4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX

[Orzel]

Being a "I use what I got" kind of man, the per day/encounter thing doesn't phase me.

The Bloodied thing intrigues me. Sounds great for party strategy. Defender stop the enemy, Strikers bloody them, Controller kill the bloodied guys, Leader stope your guys from getting bloodied.

[nagora]

As a metagame concept it doesn't really matter that much.

How do you mean? Metagaming is always a bad thing (though unavoidable to some extent) in an RPG so how can it not matter?

[Matthew]

How do you mean? Metagaming is always a bad thing (though unavoidable to some extent) in an RPG so how can it not matter?

I think that he just means that in the context of the 4e version the game it probably won't matter that they measure by encounters rather than game time. I don't necessarily agree in an absolute sense, but he may well be right in context.

[Zincorium]

How do you mean? Metagaming is always a bad thing (though unavoidable to some extent) in an RPG so how can it not matter?

You're misinterpreting, as a metagame concept it means that the characters aren't aware of it, it exists outside the game, and thus won't impinge on the immersion. And your rabid aversion to metagaming is kind of pointless, none of us like the overdoing of it but it is integral to D&D as a functional game.


Personally per-encounter abilities make the heroic adventures easier, there is no timetable for your dungeon crawl or plane walk other than one determined by the plot. As a DM, it's almost irresponsible to force players onwards when the game has determined that they have no resources. Even if they can make it through the encounters, all the interesting stuff they can normally perform goes away and it turns from a race to a death march, just trying to slog through without ending up dead at the bottom of a spiked pit.

Fast paced, high content adventures require a great deal of endurance in character design, not outright power. Wotc seems to be reducing the brunt of the PC's charge without gimping the battle afterwards.

[Matthew]

I don't really get this idea of 'forcing players onwards'. Generally, Players make their own decisions about whether to proceed or not, it's up to them to manage their resources - that's the whole substance of the problem with Wizards.

Since it sounds as though the most powerful abilities will be 'per day', this problem is still going to exist, as far as I can see.

[nagora]

You're misinterpreting, as a metagame concept it means that the characters aren't aware of it, it exists outside the game, and thus won't impinge on the immersion.

No, as a metagame concept it means that the characters aren't aware of it yet it affects how they act - it impinges from "outside". Such things can't be totally avoided in a game - they are after all most of the "game" component in an RPG - but they are almost never good for immersion.

And your rabid aversion to metagaming is kind of pointless, none of us like the overdoing of it but it is integral to D&D as a functional game.

I agree, I just don't think that saying something is a metagaming concept and threfore is unimportant makes sense in the context of trying not to overdo it.

Personally per-encounter abilities make the heroic adventures easier, there is no timetable for your dungeon crawl or plane walk other than one determined by the plot. As a DM, it's almost irresponsible to force players onwards when the game has determined that they have no resources.

Yeah, well that's one way to look at it. Another is that when they're going into danger the PCs should have to plan ahead to maximise their chances. If they fail to then they have to deal with the consequences. It's not the DM's job to hold their little hands, nor to crush them like beetles.

Even if they can make it through the encounters, all the interesting stuff they can normally perform goes away and it turns from a race to a death march, just trying to slog through without ending up dead at the bottom of a spiked pit.

If that's the only type of story your DM can serve up it's time to get a new one.

Fast paced, high content adventures require a great deal of endurance in character design, not outright power. Wotc seems to be reducing the brunt of the PC's charge without gimping the battle afterwards.

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.

[Tormsskull]

I don't really get this idea of 'forcing players onwards'. Generally, Players make their own decisions about whether to proceed or not, it's up to them to manage their resources - that's the whole substance of the problem with Wizards.

Me either. It must be different perspectives, I guess. Yes, resource management should be up to the players. This is one of the things that always was a clear division between console RPGs and D&D. Most console RPGs (like Final Fantasy) allow your party to carry around potions, tents, cabins, what have you. You can literally carry around enough potions to heal your party up 100 times over. And if for some reason that's not enough you can just step outside into the wilderness somewhere, drop down your tent/cabin and recover most/all of your HP/MP.

That's not D&D. It never has been, and I hope never will be.

Since it sounds as though the most powerful abilities will be 'per day', this problem is still going to exist, as far as I can see.

