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

[delericho]

Why do you assume the situation is the DM's fault? The players could have just as easily been the ones who put themselves in such a perilous situation.

You're right. Sorry.

Edit: And, if the players put themselves in such a position, they deserve to lose characters. So, still no need to change the rules.

 

[Aloïsius]

Why do you assume the situation is the DM's fault? The players could have just as easily been the ones who put themselves in such a perilous situation.

Yup. From my point of view, the story is more important than the gaming. If, as a PC or as an NPC, you screw up, then you have dire consequences to face, such as "save or die" situation.
If you look at the game as a disconected suit of various encounters, then it's logical to think that "save or die" effects are bad. But if you think the encounters happen because of the players actions, then "save or die" is just a consequence of their acts. If the players run afoul of a criminal organization and don't take any measure to protect themselves from assassins, they can't complain with the "coup de grâce" treatment. If they are running crazy into a beholder lair (a CR 13 monster !) then they can't complain if some of them end up as lawn ornament. Likewise, an NPC of mine was somewhat arrogant and dismissed the PC as non dangerous : I can't complain if he was slain during the surprise round after the PC devised a clever plan to attack him by surprise.
I think some measure of realism* is positive for the game. And realism requires things akin to save or die and things that are not fun at all.

*realism in a fantasy paradigm of course.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

1) balance above all. This is the D&D religion since 3e : everything should be balanced, no class nor race should be more powerful than another. The problem is that this is somewhat impossible : as long as there is choice, some of them will be better. This cause an endless pattern of revision/errata, nerf or boost, with the end result of fudging with the fluff and consistency of the story lived by the PC.

Sure, complete balance isn't possible, but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore it. And I don't think that valuing balance highly means that we have two updates per month with changed abilities. This is D&D, not WoW or some other computer game.

I think the game system should be thoroughly playtested, all wrinkles ironed out, everything as balanced as possible, and then released. After that, unless something really turns out to be a problem, there should be no revision. (Errata's something completely different - it fixes errors, not problems).
Sure, this will not produce a perfectly balanced game (which, as I said, is impossible), but it will get pretty close, and it won't necessitate revision after revision.

Meanwhile, no amount of errata or playtesting will stop powergamers from breaking the game. Only the DM could stop them.

Not quite true. It's true that only the DM can possibly stop them all, but a solid set of rules will make it harder, and thus the DMs job easier.

You can't spare the DM from looking out for, say, a dwarf (with racial variant V) fighter (with class variant C) that uses weapon X, feats Y1, Y2 and Y3 together with manoevure Z to become immune to most types of damage. But playing a dwarf fighter should not automatically result in a overpowered character.

So, I hope we won't see strange things like what happened with the polymorph ability

That really was a mess, but apart from that, I can't think of a rule that was changed more than twice (or even once)

but I fear we will have some sillyness, in the name of game balance.

Better than having lots of sillyness because balance wasn't considered, don't you think?

2) fun above all.

That's every game's ultimate rule. If you don't have fun, why play?

What should the rules do ? Help you describe a world and the lives and adventures of your characters, or allow you to play some abstract tactic game ? I would say both, but the first part is more important.

... to you. But not to everyone.

What is the worst : a game where you can lose a fight with one save, or a game where Circea the sorceress is unable to polymorph her victims into pigs, because, well, beeing pigised is "not fun" ?

What is the worst? Death by drowning or death by burning?

You make it seem like those are the only choices. Of course, there are more than that. I can see a system where losing because of a single roll is very unlikely (because, let's face it, losing a fight, and maybe even a character that you have played for months, because of a single roll - not one final roll preceded by a number of other rolls, but one roll that can end the battle no matter what) but you still get to turn enemies into pigs:

We stop using scores of abilities that circumvent HP, and make the consequences of losing all your HP more varied. So say the polymorph attack/spell deals X amount of damage (requiring an attack roll or allowing a save to negate/lessen the damage), and if it blows you below 0, you turn into a pig instead of croaking.

(there should be lethal poison. As in "no save, you have only a few hours to live unless someone find the antidote")

Stuff like that is quite problematic. For one, if you catch someone days away from civilisation, you'll kill him without him having a chance. I know I don't want that do be done to my character. If you like that sort of thing, go ahead, but I prefer to be able to get out of every situation (not guaranteed, but you should have a fighting chance all the time, unless you put yourself into a really stupid situation and ignored several warnings), and don't arbitrarily kill off players, either.

I think arbitrary things like this poison should have no rules - they're completely up to the DM.

I fear that WotC takes those two "dogmas" too seriously. I hope there will be room for realism and drama in 4e, and that those two element won't be squizzed to death by fun and balance.

Tell me: Are you having fun in a "realistic" game? Are you enjoying yourself if there's drama? Some will say so, and so I think it will still be possible under 4e. But some people really hate that stuff, and those people should not have it forced upon them. So I think the best way to do it is have this stuff be optional.

