WotC, Design and MMORPGs

[meleeguy]

I first heard the term 'pulling' in online play, and what I saw online (we all saw) is D&D with no DM and dumb harvestable monsters. This sells, and mudflation helps sell it. These memes have reinfected tabletop play. Presto - the 'puller' class. I suggest severely limiting the books available at your table. Where does the knight class come from? I'm afraid that a DM that can handle all the rules has got to spend alot of time on the optimization boards to quickly spot unbalanced add-ons. Just got my C&C books and most, if not all, of my 3.x books can be easily converted!

Just my 2 cents, I don't hat d02 at all.

 

[MerricB]

However, looking at what most of WotC has been designing, and you see this seems to be what WotC would like the game to go towards. Everything from the Warlock class (infinite damage spell) to Telling Blow (free sneak attack) have reduced combat not to a war-game as most think but to an MMORPG.

Alternatively...

Everything from the Fighter as Archer (infinite damage attack)...

Telling blow allows a critical to also deal sneak attack damage. That's not a free sneak attack by any means.

Cheers!

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I think the DM might not have completely understood the Kinght's ability. Let me underline a point (I'm guessing the Knight used Test of Mettle):

"If anyone other than you attacks the target, the effect of the test of mettle ends for that specific target."

As soon as the mage or rogue started to attack the Vrock, it should have been freed of the effect and should have run away / attacked the weaker members of the group.

I think the DM might have been unprepared a little bit for the new character, and, IMO, he overreacted a bit by banning a bunch of stuff.

AR

Edit: Good Ol' Merric beat me to it

 

[Shroomy]

A standard vrock is a CR 9 monster. According to the OP, the CR 9 was roughly the challenge level the party should regularly be facing. According to Monte Cook, a standard combat like this should last roughly 2 rounds (and this is figuring in a 4 person party), five rounds of five against one combat sounds pretty good....

 

[Remathilis]

Isn't ToM a swift action? Couldn't the knight do it every round (theoretically?)

Apparently, neither the DM nor the player KNEW it breaks after a successful attack from someone else. So he probably did overreact. He's been known to do so.

EDIT: the party was actually a mix of 8th/9th level PCs (3/2). This was a one-shot encounter; they came in nearly full, and teleported away after that.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, RTFM always helps. Sounds like the players were perhaps a little less than forthcoming about how their new abilities work. Or, everyone was just using it wrong.

This is a really good point. If something looks broken, instead of banning it, take a moment and make absolutely sure you're using it right. 99% of DM's concerns go away if you do this.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I first heard the term 'pulling' in online play, and what I saw online (we all saw) is D&D with no DM and dumb harvestable monsters. This sells, and mudflation helps sell it.

It mostly sells because the alternatives are too hard to code in any way that a mass audience finds fun. If the dragon decides to kill all the robe-wearing magic-users first, that'd be less "dumb," but not a lot of fun for those players, unless a LOT more options (comparable to tabletop) were available to the players before the battle, to minimize the chance of that happening.

With the limited number of combat options available in even the most complex MMORPGs, monsters have to be dumb if they game isn't just a total hosing of players. (And that's assuming instanced content. If everyone has equal access to a singular monster, you then have the problem of what everyone else does after said Ultimate Beastie is killed five days after the game is released.)

 

[MerricB]

Isn't ToM a swift action? Couldn't the knight do it every round (theoretically?)

The Knight class is online in the PH2 excerpt. See here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2

Relevant text: "Whether a creature fails or succeeds on its save against your test of mettle, it can only be targeted by this effect once per day."

Cheers!

 

[Gold Roger]

Let's see:

-Single CR=APL opponent against 5 man party

-Test of Mettle stops working once someone else attacks

-The Vrock didn't have to only full-attack the knight. He could have kept out of range and telekinesed him to mush. Test of Mettle just changes priorities, it doesn't turn anyone mindless

-Everyone else does his usual schtick

Sounds like an average D&D combat to me. It's the DMs responsibility to create interesting encounters within the scope of the rules. Not just pick one monster and expect awesomeness.

I'm not trying to pick on the DM here, I just think it's more a failure of the DM than the system.

 

[Hussar]

Isn't ToM a swift action? Couldn't the knight do it every round (theoretically?)

Apparently, neither the DM nor the player KNEW it breaks after a successful attack from someone else. So he probably did overreact. He's been known to do so.

EDIT: the party was actually a mix of 8th/9th level PCs (3/2). This was a one-shot encounter; they came in nearly full, and teleported away after that.

So, you have a party that's actually a bit tougher than a standard 9th level party, expending it's entire wad of resources for a single encounter that they can be completely prepped for and the DM is complaining that it "only" lasted 5 round?

Methinks he doth protest too much.