Yup. That's why I have been saying that instead of continually reworking the mechanics, we need to address the root of the problem.

[nagora]

Yup. That's why I have been saying that instead of continually reworking the mechanics, we need to address the root of the problem.

I have been thinking about just how big an impact it had on the game when spell casting in combat became so much easier. However, that's a different thread since it's unlikely that WotC are going to address that.

[Skyserpent]

I don't think that they actually plan on removing all utility/subtle spells from the game, but the idea of the "Save/die" is being removed, I'm for that, but I hope they keep the "Save/Suck" and other similar alternative combat methods. I think the playtester was talking primarily about the blaster-caster who relies heavily on disintegrate and such.

or at least I hope that's the case.

[nagora]

Ok. Running with the Athletic model...
*snip*

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.

[hamlet]

Teleport have a chance of misplacing , or worse, at least when you are teleporting back to the dungeon (and it is a 4th level spell that you can't use in another way).
and, hey! if you can afford to use a 7th and 4 8th level spells (one for each party members, not counting companions) just to fell safe, more power to you.



IMHO that is bad game mastering more than bad rolepalying, for a series of reasons
1- unless we are talking 0-2 int monsters are they just sitting there waiting for the adventurers to come back the day after? if they are intelligent monsters then either they prepare for when they return building traps or preparing ambushes, or seeking reinforcement or they just pick up and leave, with treasures and everything.
2- what about costs? I suppose the adventurers sleep into a inn or tavern, this cost how much? 5 gp/night at person? More? after all everyone know that adventurers get special prices in towns ;) if they use this hit and run tactics like this they could need even a month to clean up the dungeon, that's 150 gp at person, more or less, not cheap for a low level party.
3- reputation. what kind of mighty heroes fight 1 hour at day, just to run away and go back to rest? At the very least I'd make some of the citizen mocks them for that, maybe even some bard write comics songs about the heroes that run away to fight another day, and another, and another, and another.... They could find this come up even much later in their carrer.

D&D is not a videogame, you can't save and rest after evey combat, unless you GM is only smart as the average CPU. :)

I fail to see the point to what you are saying above. Are you saying that per day abilities (i.e., spells per day) are bad because they lead to this?

If that's what your saying, then I honestly think you're missing a huge point. The players aren't heroes because they're "best qualified" to get the job done. That makes them into little more than the Roto Router men of the world. "Intimidating forest clogged up with monsters? No problem! Just dial 1-800-ADVENTURE and we'll take care of the problem, satisfaction gauranteed!" No, they're heroes because they're otherwise normal people who stand up in the face of overwhelming odds and triumph because of courage, what skills they do have, tactics, and a good deal of luck.

[Truwar]

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.

How about a 30 second (5 round) swordfight? Real sword fights would usually be a bit more like D&D length fights; you can't keep a sword away from you forever. In fact you can't keep it away from you for very long at all, the key is to hit with it before the other guy hits you.

Don't get me wrong, I wrestled for over 12 years and have experience with Judo as well, three-five minutes can really wear you out but that is the equivalent of a 30-50 round fight and it only lasts that long because nobody is gouging anyone’s throat or carrying a knife.

I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

[Matthew]

I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

That is not all they represent, though. They also represent Luck and Divine Favour. Hit Points are a tricky business, and their precise representation differs from case to case and person to person.

[Crow]

How about a 30 second (5 round) swordfight? Real sword fights would usually be a bit more like D&D length fights; you can't keep a sword away from you forever. In fact you can't keep it away from you for very long at all, the key is to hit with it before the other guy hits you.

Don't get me wrong, I wrestled for over 12 years and have experience with Judo as well, three-five minutes can really wear you out but that is the equivalent of a 30-50 round fight and it only lasts that long because nobody is gouging anyone’s throat or carrying a knife.

I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

You gentlemen sound as if you may be interested in Crossfit.

[Dausuul]

That is not all they represent, though. They also represent Luck and Divine Favour. Hit Points are a tricky business, and their precise representation differs from case to case and person to person.

Yeah, hit points are a pain. The fluff claims they reflect fighting skill as well as raw toughness, yet the mechanics all imply raw toughness and nothing else. Otherwise your hit points ought to drop if you get paralyzed or knocked unconscious, and it ought not take more cure light wounds spells to heal a high-level fighter than a low-level one (or, at least, the number required should not scale linearly with hit points).

