decides. Yup, I think those are all important considerations. I also think it's because powers "just work" no matter what. I think a heavy-handed DM who overruled powers in certain circumstances would get more stunts.

This is why I would do a stunt:

1. I ask the DM how it will be ruled before I start going through with the action, so I'm not playing with unknowns.
2. I want to achieve a specific effect and I don't have a power to do it (or I want to retain my encounter/daily powers).
3. The damage is much greater than what can be done from an at-will attack.

 

[Sadrik]

I don't think you're quite understanding the points that are being raised, or else I'm not. You seem to be saying that 4e shouldn't be called D&D because it's so different from the previous edition.

I think he is saying that when most people were on board with some form of 3e/OGL rather than updating that game, still utilizing the OGL as its base, it was decided that making an alternative game was the best choice. People could choose to go to it whether they wanted to or not.

It was the home run principle- everyone will love this, it will be the big next thing in gaming (like 3e was) but everyone didn't love it. Lots people do love it though. They probably would have fared better with an updated product (even dramatically so) rather than something so different that it felt like an alternative game.

I see this happen in video games a lot too. You have a hit game that was excellent. Then part 2 hits and they throw out a lot and put in what they think is better. Problem is that the original has a huge following and they were looking for an upgrade and what they got was something different. Something different can still be very good, it is just different. It is the consumer's demand not matching up with the producer's product. It is a tricky slope.

 

[Imaro]

As a condition gets more critical, the damage gets lower and/or the DC increases.

I'd hardly ever let a PC stun something through a stunt. Stun is a massively powerful status effect, and I'd make them work for it. I'd put Blind worse than Daze, and Daze worse than Immobilize, and Immobilize worse than Slow. Ongoing damage is somewhere in there, too.

But you're right in that the improvisational DC/damage/status table requires a bit of system mastery from the DM to get it just right. You can't just turn to Page 42 and voila! You need to exercise thought and judgment; the table just helps you get the math parts right.

-O

I didn't, necessarily. I was only pointing out how the process generally works in my game. You were talking about telling a player no if they want to do something that's too powerful for what their character can do. I try to avoid that by having the players describe what they intend to do, and then giving some options with various mechanical difficulties and benefits for how to accomplish it.

Mainly, my example above, relates to the following section of p. 42:

Other Checks: If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level.​

And then, if necessary, referencing the chart for appropriate DCs.

But you're right... The actual effects of the different option are simply based on my own judgment, and what I generally remember from the actions and powers in the rulebook. That has nothing to with page 42, aside from the single example they give on that page (Level 8 Rogue: Acrobatics DC 20 = swing on chandelier, Strength attack vs. Fortitude = push one square into brazier).

At another time, in another situation, I might end up ruling it slightly differently because it's an ad hoc ruling, the situation occurs rarely, and it's simply not worth the time and trouble to write it down and dig it back up later. I've made that clear to my players, and they're fine with it.

Look guys, I'm not saying 42 is useless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is... DC's and damage. It's not a robust system for doing out of the ordinary stunts and actions. I just find it a little absurd when it's touted and held up as way more than what it is by people who are basically filling the holes in with their own skill, experience, rulings or mechanics.

 

[Gimby]

Firstly I do still play D&D 4e I just perfer pathfinder.

No as for those simmiliarities that I noticed, they are just that simmiliarities, I'm not making a case that 4e = wow or anything silly like that.

I am saying that I have noticed a few simmiliarities. for instances the rules for treasure parcels seem very simmiliar to the loote dropped by "mobs" and bosses in wow. Also Marking resembles agro to me. Further the perception/surprise rules in 4e are very simmiliar to the mob site radiouse in WoW.

Dave Noonan wrote a good article ont he subject before comparing 4e to wow was considered a bad thing. Basically he said that MMos borrowed alot from D&D and then evolved into a really fun games. Now it is D&Ds turn to borrow from the MMOs to evolve itself.

