Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[jaelis]

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?

It is more reasonable to say "I like what I've seen so far" than to say "I don't like what I haven't seen so far."

Certainly, some people are saying "I don't like what I've seen so far," and there's nothing wrong with that.

But maybe what the OP really wanted to say was, "I wonder how nonlethal combat will work, we haven't seen anything about that," and it just wasn't phrased quite that way.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Exactly. We need to focus our time on valid complaints about the system, like how rogues aren't allowed to pick powers, only builds.

 

[Stormtalon]

Exactly. We need to focus our time on valid complaints about the system, like how rogues aren't allowed to pick powers, only builds.

Ha! Irony -- I like!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Having to knock someone unconscious via hp attrition seems a heckuva lot fairer than using an instant shutdown power.

Against an equal or higher level foe, sure. But the OP explicitly addressed that. There's no particular need to be "fair" with how you deal with someone that the PCs could kill outright but don't want to. Fair in that case is having options.

The increased focus on "abstract" hp and conviction of many that in 4e you won't injure someone until you kill them also adds a wrinkle - what is non lethal damage in a system where you supposedly aren't taking damage to begin with? In 3x, some damage was lethal and some non. While it was tracked kinda wonkily, the basic rule was that if someone had a combination of lethal and non lethal damage that would take them to 0 or below, they were knocked out but in no danger of dying. This was true even if the final blow that took you to that state was lethal damage. But we keep being told that in 4e (and in the one true hp model all along according to some) none of those earlier hits were doing any real damage, they were straining some muscles, wearing the opponent down, using up his mojo.... how would non lethal damage be accumulated in such a system?

I'm all in favor of more options for not killing people, to the point where I was never satisfied with the 3e rules. I'm not expecting much from 4e in this regard, esp since they got rid of the disabled condition, which I would have rather they expanded. (Disabled could have spanned 0 to -con.)

 

[Cadfan]

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?

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.

Some criticisms are smart. Some are not. Some of the criticisms which are not smart are ones which rely on "X hasn't been disclosed yet, so there is no X." A legitimate response to arguments of this form is "Then shut up about it until either X is disclosed, or the full rules come out and you know there is no X."

The OP makes some legitimate comments about his views on things like pinning and disarming, but also some rather obnoxious comments: "The innkeeper gets possessed and attacks you? Guess you're going to have to kill him, or else run away." These presume that no rules exist for disabling someone without killing them. As near as I can tell, no supporting evidence exists for this assumption. Rather than advancing supporting evidence, the OP just disallows discussing subdual damage.

The OP should have expected this outcome.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

Well, the OP's post isn't asking any questions really. Seems like he is just commenting on pure assumption.

But to answer your underlying question here...

I think there is a difference between being positive and excited about what we DO know and the possibilities of what may come VERSUS being negative and getting upset about the things we don't have the answers for yet and assuming the worst.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

It seems to me that the issue is this:

People looking at 4e rules from DDX and saying "I like that" is fine.

People looking at 4e rules from DDX and saying "I'm not sure about that" is fine

People looking at 4e rules from DDX and saying "I don't like that" is fine.

People picking up a subject that doesn't seem to have been covered and then complaining that 4e "doesn't do xyz" however comes over as edition bashing and doesn't really help discussion.

Of course, the way things are phrased can help matters - if the original poster started off by expressing his post as a question for discussion rather than a statement of percieved failing... it would almost certainly have resulted in a higher degree of interesting distinction and a lesser degree of condemnation and justification!

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

When I played the preview events at DDXP, my DM said that any attack could be declared as non-lethal with no penalty (even spells, which seems silly...). Also, apparently it's the final attack that determines whether an opponent is killed or merely knocked unconscious.

 

[Wormwood]

When I played the preview events at DDXP, my DM said that any attack could be declared as non-lethal with no penalty (even spells, which seems silly...). Also, apparently it's the final attack that determines whether an opponent is killed or merely knocked unconscious.

Simple. Clean. Intuitive.

This is the game I want to play.

 

[glass]

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.

By and large, those who are praising thing are praising things we have actually seen. Praise (or criticism) based on facts is one thing.

OTOH, a lot of people (including the OP) are criticising 4e for not having various things -by definition you cannot legitimately do that until you have seen the whole ruleset.


glass.