-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abstruse
Much as I like the thought of conditions being applied to combatants -- Bloodied, to name the most prominently mentioned -- I've got to admit I'm dubious about the apparent near-abolishment of save-or-debuff spells. I can't help but imagine something like the following...
"The ogre lumbers around the paladin and the goblins, snarling and slapping its enormous club into its free hand."
"Um... oh crap... the fighter's still tied up too?"
"A few more strides and the ogre will be close enough for you to smell its vile breath."
"I cast ray of enfeeblement! Hopefully that'll weaken it enough to--"
"Oh, you must've played 3.5. There's no ray of enfeeblement in 4.0."
"What?!? Crap. Um. Magic missile, then, for... uh... 5."
"The ogre bellows as your spell slams home, but seems otherwise unbothered. It lashes out with its club and hits you for... ouch. 15."
"Well, ****. I'm dead. That was lots of fun..."
I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I were the DM, I'd make sure my players knew the BASICS of their classes before they picked them. This wizard apparently didn't even look at the 4th ed. spell list, assuming that all 3.5 spells were copied and pasted over and not modified at all... Not a good example.
Anyways, it seems like alot of people are expecting the worst from the new system. We don't know how healing will be affected by 'per encounter' mechanics so there's not reason to assume that the players will always be at 100% max HP at the start of every fight. I also hope that they'd have the wisdom to put down a balanced 'recharge rate' for the /encounter abilities (rest/meditate for 15 minutes, etc...). If the game designers haven't thought any of this through (as the majority of posters seem to think), then, well, they need new game designers and playtesters.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
As far as healing goes with 3.5, it had progressed to the point that Binders, Dragon Shamans, and even a Fighter with the Draconic Aura feat had started to make the Cleric-As-Healer less necessary. I'd like to see that continue.
As far as avoiding 100% hp recovery between encounters, maybe leader-role characters will be able to generate extra hit point recovery (as per SW Saga), which gives an extra 1/4 hp back, but limited to only 1/day per character. If they use the Saga mechanic, that means one recovery from the character, and another recovery from the leader-type, and a possible third recovery from a feat or talent.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
As far as playtesters go, I think there's good reason to be concerned. It seems the playtesters are primarily concerned with making sure that the game can be run, and is entertaining, when played the way the designer's envisioned...not necessarily the way the written rules imply, or the way a typical player is likely to interpret things, or the way a min-maxer is likely to build his character, or any of a dozen things that should be part of testing. They basically just test to see if the game can work as envisioned, not to find the flaws.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erudite
As far as healing goes with 3.5, it had progressed to the point that Binders, Dragon Shamans, and even a Fighter with the Draconic Aura feat had started to make the Cleric-As-Healer less necessary. I'd like to see that continue.
As far as avoiding 100% hp recovery between encounters, maybe leader-role characters will be able to generate extra hit point recovery (as per SW Saga), which gives an extra 1/4 hp back, but limited to only 1/day per character. If they use the Saga mechanic, that means one recovery from the character, and another recovery from the leader-type, and a possible third recovery from a feat or talent.
Yeah, I really liked the 'Second Wind' (I think that's what it is) mechanic in Star Wars. It gives off a more 'heroic' feel (I.E. the down and out hero suddenly gets the courage to keep pushing just a little longer, etc...). I've never heard of a binder, though. Is that 3.5 D&D?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tainsouvra
As far as playtesters go, I think there's good reason to be concerned. It seems the playtesters are primarily concerned with making sure that the game can be run, and is entertaining, when played the way the designer's envisioned...not necessarily the way the written rules imply, or the way a typical player is likely to interpret things, or the way a min-maxer is likely to build his character, or any of a dozen things that should be part of testing. They basically just test to see if the game can work as envisioned, not to find the flaws.
Good lord, I really hope you're wrong (though a small part of me feels that this makes sense from a 'company about to release a huge product' point of view). It really pissed me off that beta testers were chosen from people that attended that conference a few weeks ago... I just hope that there's some diversity in their beta tester group.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nagora
but D&D is supposed to be a bit higher fantasy than that and simply dispatching the Black Knight with a bar stool isn't going to win any drama awards for a 9th level Fighter :smallwink:.
Maybe, maybe not. Over the course of a fairly serious campaign, one of the players in my group managed to crit other PCs with wooden spoons fired from his composite longbow 3 times. And by the second or third one, the ammunition rules dictate that it was a +1 Holy wooden spoon.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nagora
But if everyone's always at 80-100% of health etc, where's the varity?
I haven't had time to keep on with this argument, but I wanna get something clear as to not spread a false rumor around.
