Here is a blow by blow account of using the quickstart rules with the first encounter.
(http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/beta/Encounter1.jpg)
Surprise Round
Kobolds rolled stealth for a total of 21
None of the party was able to beat that on their perception Roll
The Kobolds have surprise which allows them one action.
The Slinger fires a glue pot at the Fighter rolls a natural 20 inflicts the maximum 9 points plus the fighter is now glued
The Kobold Minions move in a line up the road intending to throw Javelins at the party
The Kobold DragonShields move up behind the Kobold Minions
Initiative
Kobold Slinger 18
Dwarven Fighter 16
Kobold Dragonshield 16
Dragonborn Paladin 14
Human Wizard 12
1/2 Elf Cleric 11
Kobold Minions 11
Halfling Rogue 10
(http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/beta/Encounter2.jpg)
1st Round
Slinger rolls a total of 22 cracks a fire pot on the fighter for 6 points plus 2 continuing fire
The pissed off Dwarven Fighter readies a dagger and throw at one of the minions at long range. He rolls a 19, hits, and kills the sorry kobold minion. He can't move because of the glue, so he re-readies his maul.
Both of the Dragonshields delays, although not in the quickstart it is a common sense rule. They want to wait for the minions to swarm in so they can maximize their bonus for the mob attack.
Dragonborn Paladin moves up and let's loose with his Dragon breath. The close blast 3 effects allows him to encompass 3 minions and both dragon shields. He rolls the totals of 7,22,19,18,17. These are compared the minion and dragonshield reflex score. He hits 2 of the 3 minions and kills them. Both Dragonshields take 3 points each.
The Human Wizard doesn't move and let's lose a scorching Blast on the remaining minion and the 2 Dragonshields. He rolls a 18, 5, 13. Kills the minion and misses both of the Dragonshields.
The Cleric moves up and hits the first Dragonshield with a lance of faith with a roll total of 20 and does 9 points of damage and elects to give the Paladin +2 to hit on his next attack.
The last Kobold Minion screams and moves to the Paladin. Rolls a total of an 8 and misses.
The first Dragonshield elects to take his turn and move to the Paladin. The presence of the Minion gives him an extra +1 to hit. He rolls a total of 16 which misses the Paladin 20 AC.
The second Dragonshield also moves and gets an additional +2 to hit because of the minion and the other Dragonshield. He rolls a total of 15 and misses.
The Halfling Rouge moves next to the last Kobold Minion. Elects to a Deft Attack and move two squre further to the right to get behind the Kobolds. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the Minion. Despite the Halfing's total AC of 21 against AoO the Minion manage to hit with a roll total of 23 and does 4 points of damage. The halfling then strikes with his Deft Attack hitting with a roll total of 22 and kills the Minion.
At the end of round, the Dwarven Fighter rolls a 12 and saves against the glue effect. But he blows his roll with a 1 against the fire effect.
(http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/beta/Encounter3.jpg)
2nd Round
The Dwarven Fighter takes another 2 points of damage from fire. He has taken 17 damage out of 31 hit points.
The Kobold Slinger Shifts 1 square to get a better Line of Sight. Roll a total of 11 against the Paladin and misses with his last fire pot.
The Dwarven Fighter Moves up and does a Sprinning Sweep on the 2nd Dragonshield. He wants the Dragonshield prone to finish him off. Unfortunally a roll total of 12 fails against a AC of 16.
The Dragonshields shift 1 square to the left trying to gain a combat advantage on the Paladin. The shift ability doesn't provoke AoO. The first Dragonshield shifts and misses with a roll total of 9 against the Paladin's AC 20. The second Dragonshield shift and also misses with a roll total of 11.
The Paladin does a Divine challenge against the first Dragonshield which marks him. Then swings a Holy Strike with a +2 modifier from the cleric from last round. But he rolls a total of 12 and misses due the Dragonshield's AC 16.
The wizard moves gaining a clear shot at the first Dragonshield. He lets loose a magic missles and rolls a total of 15 which hits as the Dragonshield reflex is only 13, The wizards does 8 points of damage. The first Dragonshield now has taken 20 damage out of 36 hit points.
