D&D 4E will 4e be "gamisticly correct" ?

[delericho]

Disintegrate is like that in 3.5, and finger of death has been like that in 3.0 (and probably even before that, but I'm not positive).

The difference is, the end result of those spells is death, so it makes sense that they should take you closer to that condition on a 'partial success'.

Still, I'd agree it feels weird, and I'm not sure it's the solution I'd prefer. The problem I see is that if all instant takeout spells only take you out if they drop you below 0 and otherwise deal damage, what's the point of having different spells?

Exactly right. For petrification spells (and similar effects) my favoured solution would be to use Dex damage, with full petrification occurring on 0 Dex. I don't have an analogue for Polymorph spells, but this one may well be best dealt with via the condition track, as you suggest - some sort of Bewitched condition?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

He use the example given as a guideline. And a precedent.

You can't list all plot devices, of course. But you can create a lot of them inside the rules, along with explanation about how they work. Remember that magic item will be in the PBH : that means that there will be something else in the DMG. Things like, huh, advices, examples and plot devices for the DM ?

Why do you feel that you need someone besides yourself to write down all these plot devices before you're allowed to use them?

 

[jasin]

For petrification spells (and similar effects) my favoured solution would be to use Dex damage, with full petrification occurring on 0 Dex.

Ah, yes, that's one suggestion I've heard for dealing with save or else spells: ability damage. Hold and petrification could deal Dex damage, dominate and suggestion could damage Wis or Cha, death effects damage Con...

The downside is that the fighter cannot (barring special circumstances) help the wizard take someone out with a spell by softening them up it physical combat. I think it'd be cool to have a system where it would be tactically sound to pound on someone with a sword for a while, and then, when he's on his last legs, finish him off by turning him into a toad or turning him into stone. For that, there needs to be some measure of "being close to defeat" that's shared by normal attacks and magical attacks.

I don't have an analogue for Polymorph spells,

Con? I think it makes sense (even if you resist being turned into a hamster, your insides might get painfully messed up), but the trouble is that going to 0 Con kills you. Maybe you can choose whether you want to resist and take the Con damage as the spell warps your body, or just let go and get turned into a hamster and hope someone can help you later?

but this one may well be best dealt with via the condition track, as you suggest - some sort of Bewitched condition?

I don't think that's a good name; to me, "bewitched" suggests some sort of enchantment, not shapechanging.

And anyway, the whole point of the condition track is that you don't have to worry about the exact labels for every condition.

 

[delericho]

The downside is that the fighter cannot (barring special circumstances) help the wizard take someone out with a spell by softening them up it physical combat. I think it'd be cool to have a system where it would be tactically sound to pound on someone with a sword for a while, and then, when he's on his last legs, finish him off by turning him into a toad or turning him into stone. For that, there needs to be some measure of "being close to defeat" that's shared by normal attacks and magical attacks.

Interesting point, and perhaps a good idea. It's the reverse I don't like.

Con? I think it makes sense (even if you resist being turned into a hamster, your insides might get painfully messed up), but the trouble is that going to 0 Con kills you.

Exactly my problem with it. Well, that and that Con is such a massive issue as regards combat, due to the accompanying loss of hit points.

I thought perhaps Cha. This makes buff warrior-types more vulnerable to that sort of mystical attack, which strikes me as being quite desirable. The problem I ran into with that was that it would become a Sorcerer-killer in short order.

Edit: should probably be Wis - strength of self, rather than force of personality. Replace "Sorcerer" with "Cleric" above.

I don't think that's a good name;

Nor me. I just couldn't think of anything better.

 

[Aloïsius]

Why do you feel that you need someone besides yourself to write down all these plot devices before you're allowed to use them?

:\
There will be a book called Dungeon Master Guide, you know. And, IMHO, it should be about advices and guidelines for... the DM ! Including new and inexperienced DMs. Or lazzy DMs, or uninspired DMs. Why are you so hostile to the idea of a few plot device example in the DMG ? You fear there won't be enough room for random encounters tables ?