You got it totally wrong. I said "80% of their fighting capacity (baring HP)". As far as I know, "baring HP" means "except for HP" or "excluding HP" (I'm not being ironic, english is not my first language, correct me if I got it wrong).
So, what I meant is that characters are always gonna have at least 80% of their abilities available (including those continuous and those use-activated).
But their HP will go down as usual.
I get this information from a quote I read in enworld:
Quote:
"a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
Yes, I generalized it, and made some assumptions.:smallbiggrin:
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aximili
You got it totally wrong. I said "80% of their fighting capacity (baring HP)". As far as I know, "baring HP" means "except for HP" or "excluding HP" (I'm not being ironic, english is not my first language, correct me if I got it wrong).
You're mostly right. The word you're actually looking for is "barring," meaning excluding or excepting. "Baring" comes from the verb "bare" meaning to expose.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dausuul
When was the last time your character fought a duel in D&D?
D&D combat isn't a formal duel or anything like it; it usually starts with an ambush and involves a savage melee in which absolutely anything goes. It's the party kicking in a door and rushing a gang of orcish thugs, or the same gang of thugs leaping from hiding and trying to murder the PCs. In a fight like that, you want to end the guy in front of you and do it fast, before he pulls a poisoned knife you didn't know he had and gets it past your guard, or his buddy comes up behind you and stabs you in the back. And the guy in front of you has exactly the same attitude. A minute would be a long fight under such conditions... which is what I meant by "real combat," since that's the way real-world combat usually happens.
I think Nagora answered this already quite similarly to how I would.
But, I'd like to add: I did acknowledge there are moments when combat isn't likely to be drawn out - but that doesn't mean all combat is done within a minute. Why? Because trying to "end the guy in front of you and do it fast" isn't easy if the fight isn't already one-sided to begin with. You have no idea of how to measure the combat capability of an enemy, unless you take the time to assess them. They have a knife and I have a sword? Alright, I think I'll try to hit him. If we both have knives? Uhmmm....I think I want to catch him off his guard.
But yes, while I made mention of very lengthy fencing bouts I've made, I've also beaten someone (made 5 touches) in 30 seconds.
I never said taking a full minute to guess their abilities is always the way to do it, but what I mean is that making nothing but mindless attacks isn't a good idea in a fight. Yet, in D&D, it's the most effective way of winning. Fighting defensively is almost never a viable tactic, using combat expertise isn't very useful unless you have absurdly high AC bonuses already, feinting is only good at first level, unless you're a rogue. When the greatest plan a fighter can have is to use a two-handed sword in conjunction with Leap Attack and Heedless Charge, something seems wrong to me. Sure, two-handers were good if you had plenty of armor, but, I'd really like to see other effective ways of dealing with an enemy.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Merlin the Tuna
You're mostly right. The word you're actually looking for is "barring," meaning excluding or excepting. "Baring" comes from the verb "bare" meaning to expose.
Hm, so that's why the browser's dictionary didn't pick it up.^^
Thanks.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deepblue706
I never said taking a full minute to guess their abilities is always the way to do it, but what I mean is that making nothing but mindless attacks isn't a good idea in a fight. Yet, in D&D, it's the most effective way of winning. Fighting defensively is almost never a viable tactic, using combat expertise isn't very useful unless you have absurdly high AC bonuses already, feinting is only good at first level, unless you're a rogue. When the greatest plan a fighter can have is to use a two-handed sword in conjunction with Leap Attack and Heedless Charge, something seems wrong to me. Sure, two-handers were good if you had plenty of armor, but, I'd really like to see other effective ways of dealing with an enemy.
I have to agree with this. Having been in fights in RL, with and without weapons (and I don't mean stage combats or training bouts, I mean *he's trying to kill me* kind of fights), I can honestly say that rushing in attacking wildly is a good way to get yourself killed.
So, I would like that defensive fighting was modelled more effectively in D&D. Not necessarily longer fights, but ones where there's more to it than "I bash the giant", "I'm going to Power Attack, and bash the giant harder this round", "Lookit, I use another feat and *bash*"
I personally think that 3.x is a balanced a bit too far on the bash, to the detriment of the dodge. At it's base though, I think it's really a problem with the hp system in general, not just fighters in specific. I've always like whole Passive Defence/Active Defence thing in GURPS, but I don't think it would translate into D&D very well without loosing the D&D flavor.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fhaolan
At it's base though, I think it's really a problem with the hp system in general, not just fighters in specific. I've always like whole Passive Defence/Active Defence thing in GURPS, but I don't think it would translate into D&D very well without loosing the D&D flavor.