Because the first Dragonshield had shift next to him the Cleric decides not to provoke an AOO and swings with the mace. The clerics rolls a total of 20 which hits and does 7 more damage to the first Dragonshields. The first Dragonshield is down 27 out of 36.
The Rogue exploits the gap between the Dragonshields and the slingers and moves behind the second Dragonshield. Rouge now has a Combat Advantage as the paladin is on the other side. However the Rouge's total roll of 16 misses the Dragonshield AC of 18.
At End of Round the Dwarven Fighter still burns merrily has he rolls a 2 for his save against fire. (He looking to roll 10 or higher)
(http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/beta/Encounter5.jpg)
3rd Round
Dwarven Fighter takes another 2 points of damage. Taken 19 out of 31 hitpoints.
The Slinger moves further from the fight and decides to try to finish off the Fighter. However a total roll of 15 with the sling misses.
The Fighter uses his Maul for a reaping strike on the 2nd Dragonshield. WHile the total roll of 9 is a miss he still does 3 points of damage to the 2nd Dragonshield. The 2nd Dragon shield has taken 6 points of damage and started with 36 hit points.
Not ignoring the challenge the First Dragonshield swings his shortsword at the Paladin for a total of 9 which misses.
The 2nd Dragonshield swings at the paladin and rolls a total of 23 which hits despite the Paladin's AC of 20. 8 points of damage are dealt.
The Paladin elects to call on his god's divine strength to give +4 damage to finish the first Dragonshield. However the following Holy Strike with his longsword misses with a total roll of 13 vs 18 AC of the first Dragonshield.
The wizard laughing at the cluminess of the Paladin finds himself cursing when his Magic Missile misses the first Dragonshield with a roll total of 10.
The Cleric calls on Divine Fortune to give him +1 to hit. A healing strike with the Mace connects with a total roll of 19 on the 1st Dragonshield. 7 points of damage is inflicted along with the Dwarven Fighter gaining a Healing Surge of 7 points. The first Dragonshield now taken 34 out of 36 hitpoints.
The Rouge still retains combat advantage and rolls a total of 21 to hit the 2nd Dragonshield. He does 24 damages. The 2nd Dragonshild now has taken 30 out of 36 hitpoints.
Note: I plum forgot to use the Kobold's shift ability in this round.
During the End of Round the Dwarven Fighter finally save against fire with a roll of 14.
4th Round
The Slinger runs away after seeing the two Dragonshields bloodied
The Fighter aims to finish off the 2nd Dragonshild and does a reaping strike with his maul. He misses with a natural 1 but still does 3 points of damage.
The First Dragonshield connects with a roll total of 27 and does 9 points of damage to the Paladin
The 2nd Dragonshield shifts to get out of the Combat Advantage the Rouge has over him. He strikes the Paladin and hits with a roll total of 21, Does 5 points of damage.
The Paladin is now down 22 points. He tucks his sword under his shield arm (readies a touch attack), performs Lay On Hands and heals 7 points of damage, then re-readies his sword.
The Wizard is not humored when his second magic missile goes awry with a roll total of 12
The Cleric utters a healing word and the Paladin is healed for another 13 points. Then the Cleric strikes with his mace but misses with a total roll of 13.
The Rouge moves two square to the left with a Deft Attack provocating a AOO from the 2nd Dragonshield. The Dragonshield's roll total of 15 misses the Rogue Ac 21. The rouge then gains combat advantage and strikes. Hitting exactly with a roll total of 18. Does 18 points of damage and the 2nd Dragonshield goes down.
(http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/beta/Encounter6.jpg)
Round 5
The Slinger is running far far away.
The Dwarven Fighter uses his Reaping Strike and misses with a roll total of 15. However the 3 points of damage done on a miss still brings down the last Dragonshield.