I interpret hit points as a combination of cinematic fortitude (see the "Diehard" movies, or General Kael in "Willow") and a certain element of good fortune that keeps you from taking instantly fatal or crippling wounds--that is, you never get stabbed through the heart or decapitated as long as you have hit points left. So the high-level fighter can get mauled repeatedly by a bear, stabbed five or six times, and shot so full of arrows he looks like a pincushion, but none of the wounds hits a vital spot, and he can keep on going because he's Just That Tough.

With the new system, it sounds as if part of hit point loss may also represent shock and fatigue, with that part being recovered after battle when you have a chance to rest a bit.

[nagora]

How about a 30 second (5 round) swordfight? Real sword fights would usually be a bit more like D&D length fights; you can't keep a sword away from you forever. In fact you can't keep it away from you for very long at all, the key is to hit with it before the other guy hits you.

With armour fights last longer; with equal skill levels fights last longer. As a rule of thumb, the old 1 minute rounds were closer to reality IME. Combats are ridiculously short in 3ed. I've seen gunfights that took longer than a 3ed dual with sowrds.

Don't get me wrong, I wrestled for over 12 years and have experience with Judo as well, three-five minutes can really wear you out but that is the equivalent of a 30-50 round fight and it only lasts that long because nobody is gouging anyone’s throat or carrying a knife.

Believe me, when you both have 4' blades (ours were sharp too) you lose the urge to charge in and just see what happens. You do, as the DMG used to say, spend a lot of time making feints and testing the opponent's guard. In a mass combat things are different but you rarely fight the same opponent from moment to moment and the gaps between add up; once again 30 seconds for an entire battle is laughable. It is strange that so much effort is spent in 3ed to model something so badly.

I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

Partly, sure. But drastically increasing the recovery rate makes a huge difference to the style of the game and moves even further towards video game territory.

Hit points are a great abstraction and like all abstractions they break down in places. In 1ed we had rules to cover some of these but the weakest spot was always "save or die". While I am happy for Medusa's gaze or other legendary creatures' effects to be save or stoned as special cases, in general there is no obvious reason why your divine blessing/luck/toughness that fends off a deadly blow with a halbard should not also do likewise to a Disintegrate.

On the other hand, I'd drop all "save for half damage" rolls too - there's plenty of HP in 3ed to let characters suck it up.

[Starbuck_II]

Aside from that - how often can you use "per encounter" abilities if you're not in an encounter?

Not unril you rest X/time. If You really like 15 minutes than we can go with that.
If ToB than 1 minute. Granted, no one has fireball in ToB.

If you can cast a fireball once per encounter, how often can you do it if you're just standing on a grassy field alone?

I just said above.

How often can you do it if your first use starts an encounter (because people notice it, consider you hostile, and attack)?
.

If you have a full minute of no one attacking you: you might be able to refresh it (big if, crossbows are simple weapons so commoners could use them).
If not? You don't get it back. You started the encounter: you face the consequences.

[Crow]

As somebody already said, the whole "per day", "per encounter" thing is an unneccessary abtraction.

We need to use "real time".

[Dausuul]

Believe me, when you both have 4' blades (ours were sharp too) you lose the urge to charge in and just see what happens. You do, as the DMG used to say, spend a lot of time making feints and testing the opponent's guard. In a mass combat things are different but you rarely fight the same opponent from moment to moment and the gaps between add up; once again 30 seconds for an entire battle is laughable. It is strange that so much effort is spent in 3ed to model something so badly.

So, you and your friend were fighting with sharp swords but (I assume) trying not to hurt each other. That sounds to me like a recipe for a very long contest. Sorry, but unless you've been in a fight where you were actually trying to kill somebody before they killed you, I don't buy this as an example of how long a real combat would take.

By all accounts I've been able to find, real, lethal combat tends to be fast, messy, and ugly. Especially when you consider that in D&D, half the time you're not even fighting a human being--you're fighting a gigantic dragon or a ravening undead.