It translated quite well for me. :smallwink:
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fhaolan
I have to agree with this. Having been in fights in RL, with and without weapons (and I don't mean stage combats or training bouts, I mean *he's trying to kill me* kind of fights), I can honestly say that rushing in attacking wildly is a good way to get yourself killed.
So, I would like that defensive fighting was modelled more effectively in D&D. Not necessarily longer fights, but ones where there's more to it than "I bash the giant", "I'm going to Power Attack, and bash the giant harder this round", "Lookit, I use another feat and *bash*"
With that I'll agree. D&D tries to present a variety of tactical options, but the mechanics heavily favor the "berserker charge" approach, if only because defensive tactics usually result in the enemy going after your squishier friends. I'm not saying there's no such thing as tactics or self-defense in a real, lethal fight; just that I don't see those tactics resulting in fights that go on for 5-10 minutes.
Forgive me if this question is too personal, but how long would you say the fights you were in generally took?
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nagora
Well, I guess you and I are living in different planets. Where I live sports commentators and trainers use the phrase "peaked too soon" so often it's a cliche, rugby players become prone to injury when they train too hard for too long, tennis players and entire football teams complain if they have too many matches scheduled in a week because it puts them at a disadvantage, and even chess and snooker tournaments try to keep the finals on separate days from the semi's.
My personal experience from swordfighting with metal weapons is that even once you are in condition the effects of a long, hard fight last for hours.
The key term there being, Nagora, a "Good long fight"
I've been playing since 2nd ed, and can count the number of times I've seen combat go beyond twenty rounds on one hand. Beyond thirty on one finger.
That whole combat? In Game? Two to Three Minutes.
Training too hard for too long? TWO OR THREE MINUTES?
Yes, exhaustive training regimens will promote muscle fatigue, and dangerous levels of un-recovered damage in professional athletes.
The length of time involved in most encounters is less than one Boxing round. It's less than four downs, in american football. Less time than one batter is up at any given at-bat in baseball.
Never mind that the most singularly gifted and potent athletes that have EVER LIVED come in somewhere around a level 5 on the D&D Level scale.
The overwhelming majority of all of the combat I've seen in over a decade of gaming CERTAINLY lasted less in-game time than an inning of Baseball, a quarter of Football, or a period of Hockey.
Yes, after prolonged, extensive rigorous activity, it can take some time to recover.
Most D&D Combat encounters don't come anywhere near comparing to the length of the activities that would exhaust one for an entire day.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
I know this discussion have deviated pretty far from 4th edition info from PAX, but here is a piece I found out there anyways.
New base classes will only be found in players handbooks, so you only have to look through a limited number of books to find a class for your character. PrCs will still be found in other books.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dausuul
Forgive me if this question is too personal, but how long would you say the fights you were in generally took?
Unfortunately, there were a lot of variables in those, so I'm not sure how helpful those kinds of statistics would be. It's rare for me to be real fight against just one person in blank terrain unless it's a duel-like situation with a ring of people around. Usually it's a group against a group, with lots of junk nearby to toss at and dodge around. Sometimes somebody prematurely ends the fight by shooting someone. Or the police show up, either way.
The duel-like situations I've been in, with people making a circle around you and you going at it with knives, are a bit different. Those were more about intimidation and dominance than really trying to kill. They all ended in first blood, usually. If it went beyond that it got ended by the spectators.
Of course, this was all *years* ago, back when I was... sixteen? Eighteen? Something like that. All that garbage seemed important then, somehow.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dausuul
With that I'll agree. D&D tries to present a variety of tactical options, but the mechanics heavily favor the "berserker charge" approach, if only because defensive tactics usually result in the enemy going after your squishier friends.
Well, there's that, and the fact that using other tactics when the enemy IS going for you rarely work in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dausuul
I'm not saying there's no such thing as tactics or self-defense in a real, lethal fight; just that I don't see those tactics resulting in fights that go on for 5-10 minutes.
Whoa whoa, I never said 5-10 minutes. I said I went 3 minutes before a touch was scored in a fencing bout, and a few SCA matches. They were very good matches.
I think that was just slightly too much of an exaggeration.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nagora
Fast paced, high content adventures that consist of the same abilities being repeated over and over again with everyone returned to a state of full rest and recovery after each encounter sounds a bit dull to me. Actually, very dull indeed.
Yes. If only someone could find a way to give characters heroic moves above and beyond their normal abilities, without having them repeated over and over every round. Perhaps a once-per-encounter system would work?