Combat Ends
(http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/beta/Encounter7.jpg)
Very interesting! Thanks for posting this. :)
I maintain -- it looks like a very different game to me... but I can see that it would be fun, especially if you like tactical miniatures games (eg. Warhammer). I like tactical minis games too, so that's cool. :)
What I can't imagine is listening to a podcast recording of people playing it (like rpgmp3.com) -- there would be less description of what was going on and more focus on the map and minis. We don't narrate the movement of all our minis in Warhammer or HeroScape -- and I don't believe most groups would do that with this game either.
People who make maps and terrain for minis games will be very happy with the new edition.*
I can't imagine trying to play it without maps and minis though -- and really, why would you? I don't try playing WH40K without minis either. :D
* That's not snark -- it makes me think I should start making some maps!
Quote from: StuartI maintain -- it looks like a very different game to me... but I can see that it would be fun, especially if you like tactical miniatures games (eg. Warhammer). I like tactical minis games too, so that's cool. :)
The combat plays a lot differently than older editions however the classes feel a lot more like the old edition than 3.X. I.e. when you are a cleric you feel like you are doing cleric stuff, a paladin doing paladin stuff, and so on.
Personally for me I play GURPS with the advanced combat system and minatures so 4th edition's heavy use of miniatures is not a lot different.
In some parts I was thinking that hexes would work out better than squares. The quickstart rules would work just as well with hexes as well as squares.
Quote from: estarIn some parts I was thinking that hexes would work out better than squares. The quickstart rules would work just as well with hexes as well as squares.
For outside areas hexes would be great. I'm not sure about inside buildings or dungeons though -- they don't work very well with hallways that have 90 degree corners.
That is a very cool and interesting Miniatures Battle Game.
I wonder when they plan on releasing an RPG based on this game?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThat is a very cool and interesting Miniatures Battle Game.
I wonder when they plan on releasing an RPG based on this game?
RPGPundit
They already did. I think you can still get it on E-Bay. ;)
Quote from: RPGPunditThat is a very cool and interesting Miniatures Battle Game.
I wonder when they plan on releasing an RPG based on this game?
RPGPundit
You are >this< close to buy into the Roll Play v. Role Play argument.
Oh, come on, Jong... look at it! I mean, maybe it has some serious roleplaying elements alongside it (which they just chose not to talk about), but the combat for it is practically a Warhammer Fantasy Battles skirmish game! And from the description, there's no fucking way that you could possibly run the damn thing without a battlemat and miniatures.
RPGPundit
Quote from: JongWKYou are >this< close to buy into the Roll Play v. Role Play argument.
Gah! This week's episode of Fear the Boot was them going on about how to help Power Gamers (roll) evolve into real Roleplayers (role). There's other reasons RPGs became popular than either of those styles of play. (Hint: Immersion, Puzzles, Exploration, Creativity, Mystery, Social, Goofy Dice)
Quote from: estarThe combat plays a lot differently than older editions however the classes feel a lot more like the old edition than 3.X. I.e. when you are a cleric you feel like you are doing cleric stuff, a paladin doing paladin stuff, and so on.
Just to play fair, I'm going to point out that this is a very hopeful note, and if true it is an improvement.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditOh, come on, Jong... look at it! I mean, maybe it has some serious roleplaying elements alongside it (which they just chose not to talk about), but the combat for it is practically a Warhammer Fantasy Battles skirmish game!
Lest everyone forget. Remember Original D&D cover box.
http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/box1st.html
"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures."
Somehow they managed to figure out to use a miniature rule set without miniatures and thrown in role-playing and puzzle solving to boot.
If you judged GURPS solely what was in Man to Man then you would have missed a lot of stuff GURPS brought to the table. We know that 4th edition has non-combat stuff like skill challenges and rituals. Will it be as interesting non-combatwise I don't know.
Quote from: RPGPunditAnd from the description, there's no fucking way that you could possibly run the damn thing without a battlemat and miniatures.
It could be too much of a pain in the ass to run without miniatures because now every class has special stuff. Or people could wing it like they did with OD&D. I always used minatures so it not an issues with me.