[Matthew]

Real fighting tends to be lengthy periods of eyeing one another up, punctuated by short and bloody periods of activity, or so I am led to believe. AD&D represented that one way, 3e represents it another. All preferential, to be sure.

[Roderick_BR]

The HP mechanic is interesting. I bet a lot of new spell effects will change according to how "bloodied" an enemy is.
Yeah, I hope they can change the "save-or-die/suck" into something workable, without nerfing too much casters, and that direct damage spells work better for those that like to play blasters. I mean, ca'mon, debuffing, charming, and making illusions are cool... But I want to blow sh*t up sometimes, and don't die because of it.

[nagora]

So, you and your friend were fighting with sharp swords but (I assume) trying not to hurt each other. That sounds to me like a recipe for a very long contest. Sorry, but unless you've been in a fight where you were actually trying to kill somebody before they killed you, I don't buy this as an example of how long a real combat would take.

Well, put it this way, we had to knock the dents out of the armour at night as well as bandaging the occassional (very light) wound. Obviously we were not trying to kill each other, but I'm judging it on time to the first blow hitting home past the shield rather than to the point where we stopped. I'd repeat that having someone come at you with a huge knife is great incentive to prevent them making contact at all! Diagrams in old combat manuals represent a very static ideal not found in real running around a field combat of the sort PCs tend to engage in (ie, no nice neat formations and number-sequenced manoeuvres).

Also, a person who survived a battle in real life could well be out on the field for hours even if individual duals were short. Even the bitter melee after an infantry charge lasted far longer than most 1ed combats, and some people at least survived through the whole event.

By all accounts I've been able to find, real, lethal combat tends to be fast, messy, and ugly. Especially when you consider that in D&D, half the time you're not even fighting a human being--you're fighting a gigantic dragon or a ravening undead.

If you're going to argue that D&D isn't real life and doesn't have to be realistic that's fine, I just don't see the point of introducing a complex system in place of a simpler, more abstract one if the end result is no more realistic or exciting.

[Deepblue706]

I don't believe real one-on-one combat is something over in a matter of seconds, though I suppose in the chaos of a full-on battle could lead to many quick deaths. The only way a duel would end very quickly is if it is highly one-sided, or if idiocy on a grand scale was introduced.

I once had a fencing match that lasted 3 minutes before the first touch - this was against one of the best fencers in my county at my level, at the time (He wasn't a chump, nor was I, is what I'm illustrating).

I've participated in a handful of SCA bouts that lasted similar lengths of time. Even though you may want to be rid of a threat immediately, sometimes you have to take your time, and plan some depth to your attacks. Combat shouldn't be how it is in D&D all the time - and defensive maneuvers should definitely be a viable option for martial characters.

Also, people tire, and exhaust during fights. And that fatigue stays with you unless you get sudden bursts. I've gotten them, sure - but eventually after so many bursts, you become uncoordinated, begin to vomit, and you could possibly collapse.

[Dausuul]

I don't believe real one-on-one combat is something over in a matter of seconds, though I suppose in the chaos of a full-on battle could lead to many quick deaths. The only way a duel would end very quickly is if it is highly one-sided, or if idiocy on a grand scale was introduced.

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.

[Crow]

I've been in quite a few fights in my day and I'll add this;

Throwing a barstool at a guy is a great way to open him up so you can move in and finish him off. There's not much "probing" going on there. Just violence of action and quick thinking.

Also, don't underestimate nailing a guy from behind while your buddy's brawling with him. Things like this aren't represented in most duels, which is why they make a poor comparison.

[nagora]

I've been in quite a few fights in my day and I'll add this;

Throwing a barstool at a guy is a great way to open him up so you can move in and finish him off. There's not much "probing" going on there. Just violence of action and quick thinking.

That's fair enough at low levels (ah, the old tavern brawl - how many characters' careers did it launch?), 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 .

Also, don't underestimate nailing a guy from behind while your buddy's brawling with him. Things like this aren't represented in most duels, which is why they make a poor comparison.

The old 1ed "Backstab" rule. Yes, that tended to bring fights to a quicker conclusion.

[Crow]

That's fair enough at low levels (ah, the old tavern brawl - how many characters' careers did it launch?), 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 .

Maybe if it was a +1 Barstool of faint beer odor...?

[nagora]

When was the last time your character fought a duel in D&D?

