Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308904My statements are obvious because they happen to be true.

So is the sunrise.  No one talks about it, and no one considers it a startling revelation, either.

QuoteYour addition "adhere to the rules being used" is vacuous. Players choose when to apply the rules and how. To talk about how the rules function outside of that context is to be talking about nothing at all.

Only for you, as you lack even the most fundamental grasp of game design.

QuoteI certainly agree I'm talking about the rules. You don't seem to understand that rules require interpretation and application, and that these are the only way by which they come to exist in a roleplaying game.

Incorrect.  The game may not exist outside of the rules, but the rules quite clearly exist in and of themselves.  That is why your entire 'theory' is bankrupt.

QuoteWhy are you still talking as if it is not obvious that you are a prevaricator and unscrupulous sophist?

Says the expert on those fields.

You ever wonder why you are the only one that has a problem understanding my posts?

QuoteAh, now it's a "literary device". I'm still waiting for a description of which one it was then. You made up a quote to be able to pretend that it was an actual position taken by someone. You did so dishonestly, in order to be able to argue against a strawman rather than engage with anyone's actual position.

You really need to find a different way of reading besides 'strict literalism'.  That is part of the broader 'reading comprehension' skills you need to work on.

Pseudo - serious, non-snarky question: Why are you playing 4e instead of 3e or 3.5? I assume you played one or both of those in the past, so what is it that convinced you to make the switch?

I'm not Pseudo, but I like the way combat works in 4e and I'm too stupid to make a character in 3.x. I bend the shit out of the game though- but I do that with pretty much every RPG I use.

Quote from: Werekoala;308975Pseudo - serious, non-snarky question: Why are you playing 4e instead of 3e or 3.5? I assume you played one or both of those in the past, so what is it that convinced you to make the switch?

A guy in my group wanted to switch, and I'm up for trying almost anything at least once.

I've stuck with it because I like 4e's combat system more than stock 3.5's. In 3.5, I almost always played casters because weapon-wielding classes were extremely boring in play. It got better when we jumped to Iron Heroes, but the basic problem still remained of full attacks encouraging static battles, and most of the tactical options being useless (Sunder, Disarm, Trip). Right before 4e was announced, I had just proposed to another guy in my group that we start totally revamping combat in 3.5/IH to make combat more mobile and dynamic, involving parries, more opposed rolls, etc.

While 4e didn't solve the problems in the same way I would have, it deals with the same set of problems that I was. Combat is faster and more dynamic, with positioning mattering more and all types of PCs having a good variety of options, not just casters.

There are other reasons beyond just that, but that was the specific one that made me decide to go along with the switch and get a feel for the rest of the system.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308898I really don't see how this makes the choices "vacuous". I'd even compare it favourably to 3.x, where with the exception of a few trick builds, the optimal strategy of every weapon wielding class (with the late exception of Scout) was to move adjacent to the enemy and then stand still launching as many full attack actions as one could.

Hm, I'm not convinced of that line of argument. You see, depending on what's at stake, 3E-detractors* assume one of several conflicting positions. As in any other debate, I vastly prefer to debate with people who choose a position and stick to it. Case in point, compare 1. and 2.

1. 3E was so unbalanced. Look at a 12th level fighter next to any 12th level caster. Casters had spades of options (not to mention POWER), fighters were severely limited in what they could do.

2. 3E is so narrowing, hardly leaves any choice to people in the game. For instance, look at fighters - they can only do one thing, really. Other character classes? Never heard of (that is, never heard of until point 1. becomes pertinent again).

See, my response to either 1. or 2. - both of which partially contain valid observations - is the following. 3E is a game whose classes do not follow the principle of homogenizing game mechanical complexity. You are a newbie who wants to dip his feet in D&D for the first time? Here's your dwarven fighter, sir! You are a "miniature GM" - here's your elven wizard! (By the way, that phrase is lifted from the Hackmaster Guide to the Wizard class. Perfect term, really.) - Try to do that in 4E. Wizards are only minimally more complex than fighters. So that's a boost to the fighter class (who now require a bit more tactical competence to play adequately), but a nerf to wizards (even moderate players can handle them well). Is that a value judgement on either edition? Far be it! It's just a way pointing out how judging one edition by the standards (that is, design goals) of the other isn't always apt or fair. And here I go, dragging down our conversation again by talking about design goals in a vacuum.