Rob Conley
Note: the miniatures I used in the photos date back 25 years or more. The red cleric is from one of Grenadiers AD&D Boxed Set.
Quote from: RPGPunditJust to play fair, I'm going to point out that this is a very hopeful note, and if true it is an improvement.
I should very much hope it was true - it seems to have been an important goal of the 4E project.
ISTR hearing an interview with someone from Wizards (damned if I can remember who) where they were saying that one of the things they wanted to fix from the 3E days was the way that if you picked the right feats and skills you could, for example, come up with a cleric who's better at being a fighter than actual fighters.
Quote from: estarLest everyone forget. Remember Original D&D cover box.
Never played it. ;)
Quote from: StuartNever played it. ;)
You can buy here in all it glory.
http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?cPath=3938
Quote from: estarYou can buy here in all it glory.
http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?cPath=3938
I'd like to. :)
My point is that for many people it wasn't OD&D that was the most compelling version of the game. When D&D was at the height of it's popularity, miniatures were entirely optional.
Quote from: RPGPunditOh, come on, Jong... look at it! I mean, maybe it has some serious roleplaying elements alongside it (which they just chose not to talk about), but the combat for it is practically a Warhammer Fantasy Battles skirmish game! And from the description, there's no fucking way that you could possibly run the damn thing without a battlemat and miniatures.
RPGPundit
Why is it such a damn crime for combat to actually be fun and interesting in an RPG, instead of tallying up piles of dice?
Quote from: J ArcaneWhy is it such a damn crime for combat to actually be fun and interesting in an RPG, instead of tallying up piles of dice?
It isn't, but at the point where it becomes so complex that miniatures and a battlemat are a requirement and not an option, that game has gone off into Miniature Battles Game territory.
RPGPundit
Like most games, there are things I like, and things I don't. It seems like a 3rd or 4th level campaign as opposed to a 1st level starter - but that's just me. And Dragon Born Paladin with breath weapon? Please...
Having said that, it was not all bad. Pace seemed about right, roles seemed not too bad.
Here's the question that remains for me. For those things I don't like, how much effort will it take to yank those rules out and will the effort/reward ratio be worth it? I have my doubts considering the stuff I've read so far - the bad (for me, people) is at least half...
But thanks for the run through, Rob. It's great!
OK:
QuoteDragonborn Paladin moves up and let's loose with his Dragon breath. The close blast 3 effects allows him to encompass 3 minions and both dragon shields. He rolls the totals of 7,22,19,18,17. These are compared the minion and dragonshield reflex score. He hits 2 of the 3 minions and kills them. Both Dragonshields take 3 points each.
The Human Wizard doesn't move and let's lose a scorching Blast on the remaining minion and the 2 Dragonshields. He rolls a 18, 5, 13. Kills the minion and misses both of the Dragonshields.
This, to me, looks like the Paladin is infringing on the Wizards Artillery territory, no? Not a huge issue, but certainly one example of the issue (though on quick read through, the only one I found so far).
QuoteThe Fighter uses his Maul for a reaping strike on the 2nd Dragonshield. WHile the total roll of 9 is a miss he still does 3 points of damage to the 2nd Dragonshield. The 2nd Dragon shield has taken 6 points of damage and started with 36 hit points.
QuoteThe Fighter aims to finish off the 2nd Dragonshild and does a reaping strike with his maul. He misses with a natural 1 but still does 3 points of damage.
QuoteThe Dwarven Fighter uses his Reaping Strike and misses with a roll total of 15. However the 3 points of damage done on a miss still brings down the last Dragonshield.
That's just a quick count of 9 HP being taken off for
missing.
That Reaping Strike sure is some leet skillz.
And was it me, or did the Cleric totally beat the crap out of things while the Fighter and Paladin were stuck or missing. The Fighter and Cleric were totally outclassed by the Cleric. did he have to heal them, too? :haw:
QuoteThe Fighter aims to finish off the 2nd Dragonshild and does a reaping strike with his maul. He misses with a natural 1 but still does 3 points of damage.
Holy crap. I missed that the first time around.