Plus, I know as a 3e DM and player that players view the DMG like, huh, a core rule book. This is why so many players think they can craft any magic item they want provided they follow the guidelines in the DMG. This is why so many players think they can use PRC without really asking the DM, because they are in the DMG. And, likewise, many players groan when they are "victims" of plot device that contradict the rules of the game.




Spells damaging ability would be nice for stuff like charm, hold or polymorph, except that I'm not sure it would go with streamlined rules. Unless you disconnect ability damage from ability bonus to skills ? And what would be the link between spell duration and ability damage recovery rate ?

 

[delericho]

Why are you so hostile to the idea of a few plot device example in the DMG ?

I'm not keen on the idea because I've seen too many DMs use a 'plot device' as an excuse for railroading, for screwing over players, or otherwise being a bad DM. I'd rather that sort of thing not be encoded into the core rules of the game.

Plus, I know as a 3e DM and player that players view the DMG like, huh, a core rule book. This is why so many players think they can craft any magic item they want provided they follow the guidelines in the DMG. This is why so many players think they can use PRC without really asking the DM, because they are in the DMG. And, likewise, many players groan when they are "victims" of plot device that contradict the rules of the game.

Presumably, these would be players who didn't bother to actually read the book, or who have selectively edited their memories, and particularly the sections where it says PrCs are explicitly under the control of the DM, that the DM has the right to adjust the rules to suit, and so forth?

Of course, there are bad players, just as there are bad DMs. But if it wasn't "plot devices" that such individuals were moaning about, it would just be something else.

Spells damaging ability would be nice for stuff like charm, hold or polymorph, except that I'm not sure it would go with streamlined rules. Unless you disconnect ability damage from ability bonus to skills ? And what would be the link between spell duration and ability damage recovery rate ?

Recalculating things for ability damage is something of an overhead. Still, it's not that bad. I'm rather hoping they don't just get rid of it because some players find it hard to do that math on the fly (in much the same way you're are concerned about "balance" and "fun" over all).

For the spell durations, I don't see that as a huge problem. Leave the recovery rate the same, and make the spells instantaneous - the damage persists until healed. It's hardly the case that players can complain that that's too harsh - the previous version was effectively "save or die"!

 

[WayneLigon]

I am not sure when players became so attached to their characters that they cried "not fun" whenever they died by save or die, although it could be when characters became so full of "options" that building a new one required a lot more time and effort.

With the amount of work I put into creating a character I'm really inspired to play, the actual stat creation is the swift and easy part regardless of the options. I might spend three or four hours all told doing a history, background, finding a picture, and more depending on how deep and rich the setting is (or my contributions to it, depending on how inspired I am).

It's not 'not fun' so much as it leads to a tremendous waste of time on my part of the GM likes the 'save or die' types of situations. (Though if I know that going in, I probably won't spend all that much time on the character; that leads to less involvement on my part, though, so I generally make sure a GM is the type who will use and appreciate the work I've put into my character).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Ick, no. I really hate that idea.

Not because of the cases where the spell succeeds - I don't mind those too much. But where it falls down for me is the case where the spell fails. So, when Circe attempts to turn you into a pig, but you throw off the effect, that suddenly makes you easier to stab to death?

Of course! You withstood the vile transformation spell the sorceress threw at you, but that took some of your will power and concentration, which gave her assassin friend an opening.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When a character is initially poisoned, the poison has no effect until the onset time is reached, whereupon he must make his first save, or suffer the indicated damage. Thereafter, at each interval of the recurrence time, a new save must be made, or further damage is taken. If the PC makes a number of consecutive successful saves equal to the survival threshold, he has defeated the poison and need make no further saves.

(Obviously, Slow Poison would delay the next save for the duration of the spell; Neutralise Poison would get rid of it entirely.)

So, for instance, the poison Indiana Jones swallows in Temple of Doom might have the stats: Onset Time: 1 minute, Recurrence: 1 minute, Save DC 20, Damage 1d4 Con, Survival Threshold: 5.

YOINK!