 

[robotron666]

1) balance above all. This is the D&D religion since 3e : everything should be balanced, no class nor race should be more powerful than another. The problem is that this is somewhat impossible : as long as there is choice, some of them will be better. This cause an endless pattern of revision/errata, nerf or boost, with the end result of fudging with the fluff and consistency of the story lived by the PC.

I think the design ethos is aimed more to an equal range of player expression and power than balance. While this might look like balance at first, and maybe it ends up being balance, I think the core of it is giving players a roughly equal number of importnat choices to mkae as they level their characters.

2) fun above all. What should the rules do ? Help you describe a world and the lives and adventures of your characters, or allow you to play some abstract tactic game ? I would say both, but the first part is more important. What is the worst : a game where you can lose a fight with one save, or a game where Circea the sorceress is unable to polymorph her victims into pigs, because, well, beeing pigised is "not fun" ?

Well, this seems to be core in the realm of DM choice. You want to give players the ability to alter the outcomes of such important moments. Action points from Eberron are one form, in Star Wars saga edition they're callled Force Points. I'm certain we'll see this in 4rth ed.

What about coup de grâce ? A dagger in your throat while you were sleeping is not a fun way to die.... We know there won't be death from massive damage (not fun ! beeing bite by a dire T-rex and dying because of a single missed fort save is not fun, you should survivre to three or four bites...), what about coup de grâce ?

There has to be some risk associated with entering combat, I think we'll see this in how creaters of varying types from local hero to epic level express their abilities. I think any DM that coup's a PC is pretty much telling that player to find a new game. Just an observation, not an opinion on the mechanic.

Poisons were already neutered in 3e (there should be lethal poison. As in "no save, you have only a few hours to live unless someone find the antidote"), I don't think that will change in 4 (a penalty on the condition track is somewhat abstract...and not very frightening).

That sounds like non-fun to me. Poisons might have temporary status effects, like reduced stats or some other effect on character ability. But I emphasize the word temporary. Fatal / deblitating poisons are no fun unless the player character has to pursue some antidote or other cure, and this is fully within the realm of DM control as narrating a story point, not necessarily as a mechancially enforced rule.

A family friend of my family was bitten by a black widow spider and lived, trust me, the side effects were not something you would want to see in a heroic fantasy game.

I fear that WotC takes those two "dogmas" too seriously. I hope there will be room for realism and drama in 4e, and that those two element won't be squizzed to death by fun and balance.

Well, utlimately, if you're running the game, do what you and your players will find fun, the rules are just that rules, they do not need to define the experience your players have. You do.

For me, realism flies out the window as soon as you mention the words elf or wizard. From what I've seen I can pretty much guarantee you the 4e will be new epic fantasy, not gritty or realistic. Less Harn, more Exalted.

As for drama, that does not live in the rules, it lives between you and your players.

 

[Aloïsius]

Sure, complete balance isn't possible, but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore it. And I don't think that valuing balance highly means that we have two updates per month with changed abilities. This is D&D, not WoW or some other computer game.

I don't say that balance is a bad thing. But sometimes, I would like the designer to think "story" before "balance". Wildshape or polymorph is a good example : when you wildshape, your equipement meld with your body, unlike what happen in most fantasy fiction. It means that you don't end literaly naked after wildshaping, something that would unbalance the game. However, from a story point of view, I find suspension of disbelief easier if your stuff does not wildshape with you.

Stuff like that is quite problematic. For one, if you catch someone days away from civilisation, you'll kill him without him having a chance. I know I don't want that do be done to my character. If you like that sort of thing, go ahead, but I prefer to be able to get out of every situation (not guaranteed, but you should have a fighting chance all the time, unless you put yourself into a really stupid situation and ignored several warnings), and don't arbitrarily kill off players, either.

I think arbitrary things like this poison should have no rules - they're completely up to the DM.

Up to the DM. Of course ! You don't want random monster runing with stuff like that. But if the DMG has a few example of what could be done, the better. In the "no save" poison example, you just need a few line in the DMG, with info about what is the poison (fluff and background), what it does and how to remove the effect. The DM is free to use it or not, this is not something "enforced" at your gaming table. Just an option. This is not about arbitrary killing the PC, this is about giving tools for building a good story.
The "one minute" poison of 3e are awful tools : you can always succeed a saving throw (a reactive action, not something you are doing), but if you fail a CON damaging poison, you are dead, and 1 minute only makes it impossible to find an antidote if you don't have it already.

Tell me: Are you having fun in a "realistic" game? Are you enjoying yourself if there's drama? Some will say so, and so I think it will still be possible under 4e. But some people really hate that stuff, and those people should not have it forced upon them. So I think the best way to do it is have this stuff be optional.

And reciprocaly. I know many players who hated the new "harm" and "disintegrate" in 3.5. But this was not optional and was forced upon them when I switched to 3.5. If 4e is all about HP management, chances are great we don't switch for the new edition.