Quote from: James J SkachOK:
This, to me, looks like the Paladin is infringing on the Wizards Artillery territory, no? Not a huge issue, but certainly one example of the issue (though on quick read through, the only one I found so far).
Racial Ability 1 per Encounter nothing to do with class.
Quote from: James J SkachThat's just a quick count of 9 HP being taken off for missing.
That Reaping Strike sure is some leet skillz.
And was it me, or did the Cleric totally beat the crap out of things while the Fighter and Paladin were stuck or missing. The Fighter and Cleric were totally outclassed by the Cleric. did he have to heal them, too? :haw:
The Rogue enabled the combat to finish quickly by gaining Combat Advantage and getting to use the sneak attack damage of 2d8. I magnified the effect by forgetting to have the kobold slide 1 square and missing totally that character and use their move action to slide 1 square without drawing a AoO. This means Kobolds can slide up to 2 squares without drawing AoO which is an enormous tactical advantage.
It is clear to me that 4th edition is taking the old idea of rolls not equal single blows seriously. Each round represents a quick flurry of blows the success of which is represented by the die roll. The Reaping Strike is where the fighter tries to get in so many hits that a few will still get through.
And non minion Kobolds have 30+ hit points so 3 points is nice but not going to tip the scales.
I just rolled crappy throughout the encounter for the fighter. The only outstanding blow he got was the initial dagger throw that took out the minion.
Also you can see the concept of the round being a exchange of blows with the rogue ability there is a rogue Encounter Power positioning Strike. If the rogue hits with +8 vs Will not only he gets to do damage but he can slide the target 3 squares. Again don't think of a roll as a single blow.
Agains GURPS and many other system one roll = one swing/stab/etc. In AD&D 1st, 2nd, and now 4th one roll = the success of an action or series of actions in a combat round.
So the fighter can make a strike each attach that will always damage the next guy in line no matter what? one assumes that the creature could be a so heavily armoured that under normal conditions the dwarf would have needed a natural 20 to hit him and all he has to do is attack (and miss) the little guy standing next to him. Right .....
The cleric's normal attack is to call down a lance of holy power from the sky although if he does choose to use his mace , with a +1 bonus, there is a bonus of a free healing surge on whoever is looking rough.
A first level Dragon born (first level ...) gets a per attack breath weapon right ...
And the rouge squeezes behind the bad guys and gets a bonus to hit and damage not on one supriese blow but on a flurry of blows (apparently) without the other guy turning round.
I would say that this game is close to OD&D but its nothing like the games I played growing up. Pundit is on the money when he says you couldn't play this with out minis and that it plays like a Warhammer skirmish. Throughout the whole combat no one does anything not written on their character sheet no one thinks outside the structure of the feats and powers. There is no role playing I mean the Pladin doesn't even use the oportunity to cry our 'Surrender or pay the consequences!' before breathing fire on the poor little kolbolds. The kolbolds have no character and there is no sense that any of them are anything but little metalic men.
Sighs ....
Quote from: jrientsHoly crap. I missed that the first time around.
When I saw miss = 3 damage for Reaping Strike I went wow as well. That makes your reaping strike a insta-kill for minions. However for anything tougher it isn't going to count for much as lowly Kobolds have hit points in the 20's.
Everything that I checked so far suggested careful balancing of the system. Similar to what they do for Magic the Gathering. Not to say when we get the core books there won't problems. Whatever bungles they did in marketing 4th edition it appears that they have not bungled the game design.
Now whether it is D&D or not is a different question. I hate to say this but so far the classes feel even more iconic than their 1st edition or OD&D predecessors. However just about everything aside the classes is way way different so far.
Also this combat was with FIRST level characters. First level 4th edition character are way more competent than earlier editions.
Quote from: jibbajibbaSo the fighter can make a strike each attach that will always damage the next guy in line no matter what? one assumes that the creature could be a so heavily armoured that under normal conditions the dwarf would have needed a natural 20 to hit him and all he has to do is attack (and miss) the little guy standing next to him. Right .....