Last Tuesday.

D&D combat isn't a formal duel or anything like it;

Well, it can be a formal duel, and it can be an informal one where two characters simply duke it out because, well, they're the two having the fight.

it usually starts with an ambush and involves a savage melee in which absolutely anything goes.

Ah, well. Surprise is another thing. 1ed switched to 6 second rounds for that specifically because a surprised opponent might be dispatched quickly before they can get their guard up.

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.

Yes, and your party is trying the same thing. If you're all good and experienced and not overwelmed by ambush, then a 30 second scramble is not going to result. Watch riot police advancing in a group; they're probably armoured and probably armed too. They use discipline and training to counter charges and even missile weapons. A party of high level fighters in full armour are more likely to resemble that than an bunch of screaming orcs.

Obviously, if your fighters have no sense of combat discipline then they may well have a life expectancy of 30 seconds, but I think we all agree that our fighters might be a bit mad, but the high level ones are not generally stupid.

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.

As I said before, though, real life battles in chain and plate armour involving thousands of people did happen, and they did not take a few minutes to resolve as each front row fell in 30 seconds or so of wild combat. Tactics were used, armour was used, experienced combatants avoided those who could pose a serious threat to them.

And that's with no magic healing or defenses and probably nobody above 4th level!

I'm not arguing for a gritty reality, just that there's no real argument for picking up the pace of combat even further and certainly not the "realism" one that's been suggested for "per encounter" abilities.

Does it matter? Not much, but there are cases where people hold opponents off while some other activity (such as fleeing) is done. Since fleeing is not done at a "Benny Hill" speeds there is a balance issue between the game reality and the world reality.

[Hopeless]

Adding some drawbacks for being heavily wounded is clearly good. However, limiting options to just dealing damage doesn't sound too good.

Oh I don't know would these effects slow them down for example?
Would it allow say the unarmoured wizard to outrun a monstrous foe who would otherwise turn its antimagic eyeball at him so it could slowly devour him... yet this time he could actually effect it so he could say pull off the rincewind maneuver and actually expect to pull it off?

[Hopeless]

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..."

1) Ogre lumbers into view...
2) Turns to go around paladin and goblins...
3) By this point if you're still here you're certainly dead but if you're from the very large community of people familar with this tactic please remember that it takes the ogre one round to notice you and another round before he can even attack you, thats two rounds spent using the Rincewind maneuver which has been duplicated in the b5 universe by a certain minbari as getting the **** out of here! maneuver.

Yes its cowardly but you are;
a) low on hp,
b) not a melee combatant by choice and
c) facing an ogre because your teammates have chosen to pick a fight with a group of weaker enemies instead of letting them come to them (with you standing behind) so you can colour spray them unconscious... or grease them... or sleep them... perhaps summon a monster to distract them so they can deal with the real threat after all a 10' reach is a threat now isn't it?!

Answer to above if ogre gets initative...
"Like **** I'm standing here whilst its approaching I've already fled!"
"But its not your initative!"
"In case you haven't noticed the time it would take to avoid them and get to me isn't enough to reach me if all i'm doing is retreating!"
"But you're running and under 4.0 rules..."
"This is a roleplaying game! I'm roleplaying there's a ****** big monster with a big club coming after me, I'm roleplaying fright inspired flight and I'm not staying where he can get me!"
"But..."
"His initiative is walk into cavern or opening, sees party fighting goblins, sees me and decides to avoid rest of party plus goblins to go after me... my attack of opportunity on seeing the ground quake as it moves towards me is to run like ****! okay and my movement is quadrupled since I'm not encumbered and not wearing armour and I know the way out and I'm not staying anywhere where that thing is going and in case you hadn't noticed intiative doesn't mean I cn't react to something thats hppening in front of me and attacks of opprtunity don't just mean attacks but also reacting to something that happens in my vicinity like a freakingogre coming straight at me!"
"But 4th edition..."
"Is supposed to be streamlined to deal with this, I take it thts not the case then?"
Sorry caught me in an imaginative mood, please let me know if this is how you'd handle being on the receiving end whether dm or player please.

PS: This reply wasn't intended to offend, its just that this is the first sign I've seen of anyone actually discussing the implications that I'm afraid I got a little carried away.