As I see it, if I'm playing a fighter of massive strength, I want to be able to use that massive strength in ways no-one else can. If you're happy with 'add a slightly larger number than other people do', then stick with first edition. If you think that any restrictions on fighter's ability use are a crime, then give the fighter double damage on every attack and watch balance go out of a different window to the old ones.
If, on the other hand, you think that having the big blow available when it really matters is a valid stylistic move and an interesting choice of timing for the fighter to make - as I do - then can you think of a better method than per-encounter?
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Well characters tend to change very little between encounters anyways. If you fight five orcs five times in a row, every battle will be the same, as you'll use the same abilities and tactics. The trick is to vary encounters enough where the players will be forced to rethink their battle stratagy instead of relying on the same tactics.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fhaolan
So, I would like that defensive fighting was modelled more effectively in D&D. Not necessarily longer fights, but ones where there's more to it than "I bash the giant", "I'm going to Power Attack, and bash the giant harder this round", "Lookit, I use another feat and *bash*"
Speaking from personal experience from a recent arena match I played, Tome of Battle has added quite a bit in the way of defensive fighting. My character had a very powerful offense, but my opponent kept throwing counters at me which, combined with the Pearl of Black Doubt stance, brought my hit rate waaaaaaay down. Now consider that ToB appears to have been the testbed for 4E melee. :smallwink:
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deepblue706
Whoa whoa, I never said 5-10 minutes. I said I went 3 minutes before a touch was scored in a fencing bout, and a few SCA matches. They were very good matches.
I think that was just slightly too much of an exaggeration.
I wasn't talking about your fencing matches specifically; this debate got started over the question of which is more realistic, the 6-second 3E (and presumably 4E) combat round, or the 60-second 1E/2E combat round. D&D combats typically take about 5 rounds, 10 at the outside, so it's a question of 30-60 seconds versus 5-10 minutes.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dausuul
I wasn't talking about your fencing matches specifically; this debate got started over the question of which is more realistic, the 6-second 3E (and presumably 4E) combat round, or the 60-second 1E/2E combat round. D&D combats typically take 5 rounds, 10 at the outside, so it's a question of 30-60 seconds versus 5-10 minutes.
You ever seen a sabre-duel? Each "round" lasts about three seconds, tops.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SpikeFightwicky
I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I were the DM, I'd make sure my players knew the BASICS of their classes before they picked them.
Knowing may be half the battle, but not knowing is half the fun!
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Right, let's talk about a few things.
First off, four encounters in a day? Largely a myth. I'll acknowledge that. It's a recommendation, but it's often wrong, as many DMs have noticed. Parties may be able to go through more or fewer of these, depending on what exactly they're up against, what level they are, what tactics they're using, and how lucky they are. At low levels, the number tends to be fewer than four. Set the party four encounters in a day, and they're liable to die (and might die anyway, if they suffer any bad luck; a single good hit can kill just about any low level character). At higher levels, they can take more.
But there is still generally a point where the characters don't have anything left they can throw at the enemy. The casters have run out of spells, the barbarian can't rage, and HP is low all around. They can still fight, but they're not going to be nearly as effective (lack of buffs and offensive abilities). Take it far enough, and you reach the point where if they aren't allowed to rest, they will die. Grind them further, and you may be looking at a TPK. A good DM will be know approximately where this is, but if the players are unlucky (or misinterpret the situation), they might reach that point a lot sooner than the DM planned. At that point, the DM can either hold off on the plot he designed, or risk killing the party. Conversely, they might not reach that point when you plan them to, and you need to think fast to make sure they still have a challenge.
With what I've seen so far from 4th edition, it seems that you'll have a much better idea of what they're going into each fight with. They might be low on HP, but they can still fight fairly well, so that while there's a greater element of risk, they've still got a chance of making their way through the battle. They can still take on a tough opponent, even if they'd prefer to rest and get healed up first.
And per encounter is basically an umbrella term. All it really means in practice is that whatever recharge you need for your abilities, it's impractical in combat. ToB classes aren't really per encounter, since they can recharge in mid-fight. Someone who takes a maneuver without a ToB class does have a per encounter ability, since he has to go a full minute without fighting to use it again. Same with skill tricks. You don't need to define what an encounter is for this to work. You just have to make sure the player can't do it over and over again in the middle of a fight.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jack Mann
And per encounter is basically an umbrella term. All it really means in practice is that whatever recharge you need for your abilities, it's impractical in combat. ToB classes aren't really per encounter, since they can recharge in mid-fight. Someone who takes a maneuver without a ToB class does have a per encounter ability, since he has to go a full minute without fighting to use it again. Same with skill tricks. You don't need to define what an encounter is for this to work. You just have to make sure the player can't do it over and over again in the middle of a fight.