If the fighter blows the roll on his target he still does 3 points of damage. Otherwise he gets to do his normal damage of 2d6+3.
Remember a combat round is 6 second so the roll represents what happens over the course of the round. With Reaping Strike he is attacking with a flurry of jabs and cutting blows that slip through the defenses of the target
Quote from: jibbajibbaThe cleric's normal attack is to call down a lance of holy power from the sky although if he does choose to use his mace , with a +1 bonus, there is a bonus of a free healing surge on whoever is looking rough.
The cleric was the most jarring as both at will powers were ranged involving the use of his holy symbol. I suspect there are more choices that involve using weapons based on the presence of the Healing strike. BTW Healing Strike is a 1/encounter power not at will.
Quote from: jibbajibbaA first level Dragon born (first level ...) gets a per attack breath weapon right
Again it is 1/encounter so use it wisely and non-minion monsters have a lot of hit points so while it may sound impressive it is not a decisive edge.
Quote from: jibbajibbaAnd the rouge squeezes behind the bad guys and gets a bonus to hit and damage not on one supriese blow but on a flurry of blows (apparently) without the other guy turning round.
The rogue ability has nothing to do with backstabbing it is about gaining combat advantage. A small but important difference. Combat Advantage is when you have two friendly guys on opposite sides of a target. Because of this the rogue risked AoO to get into position. And it appears the designer accounted for this by giving the rogue a bonus to AC against AoO.
Quote from: jibbajibbaI would say that this game is close to OD&D but its nothing like the games I played growing up. Pundit is on the money when he says you couldn't play this with out minis and that it plays like a Warhammer skirmish. Throughout the whole combat no one does anything not written on their character sheet no one thinks outside the structure of the feats and powers.
This is why not everyone plays Advanced Combat in GURPS or GURPS itself. There are plenty of RPGs that have wargames in their combat rules. Historically D&D quickly shed it roots as a wargame, 4th edition we are seeing a major return over the minor things they did in 3rd.
OD&D was presented as rules for miniature wargamming and people found a way to ditch the miniatures. The same may happen to 4th edition.
Quote from: jibbajibbaThere is no role playing I mean the Pladin doesn't even use the oportunity to cry our 'Surrender or pay the consequences!' before breathing fire on the poor little kolbolds. The kolbolds have no character and there is no sense that any of them are anything but little metalic men.
Because I ran everything trying to learn the game. I wanted combat so I can see how it worked. There is no role-playing because wasn't during the table but me running through the combat rules. I run GURPS plenty of times and give my player's opposition personality and had banter in-game during combat.
However I agree that 4th edition is not going to appeal to everyone. I think it current weakness is in multi-classing. Many players want to customize their characters to the nth degree. 3.X made this happen, 4.0 I don't think will.
Quote from: estarWhen I saw miss = 3 damage for Reaping Strike I went wow as well. That makes your reaping strike a insta-kill for minions.
The minions posted on WotC's site have a Hit Points field similar to "1 hit point; misses never damage a minion."
Personally, I'm neither surprised nor concerned that 4e can't be an RPG because roleplaying wasn't mentioned in a post about combat mechanics.
QuoteOD&D was presented as rules for miniature wargamming and people found a way to ditch the miniatures.
OD&D had no idea of what it was. It was the first RPG, but Gary didn't really knew that. There was no name to catalog this new gaming concept at the time of D&D's release. So it would have never said it was a RPG.
Note that in "required materials", miniatures are not mentioned.
I think there was an editorial in The Dragon where EGG says that miniatures were not used at first with OD&D, but around 1976 or so they started cropping up in some games.
I agree with some of the others - it appears to be a very interesting tactical miniatures game. Essentially, the advanced version of their existing D&D minis game.
Like Pundit, I fail to see how it would be possible to ever even think of playing this new game without minis. OD&D may have evolved from minis, but it didn't actually need them. This game needs them - if you are playing without minis, you essentially are throwing out half the rules and making combat a nightmare for the DM to try and keep track of.
