Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[roguerouge]

I'm getting "I haven't seen the full rules yet I want to complain" fatigue.

Basing anything on the previews and the dungeon delves is more than a little foolhardy. We won't have solid answers until the PHB hits the shelves. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

All we have right now are hints and clues about what 4E will be like. That's all. Throwing up one's hands and crying foul makes people look a little childish at this point.

I'm going to have to concur with Elf Witch. This line of discussion shuts down discussion rather than promotes it. It's rude.

Moreover, she's right. If you can't validly advance criticism or concerns yet, neither can you validly advance praise, which goes directly to whether there really ought to be a 4e forum at all.

 

[Wolfspider]

I'm getting "I haven't seen the full rules yet I want to complain" fatigue.

Basing anything on the previews and the dungeon delves is more than a little foolhardy. We won't have solid answers until the PHB hits the shelves. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

All we have right now are hints and clues about what 4E will be like. That's all. Throwing up one's hands and crying foul makes people look a little childish at this point.

Do you think that ENWorld should just close the 4e Forum until the core rulebooks are out, then?

 

[CleverNickName]

Basing anything on the previews and the dungeon delves is more than a little foolhardy. We won't have solid answers until the PHB hits the shelves. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

Because it generates discussion? It is fun to talk about it, make predictions, and point out areas that need further attention. This is a discussion forum, after all. No need to be a party-pooper.

All we have right now are hints and clues about what 4E will be like. That's all. Throwing up one's hands and crying foul makes people look a little childish at this point.

I don't think the OP was being childish; I think he (she?) made some really good points that made me think about the new rules system. Really...why does the Sleep spell cause damage? That's a valid question. And to be honest, the thought of not being able to pin someone/something never occured to me until I read the post, and I think it would be fun to discuss and speculate about ways it could be addressed in the upcoming addition.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

One thing I've noticed in 4E so far - there are precious few ways to nonviolently subdue someone, no matter how much lower level they are. The innkeeper gets possessed and attacks you? Guess you're going to have to kill him, or else run away.


What I'm talking about specifically:
1) Trip is now a per-encounter power for only specific classes. Disarm may be as well, and is certainly not a general option. You could easily have a party with no access to these.

2) Grapple only stops someone from moving, not from attacking. Pinning, if it even exists, is presumably a martial class power. So no matter if you're Hercules wrestling a goblin, you can't pin it.

3) Spells all seem to do damage along with their effects - even spells like Sleep! It's to the extent where I bet a Charm Person spell, if it existed, would do something like: "2d10+4 damage, and target is charmed, save ends."

4) Which brings me to another point: spells have very short durations. Even the world's greatest archmage only has at most a 43% chance to put someone to sleep, and any charm, mind-control, or petrifying spells probably last only until save ends (so 1-2 rounds, maybe 3).

5) In general, the design attitude seems to be "anything except whittling through the opponent's full HP is unfun", and any abilties that can bypass this are avoided.


Now against equal or higher level foes, I can understand this. It's pretty anti-climactic if the Pit Fiend gets unlucky in round 2, gets petrified, and now the battle is over. Or if the Mummy King keeps getting tripped and can't reach anyone.

But against significantly lower-level foes, or at great risk when you have no choice, it should be possible to incapacitate someone without killing them. This could be easily accomplished by simply having options like Trip and Disarm be present for all (but risky and not usually effective without a power), and by having some spells that flat-out immobilize foes who are weak enough.

But no, apparently 4E combat is always in normal circumstances against evenly-matched foes who don't want anything to interrupt their thrilling grinding away at each-other's HP.


And now the point of nonlethal damage - I don't think it's a good solution. First off, there's no reason to assume spells can even do nonlethal damage - they couldn't in previous editions, and nothing has been said to the contrary. Secondly, nonlethal damage is not really a nonviolent solution. If the mayor is possessed and your solution is to beat the crap out of him, expect the city guard to have a problem with that.

There just might be something in the rule set that covers NOT killing someone......

 

[TwoSix]

I have a question why is it wrong to have questions and concerns about 4E based on the fact that we don't have all the answers but it is okay ot be totally thrilled with the new rule set when we don't have all the answers?

Because it's not a binary distinction?

One could say "We haven't seen any option for non-lethal subdual methods yet, since many of the methods used in previous editions have been changed. Do you think the designers included methods of doing so, and if so, what do you think they might be?" Instead, we got another "4e hates roleplaying" rant. That's why it's wrong. Plus, it's silly to think there's no method for non-lethal subdual in a non-combat situation. Your strength vs. innkeeper's Escape Artist or whatever relevant skill. Problem solved.

 

[Darth Cyric]

I have a question why is it wrong to have questions and concerns about 4E based on the fact that we don't have all the answers but it is okay ot be totally thrilled with the new rule set when we don't have all the answers?

I have had people say how can you make a decsion not to switch if you have not read the PHB and I have to wonder how can you say you will be switching if you have not read the PHB.

Voicing ones concerns about how a rule works ia not childish. The way you sound why are we even bothering discussing anything about 4E because we don't have the entire rule set in front of us.

Having opinions based on what's been released so far is fine.

Making statements about how things are going to work with absolutely no supporting evidence is NOT fine.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Really...why does the Sleep spell cause damage? That's a valid question.

Except that it doesn't.

 

[Stormtalon]

Really...why does the Sleep spell cause damage? That's a valid question.

Except that Sleep doesn't cause damage. At all. It slows, and then it renders unconscious -- and that's it. So it's a question based upon a completely erroneous premise.

Sure, there can be inferences read both ways pro- or con- but they all need to be based on valid readings of what we've seen so far. The original complaint doesn't exactly succeed on that score, which is where I believe Insight's frustration is coming from.

 

[CleverNickName]

Except that it doesn't.

Yeah, I noticed that after I wrote that last post. I went to the sample character sheet and saw that the Sleep spell is indeed harmless. Which is a relief...it is nice to know that there is at least one known way to humanely incapacitate someone. Bludgeoning someone unconscious isn't always a good idea.

But see? My point is still valid. A statement led to a discussion, which spurred me to research the matter further, and now I'm even more interested in it. Win/win.

 

[Just Another User]

Just hit them harder than you can, then, after they go down, check on them, if they are important to the plot they will be still alive, if they are not, screw them. After all, they are just NPCs, for gawd's sake.