True, but recharging means using no special moves (need swift action and says you can't) and if Swordsage give up turn. If Crusader, pray to god they return (literally).
I mean, if a particular technique is very good against these guys I can see trying to recharge it, but otherwise it is best to use all your available abilities first.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
True. The point is just that it's possible for them to get them back in a fight if you really want to, whereas most per-encounter abilities it's rarely practical, unless one of your buddies can hold off the enemy for ten or more rounds. But as you say, for warblade or especially swordsage, it might not be worthwhile. Granted, just about any swordsage will get adaptive style (I think part of the balancing factor on swordsage builds is that they effectively have one fewer feat from the need for that 'un), but it's still a round spent doing nothing else.
Crusaders, despite the divine intervention fluff, are best off, since they don't need to spend an action to get them back. It happens automatically. They're right back in the fray with their abilities, even if they're not sure just which ones they'll have from round to round.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dausuul
I wasn't talking about your fencing matches specifically; this debate got started over the question of which is more realistic, the 6-second 3E (and presumably 4E) combat round, or the 60-second 1E/2E combat round. D&D combats typically take about 5 rounds, 10 at the outside, so it's a question of 30-60 seconds versus 5-10 minutes.
I wasn't talking about my fencing matches NOT being 5-10 minutes long, I was using that as an example of how sometimes, combat can be lengthy (but generally not too long). D&D 3.x can't really...ever model an extended fight unless you have two fighters at level 1 using Combat Expertise and fighting defensively while using shields and wearing heavy armor. That shouldn't be only instance where things should be drawn out, IMO.
I have no strong opinions about 6 seconds, but 60 seconds does seem too long. I just think less should happen in 6 seconds that what already does. There's a large gap between 30-60 seconds and 5-10 minutes. I think it should rest somewhere between both range limits.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
I think the idea that a round is a preset length of time is rather silly. The amount of time a round is should be however long it takes everyone to act. In some situations that may be a couple seconds (a quick volly of arrows exchanged between two groups.) to a minute or more.(an epic duel on the rigging of a ship).
Like many things in D&D, pacing is really something that should be adjusted to fit the moment.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
The problem I see with switching over to mostly per encounter abilities is that the characters are going to be able to go on for far too long. There should be a point when the characters are just exhausted and need to sleep. With casters, I've always interpreted it to be that casting a spell is a physically demanding experience, and so after casting a certain number per day they are simply too tire to cast any more. This is something that I've thought for a while should be applied to non-casters as well. Even if you only get 80% of your capability back after each encounter with the per encounter set-up, what is to stop a party from going at 80% for five days straight only taking fifteen to twenty minutes to rest? As for things like the Rogue's Defensive Roll, it makes sense to me that something that physically demanding takes a lot out of you, more than you can get back after only pausing for fifteen minutes. As for combat length, I have always thought that a six second round was a little short. As someone else pointed out, you're not rolling every swing of a sword, you're rolling the ones that matter where you are really trying to hit someone, not all of the feinting that goes on in between. I've always thought a fifteen-twenty second round was a lot more reasonable. That makes most fights last about a minute, with the big fights lasting up to five. I think that's pretty reasonable.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
And I definately disagree that making caster spells per encounter makes it more fair for them. If a caster is out of spells after only two or three encounters, they they're not playing their character right. Every primary caster should have at least a couple of wands to fill out their spell output each day. Just like fighters have to spend money on better weapons, casters have to shell out money to buy themselves the equipment to make themselves effective for a full day of adventuring. I've never had a DM who stuck to only four encounters per day. And you know what, our casters have been fine. I'm playing a caster now, and honestly I'm rarely the first party member who wants to rest, and that's with me casting something, either of my own or with a wand, almost every round of combat. If a player is complaining demanding the whole party sleep after only two or three encounters to get his spells back, that's too bad for him. He should learn to plan ahead better.
-
Re: 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX
For one thing, we don't know if they'll be able to recover hit points that easily. Being out of healing abilities will still keep them from sallying forth. And there may also be rules for sleeping. Going five days without rest isn't good in the real world. Some good exhaustion rules should help with that.
And the problem is that the spells-per-day constraints don't work consistently across levels, and also create an irritating limit on the adventures you can run. No matter how good the player is, eventually they're going to run out of spells if you throw enough encounters at them. If they constantly have to supplement their spells per day with scrolls and wands, that's going become very expensive, especially with the higher level spells.