Why I'm done with 4e

[LostSoul]

You like the fact that in 4E it is more homogeneous.

Yeah!

Why doesn't this same logic apply to discerning how the action should be represented mechanically in the game?

Edit: Or perhaps a better way to phrase this is why does the math matter in performing the action... but not in discerning results?

All I want to know is if the attack succeeds or fails. I think the game's math works well in that case. If it succeeds, I know what happens (the action, whatever it was, is successful).

Damage is different because HP are kind of strange. That's why I like the fact that it has a damage by level chart.

How so? In 4E the impact of the players action is limited by preserving the balance of the combat. That can lead to player actions having less/a different effect than it normally should have, as it having the logical effect would be unbalanced.

I care less about balance than I do about maintaining the game world's internal consistency.

 

[Derren]

I care less about balance than I do about maintaining the game world's internal consistency.

But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.

 

[vagabundo]

But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.

Maybe in your 4e game.

 

[Nightson]

But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.

Enjoyment comes first in the design philosophy.

 

[JeffB]

But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:

* The rules are in the background. The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience.

I try really hard to avoid EW threads anymore, but I just have to say I had the complete, total opposite experience with 3E, and I think my jaw actually dropped when I read your statement. I found 3E to be the worst offender I've experienced in this regard barring perhaps something like Powers & Perils, Aftermath, or RMSS.

Amazing how people see/experience things so differently

 

[ExploderWizard]

But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.

Straight from the rulebooks, you are correct. A 3E DM could always make changes to shift the game towards more balance. Likewise a 4E DM can adjust as needed to create the desired level of consistency and logic.

I have plans to run a 4E campaign, hopefully starting in a couple weeks and you can bet that I will be adding stuff, and tossing out the trash to get the kind of game I want.

One of the things I want to do is develop a lot more options for stunting because I hate it when character sheets get treated like a game pad.
Here are some basic stunting ideas I want to develop further:

1) Not limit stunting attempts by artificial restrictions such as per day and per encounter.

2) Base the effectiveness of a stunt on the idea, the available resources, and the amount of commitment from the individual attempting it. The last part is primarily action/resource based. What is the stunt worth to pull off? Better effects/more damage depends on what the player wants to spend to do it.

Take the old sand in the face trick for example. The player's intent is to blind his enemy for as long as possible. How effective the stunt is depends on how commited the player is to performing it. Is the player willing to spend his standard,minor,and move action, an action point and possibly a healing surge to make sure he screws over the bad guy? If the answer is yes then if the attack hits the bad guy might spend several rounds blinded, but if the player wants to use just a standard action maybe the guy is just dazed until the end of his turn.

This can help the stunting attempts be a bit less level based and more balanced toward risk and reward. It will also make spamming effective stunts impractical due to the costs involved.

3) Repeating stunts in the same combat become less and less effective for the cost due to enemies knowing what to look out for.

 

[Imaro]

You know... now that I'm thinking about it, perhaps the save mechanism might be best for stunts that inflict conditions... while this still doesn't help in determining what actual condition should be imposed, it does help in determining a duration without much work. 10 or higher and the monster shakes off whatever condition you inflicted.

 

[MerricB]

So what other EFFECTS besides damage does it give guidelines for? Up thread I already said it was a page of DC's and damage...even in the post you quoted I specifically referenced effects, so I'm not sure what point you are making here? Except maybe avoidance of what I am specifically talking about.

Edit: I have personally seen people post something along the lines of... One of my PC's wants to do a disarm in combat. Followed by... hey just use pg. 42 it covers all kinds of improvised stunts. No, it really doesn't... it covers stunts that do damage but not those that would inflict a condition or other effect.

Note that the example on page 42 includes pushing an ogre one square (into a brazier of hot coals). I think the thing which really confuses people is that while 4E seems very much "you can only do this", page 42 says "do whatever you like".

So, if you tried to disarm someone the DM can rule that this is a Strength vs. Strength opposed check, or an attack vs Reflex, or something like that.

Or you can even say, "No, you can't disarm the ogre."

Cheers!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Or you can even say, "No, you can't disarm the ogre."

Cheers!

I'm not a huge fan of the flat out "no" response. I would much prefer dismal odds for success that could result in an incredible memorable moment if it somehow succeeds. Just be careful and don't push the odds to a million-to one or such stunts will be pulled off 9 times out of ten.

 

[SSquirrel]

So what other EFFECTS besides damage does it give guidelines for? Up thread I already said it was a page of DC's and damage...even in the post you quoted I specifically referenced effects, so I'm not sure what point you are making here? Except maybe avoidance of what I am specifically talking about.

Edit: I have personally seen people post something along the lines of... One of my PC's wants to do a disarm in combat. Followed by... hey just use pg. 42 it covers all kinds of improvised stunts. No, it really doesn't... it covers stunts that do damage but not those that would inflict a condition or other effect.

You seem to be expecting to find a table in the DMG that says "Blindness DC15 Deafness DC17" etc. I look at page 42 and I think "Hey, I want to take that bowl full of salt and throw it in the bully's eyes to blind him, how hard would that be?" "Uhm...he's kinda drunk right now so his reaction time is a lot worse, we'll call it moderate, DC 17, roll 'em".

The table on page 42 adjudicates whatever you really feel it needs to. If I throw salt in someone's eyes, that doesn't mean I'm automatically looking out to the side and then rolling 3d8+4 for damage as well. If I was using a makeshift weapon to attack him then that is probably when I would be looking at the damage column.