I don't think that theres anyone that will deny that there aren't any similarities between 4e and WoW, but I think people are often suprised/confused by the examples chosen.

For example, you mention suprise/perception and treasure.

The rules for suprise/perception are almost identical between 3e and 4e - 4e monsters certainly don't have an "aggro radius" in the way that WoW monsters do.

In WoW, treasure drops of individual monsters and is randomly generated according to a loot table and monsters don't drop their equipment. In 4e, treasure parcels are set up by encounter rather than by monster and they do drop their equipment. Hell, in 3e technically treasure is randomly generated off a loot table and drops off individual monsters making 4e less like WoW in this respect than 3e was (this is unsuprising, given WoW's D&D roots and the 3e loot model is the traditional D&D one). About the only similarity between treasure parcels and WoW loot is "monsters drop loot"

This I think comes to why some people are annoyed at the comparisons - a lot of the times the things brought up are a) not in WoW (say, healing surges) b) not in 4e (say, aggro radii) or c) are in WoW and 4e, but are also present in other editions of D&D (say, monsters dropping loot). There are valid comparisons to be made (explicit roles, "weight class" of monsters) but they are often the ones not being made.

 

[Pbartender]

Look guys, I'm not saying 42 is useless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is... DC's and damage. It's not a robust system for doing out of the ordinary stunts and actions. I just find it a little absurd when it's touted and held up as way more than what it is by people who are basically filling the holes in with their own skill, experience, rulings or mechanics.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong... I'm more or less agreeing with you here.

I think the page has some good basic guidelines regarding DCs and damage. I also think that there are one or two basic improvisational DMing epiphanies that not all new DMs figure out on their own (like the advice to have a skill check target a defense).

But if you really want to get the most mileage out of stunts, you need a knowledgeable and experienced DM, and an imaginative and flexible player.


The more I think about it, though, the more it seems that page 42 is simply a device for empowering players and DMs to try ad hoc actions and rulings more often. I've noticed a certain point of view amongst many D&D players in recent years; the mindset that, "If it isn't in the rulebook, I can't do it." Having something like page 42 in the rulebook can really help get people past that roadblock, even if the actual rules themselves are sparse or vague.

 

[malraux]

As a condition gets more critical, the damage gets lower and/or the DC increases.

I'd hardly ever let a PC stun something through a stunt. Stun is a massively powerful status effect, and I'd make them work for it. I'd put Blind worse than Daze, and Daze worse than Immobilize, and Immobilize worse than Slow. Ongoing damage is somewhere in there, too.

But you're right in that the improvisational DC/damage/status table requires a bit of system mastery from the DM to get it just right. You can't just turn to Page 42 and voila! You need to exercise thought and judgment; the table just helps you get the math parts right.

-O

I personally also think that stunting should be slightly more powerful relative to regular attacks, balanced by requiring creativity by the players (ie, a given stunt only works once).

 

[BlueBlackRed]

I've played 4E since it came out and liked it, but as time went on I've become less and less happy with it.

I don't hate it.
There are several improvements from 3E, but some of the other changes I'm not happy with.
I feel lied to about how long it takes a combat to finish in 4E, the one thing they should have improved over 3E.

I would rather Hasbro sell off WotC to KenzerCo so gamers would own the game rather than it be a commodity of a giant corporation.
(If I could the rest of my group to play HackMaster, I'd dump 4E so fast...)

I play D&D once a week.
I play WoW the other 6 days of the week.
4E is very similar to WoW.
It may not be a 1:1 match, but it's close enough to warrant the comparisons.

 

[LostSoul]

Look guys, I'm not saying 42 is useless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is... DC's and damage. It's not a robust system for doing out of the ordinary stunts and actions. I just find it a little absurd when it's touted and held up as way more than what it is by people who are basically filling the holes in with their own skill, experience, rulings or mechanics.

Not on its own, but combined with the rest of the system you get something that makes it pretty easy for the DM to come up with ad-hoc rulings.