I also agree this is not a "roll play" vs "role play" argument - just that WotC seems to make it quite clear that the game they want to present is just a combination of combat set peices strung together. Anything outside of combat seems to be either treated like the "talky" parts of a porno (just there to take up time until the next combat), or turned into some strange mini-game of dice rolling (that whole everyone picks any skill, rolls dice, and counts the total successes vs failures abomination they mentioned for handling NCEs).
Quote from: JongWKYou are >this< close to buy into the Roll Play v. Role Play argument.
This close? He's basically Swine. He's not happy with 4e for ideological reasons.
Seanchai
Quote from: estarIf the fighter blows the roll on his target he still does 3 points of damage. Otherwise he gets to do his normal damage of 2d6+3.
Remember a combat round is 6 second so the roll represents what happens over the course of the round. With Reaping Strike he is attacking with a flurry of jabs and cutting blows that slip through the defenses of the target
You know I love you, but this attempt to somehow write this off as a product of the abstraction of combat seems...well..I'll call it a bit if a stretch.
Because, now matter how much you abstracted combat, a miss was a friggin' miss. If you hit for little, you might write it off as a mere nick. If you hit for a lot, you might describe it as a wound piercing the side and spilling blood across the floor. But when you missed, you...well...described it as a miss; not as "Well, amidst your flurry of blows that missed, some actually got through."
It makes no sense - unless Reaping Strike isn't really an attack, but a "power" that represents something else entirely. That is, it's no longer an abstraction of actual physical attack that can hit or miss, but a power that is "in effect" and does damage every round and if you overcome what would have been a saving throw in previous editions, you do more damage.
Hey! Just like a spell!
I can almost hear the design meeting where someone realizes that by getting rid of the saving throws (and making them, essentially, like other versions of AC - BTW a change I think makes sense on some level) they can have Fighter "powers" like this.
Quote from: jgantsI also agree this is not a "roll play" vs "role play" argument - just that WotC seems to make it quite clear that the game they want to present is just a combination of combat set peices strung together. Anything outside of combat seems to be either treated like the "talky" parts of a porno (just there to take up time until the next combat), or turned into some strange mini-game of dice rolling (that whole everyone picks any skill, rolls dice, and counts the total successes vs failures abomination they mentioned for handling NCEs).
I disagree, the non combat portions of Shadowfell were written more like old school modules than anything else I seen from TSR/Wizards over the past decade and a half. The Dungeon was handled through grouping multiple room into a encounter set piece. SO instead of
Note: I am paraphrasing
#4 Kobold Workshop
#5 Kobold Common Room
#6 Quarters for Kobold Commoners
#7 Quarters for Kobold Warriors
#8 Quarters for Kobold King
The dungeon called this Area #4 The Kobold warrens, and explained all five rooms in one go.
Quote from: James J SkachYou know I love you, but this attempt to somehow write this off as a product of the abstraction of combat seems...well..I'll call it a bit if a stretch.
Sorry if I sound like I am advocating 4th edition. I am just trying to explain what it is and what it isn't. I also need learn this because regardless of my system preferences if I want to write professionally I greatly increase my writing opportunities learning 4th edition. So I figure that I would share what I learned with everyone else.
Quote from: James J SkachBecause, now matter how much you abstracted combat, a miss was a friggin' miss. If you hit for little, you might write it off as a mere nick. If you hit for a lot, you might describe it as a wound piercing the side and spilling blood across the floor. But when you missed, you...well...described it as a miss; not as "Well, amidst your flurry of blows that missed, some actually got through."
It makes no sense - unless Reaping Strike isn't really an attack, but a "power" that represents something else entirely. That is, it's no longer an abstraction of actual physical attack that can hit or miss, but a power that is "in effect" and does damage every round and if you overcome what would have been a saving throw in previous editions, you do more damage.
In GURPS no matter how you slice it would be hard to explain a miss as nothing more than a miss. Because in GURPS a single roll equals a single swing or thrust of a weapon.