Well, this seems to be core in the realm of DM choice. You want to give players the ability to alter the outcomes of such important moments. Action points from Eberron are one form, in Star Wars saga edition they're callled Force Points. I'm certain we'll see this in 4rth ed.

action/destiny/force point is a good mechanic (and I use them). As you said, they allow the players to influence the outcomes of important moments. Provided such important moments are possible in the game. Without polymorph or slay living, there is no need to spent action points...

That sounds like non-fun to me. Poisons might have temporary status effects, like reduced stats or some other effect on character ability. But I emphasize the word temporary. Fatal / deblitating poisons are no fun unless the player character has to pursue some antidote or other cure, and this is fully within the realm of DM control as narrating a story point, not necessarily as a mechancially enforced rule.

As I said earlier, narrating a story is simpler when the rules help you do so. Plus, most players (in my experience) will feel railroaded if the DM says "this poison/spell/disease is special, the usual ways does not work, you have to look for this special cure", while if the stuff is in the DMG, they will just feel chalenged. There is a reason why the DMG and the PBH are two separate books : the DMG is all about options and tools for the DM.

For me, realism flies out the window as soon as you mention the words elf or wizard. From what I've seen I can pretty much guarantee you the 4e will be new epic fantasy, not gritty or realistic. Less Harn, more Exalted.

"Fantasy realism" is all about internal consistency. It's not realistic to have medusa turning people in stone. But in a fantazy setting, it is. But if the medusa must first whack you with a sword before the can use her gaze attack with efficiency, the internal consistency of your fantasy setting is somewhat endangered. And this lead to suspension of disbelief.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Up to the DM. Of course ! You don't want random monster runing with stuff like that. But if the DMG has a few example of what could be done, the better. In the "no save" poison example, you just need a few line in the DMG, with info about what is the poison (fluff and background), what it does and how to remove the effect. The DM is free to use it or not, this is not something "enforced" at your gaming table. Just an option. This is not about arbitrary killing the PC, this is about giving tools for building a good story.
The "one minute" poison of 3e are awful tools : you can always succeed a saving throw (a reactive action, not something you are doing), but if you fail a CON damaging poison, you are dead, and 1 minute only makes it impossible to find an antidote if you don't have it already.

What happens if the DM wants to use a variant of said poison in the DMG? What about other plot devices, should the DMG list all of them? That was a rhetorical question, of course it can't. In the end, the group will either allow for the DM going outside the rules for plot or it won't. No amount of lists are going to help that, because inevitably the lists will not cover the variety of devices DMs want to use in their games.

 

[delericho]

We stop using scores of abilities that circumvent HP, and make the consequences of losing all your HP more varied. So say the polymorph attack/spell deals X amount of damage (requiring an attack roll or allowing a save to negate/lessen the damage), and if it blows you below 0, you turn into a pig instead of croaking.

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?

The in-game logic can be made to work, since just about any set of rules can be rationalised with in-game logic of some sort. But it really doesn't feel right.

 

[Belen]

Bah...character deaths from save or die instances have tended to be the most memorable experiences in the games I have played and run. 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.

Rolling up a new character in session is just not practical anymore. The few times it has happened in my 3.5 games, I got calls or e-mails later asking to change them once they had more time to go over the character with a fine tooth comb.

I would say that eliminating save or die from 4e makes sense when considering the sheer number of options for building a character. 3e and 4e place the emphasis on the player and what is fun for the individual player rather than the group as a whole. Personally, I think that focusing on the individual at the expense of the group/play experience makes the game a bit bland. Hell, the only times I have died in 3.5 were when I was tired of my character and asked the DM to kill him off. I would try to get myself killed before asking and was unsuccessful.

 

[Aloïsius]

What happens if the DM wants to use a variant of said poison in the DMG?

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

What about other plot devices, should the DMG list all of them? That was a rhetorical question, of course it can't. In the end, the group will either allow for the DM going outside the rules for plot or it won't. No amount of lists are going to help that, because inevitably the lists will not cover the variety of devices DMs want to use in their games.

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 ? Stuff about what to do when confronted with so called "game breaking spells" (scry, teleport, fly, raise dead, etherealness etc...) or "save or die" effects ? Imagine that each monster in the MM has a color code or symbol, attracting the DM attention to its specificity. A little red skull in its stat block is there to remind the DM that this monster can cause such or such problem (gaze attack > death) if used without precaution. Then, in the DMG, the DM find how to use those monster adequatly.

By example, in the case of the medusa, the DM should give some hints to the players that they will have to protect themselves from its gaze. How so ? They can encounter the remains of its victims, they can encounter a survivor of a previous party, they can stumble upon legends or the diairy of some NPC.
This will allow the PC to devise a clever plan to defeat the monster. Of course, the DM can add difficulty (the medusa could have some minions with her who will try to force the players to open their eyes) but the players know what is the danger, and what they must do to avoid it.

 

[jasin]

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?

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).

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? Damage is damage, and the special effects upon death are pretty much cosmetic.

A Saga-like condition track sounds interesting. If spells move the target along the track a different number of steps depending on the spells and whether the save was made or not, with special effects attached, it lets fighters soften up targets for wizards and vice versa without directly tying non-damaging spells to hit points.