*Not meaning to lump you into category here, so please just see this as shorthand for something more longwinded (such as "someone who on occasion picks a hole in the 3E ruleset").

Quote from: Windjammer;308793You're really convinced of that, Pseudo and Seanchai, aren't you?

That the game as no intelligence or will of it's own, that it's an inanimate thing? Yeah.

Quote from: Windjammer;308793But he's constricting your choices considerably, to the point of removing alternatives that you otherwise might have considered desirable, and then forcing you to pick an option he (the designer) considered desirable.

I agree with that, but only in terms of rules as written. How people use the game - what shape they make out of the rules - is dependent on their will.

Seanchai

Well, I'd rather not get off topic by talking too much about 3.x. I loved that system, especially the variants (Iron Heroes and Arcana Unearthed in particular because they enrich the options in the game). But I do think it had its faults. And while 4e does have its problems (as do all RPGs), it's nice to have to deal with a new set of problems instead of going over the same ones time and time again.

For example, it is impossible to do something like hold someone hostage with a gun to their head (or knife to their throat), ready to kill them under the rules as presented in the 3.5 books. This was a recurrent issue that we never could arrive at a satisfactory houserule or set of rules for (so we would just ignore the grapple rules and narrate it).

What are you talking about, Pseudo? You can totally hold someone hostage with a gun to thier head or a knife to thier throat ready to kill them in 3E. Helpless? Coup de grace? Hello?

Quote from: DeadUematsu;309040What are you talking about, Pseudo? You can totally hold someone hostage with a gun to thier head or a knife to thier throat ready to kill them in 3E. Helpless? Coup de grace? Hello?

My first thoughts as well.  Really?  Impossible?  As in, exactly 0% chance?

Because, I dug this up in a matter of seconds from the SRD:

Quote from: SRDHelpless Defenders

A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.
Regular Attack

A helpless character takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, but no penalty to AC against ranged attacks.

A helpless defender can't use any Dexterity bonus to AC. In fact, his Dexterity score is treated as if it were 0 and his Dexterity modifier to AC as if it were -5 (and a rogue can sneak attack him).

Coup de Grace

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you've determined what square it's in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

So, a longsword will average 9pts on a critical, and the additional sneak attack damage for an 11th level Rogue averages 21pts, for a total of 30 damage. The Fort DC would then be 40 to save. The opponent would need to roll a 20, and have a Fort Bonus of +20 to make it. A 20th level Fighter has the +12, assuming an 18 Con gives another +4, and I am sure someone here can come up with a magic item or something for the additional +4 to bring the Fighter up to the +20 needed just so they have a possibility of making the save.

Looks to be the exact opposite of impossible.  Running the numbers indicates that is is actually pretty difficult to survive a coup de grace.

Quote from: StormBringer;309041My first thoughts as well.  Really?  Impossible?  As in, exactly 0% chance?

Because, I dug this up in a matter of seconds from the SRD:


So, a longsword will average 9pts on a critical, and the additional sneak attack damage for an 11th level Rogue averages 21pts, for a total of 30 damage. The Fort DC would then be 40 to save. The opponent would need to roll a 20, and have a Fort Bonus of +20 to make it. A 20th level Fighter has the +12, assuming an 18 Con gives another +4, and I am sure someone here can come up with a magic item or something for the additional +4 to bring the Fighter up to the +20 needed just so they have a possibility of making the save.

Looks to be the exact opposite of impossible.  Running the numbers indicates that is is actually pretty difficult to survive a coup de grace.

Um you are saying in 3e you had to be an 11th level rogue to kill a helpless or sleeping oponent with sword (remove the additional 21 points and we ahev an average of 9 for a fort save of 19.. not so hard ....
and in fact a dagger is a far better weapon for an attack of this type so we can reduce that damage down to 5 for a save of 15 .... with no bonus that gives you a 30% chance of survival... now i remember why i houseruleld hit points back in '92

Quote from: jibbajibba;309044Um you are saying in 3e you had to be an 11th level rogue to kill a helpless or sleeping oponent with sword (remove the additional 21 points and we ahev an average of 9 for a fort save of 19.. not so hard ....
and in fact a dagger is a far better weapon for an attack of this type so we can reduce that damage down to 5 for a save of 15 .... with no bonus that gives you a 30% chance of survival... now i remember why i houseruleld hit points back in '92

First of all, if the rogue doesn't get his sneak attack damage, then the opponent obviously wasn't helpless and therefore the whole point is moot.

Second, weapon choice does not matter in regards to sneak attack. Take a look at the ability in question.

Quote from: d20SRDSneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

The only reference to weapon choice is in regards to wanting to deal nonlethal damage and range.

Please, don't throw your two bits in unless you know what the fuck you're talking about. I know it's cool to ape Mark Damon Hughes but it's been ages since the vapid "What's Wrong with AD&D?" and anyone whose familiar with his "kamikaze" handle knows he's a twerp so why the hell would you try to copy that?

Quote from: jibbajibba;309044Um you are saying in 3e you had to be an 11th level rogue to kill a helpless or sleeping oponent with sword (remove the additional 21 points and we ahev an average of 9 for a fort save of 19.. not so hard ....
and in fact a dagger is a far better weapon for an attack of this type so we can reduce that damage down to 5 for a save of 15 .... with no bonus that gives you a 30% chance of survival... now i remember why i houseruleld hit points back in '92

No, I am saying that an 11th level Rogue has an almost near certainty of killing a 20th level Fighter who is helpless.  Rendering the claim of the impossibility of such a thing incorrect.

As a side note, to follow up on my last post as I didn't have my books handy; these rules that aren't presented in the books anywhere are on pages 153 and 154 of the Player's Handbook, v3.5.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;309040What are you talking about, Pseudo? You can totally hold someone hostage with a gun to thier head or a knife to thier throat ready to kill them in 3E. Helpless? Coup de grace? Hello?

Rendering someone into the "Helpless" status is more difficult than it sounds. Specifically, there's no method described in the rules to go from pinned to helpless without knocking someone unconscious. So an attacker who grabs someone, wins a grapple against them and then pins them doesn't have any way to transfer them to "helpless" in a consistent way except by knocking them unconscious, which seems gratuitous. Characters who are pinned are explicitly not helpless, and are entitled to grapple checks to escape the pin, so they don't really seem to qualify as "completely at [your] mercy".

"Completely at their mercy" was our sticking point since there were a variety of opinions on when someone can have someone else "completely at their mercy". The different opinions on the matter led to trying several possible ways of resolving the matter, both mechanically and narratively.

Because there's no method described in the books to consistently transform a person's status from grappled or pinned to helpless, and because there's a lot of ambiguity surrounding "completely at [your] mercy" it's a gap in the rules that requires adjudication and possibly some sort of houserule to establish consistency.

No, it isn't hard to render someone helpless. Stop being ridiculous.

For goodness' sake, sorcerers and wizards get Color Spray and Sleep at 1st level and a 50 charges wand of either of those costs only 750 gold pieces and bards, sorcerers, and wizards can all use that. There are monsters who can paralyze you. Chain, manacles, and rope are all under 100 gold pieces in value. Making someone your brand spanking new knife cushion is child's play and these are just mechanical routes. You can always unicorn day parade speech your way to victory.

The fact of the matter is you went about it the wrong way and want to decry the system for not allowing you to do it the way you want it to be done. Seriously, how dare the grappling rules assume an active defender that you cannot kill without a struggle? Nevermind, that is a GOOD thing (probably the only good thing about grappling)! Imagine if I could spend two rounds grappling to render an opponent helpless for me and my friends? I can just imagine who would be the main recipients of the resulting end-fight tactics and who would be down the creek without a paddle the moment a party of ogre shooters showed up to the fun.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;309116For goodness' sake, sorcerers and wizards get Color Spray and Sleep at 1st level.

Don't forget the headache inducing Hold Person at level 3 for clerics; delay until another PC has the potential to get off a full-round-action, then paralyze your victim, more often than not that's a kill.