This very very natural and something that D&D has always struggled with. If you played by in the AD&D 1st edition era that how people talked when they made a roll. Like they where swinging the weapon itself rather resolving a minutes worth of combat.
I think by 3rd edition the idea of abstract combat was largely given up. If you read nearly all the combat feat they read like they are written with the idea that a roll equal a swing or thrust.
4th edition combat has gone back to abstract with a vengeance. The rogue has an encounter ability that allows the rogue to move the target three squares as well as damage. In the text it is written as if the rogue is using his skill with the weapon to maneuver the target around. It is not written as some magic teleport.
So far the 4th edition combat system hangs together as well as the GURPS Advanced Combat system. While GURPS screams low fantasy combat, D&D 4th screams high fantasy combat.
I believe this and the changes in character customization are going to be big issues for players of 3rd edition. People, like you, are not going to buy into what you can do with the system and others will be turned off because they can't make the characters they want. I don't think 4th edition will fail because it is a bad game where rules are broken and unbalanced.
Between six second rounds, single rolls that represent multiple attacks, and hit points that aren't 100% damage markers but also represent vitality and luck there is plenty of room for an ability that still deals a little bit of "damage" even if you miss your attack roll. I'd need to see the flavor text and rules for it to know if I like it or not.
I get what you're saying - it's a nice attempt. And please don't take the criticism as some kind effort to paint you as a shill for the game. It's really not meant that way and I apologize if it came across as such.
My point is that you've added the ability to miss and still do damage. No matter how you slice the time, whether it is six seconds, six minutes, or six hours, no matter how you write the flavor text, no matter how abstractly you think about it, what you roll represented, at it's base, some set of physical events. If you rolled a miss, those actions missed. This does not seem to be the case in this example.
I'll be interested to see the rules when they actually arrive. But I can tell you I've never seen anyone, in all my years of playing, say "You missed - a fumble! - for 3 point of damage." Without magic being involved, that is. Anyone else? Is there some bizarre concoction of 3e feats and skills and prestige classes that does this?
Now it might work fine for what this game is. As you say, it might be a mechanically tight, well balanced game. But little things like this, when combined with things like 30 HP at first level and healing or teleport, make it a very different D&D. That doesn't make it objectively bad - but it does make it very different.
Quote from: James McMurraystill deals a little bit of "damage" even if you miss your attack roll. I'd need to see the flavor text and rules for it to know if I like it or not.
For the record - there's goblins minions who've got 1 hitpoint each. And there's a special entry in their stat blocks which says that misses can't kill them. Thanks to this thread I know why that's sitting there :)
Rob, I raised two points in your other KotS thread - hope you get time to answer them. Thanks.
I just got to look at the dwarf's sheet, and the flavor text is basically that you're so good that little nicks get past no matter what. Since minions are immune, and non-minions have 15+ hit points Reaping Strike is more of a consolation prize than a beefy ability.
Also, the paladin's full text gets rid of any fears of him marking someone and then running away. His mark ends if he fails to engage the opponent by attacking it or ending the turn adjacent to it. Unless you're on a wide open plain against a bow wielding paladin, he's probably not going to be able to keep away from you and maintain his mark.
The guy who's going to run it just got his in the mail, so with any luck I'll have a play report for KotS in a couple of weeks.
Quote from: James McMurrayAlso, the paladin's full text gets rid of any fears of him marking someone and then running away. His mark ends if he fails to engage the opponent by attacking it or ending the turn adjacent to it.
Very good. That could have been an awfully broken system. Nice to see they've limited it. Couldn't a Paladin just keep re-marking an opponent each round? Or does he only do
damage if he attacks it or ends the turn adjacent to it, but it attacks someone else?
If he hasn't engaged by the end of his turn, the mark goes away and he can't use the ability the next round (on anyone). At best he could mark someone every other round if he's trying to play keep away. I suppose you could have two paladins tag team someone, but there's a point in almost every system where the GM has to say enough is enough, and that would be one of those points for me in 4e.
Quote from: James McMurrayI just got to look at the dwarf's sheet, and the flavor text is basically that you're so good that little nicks get past no matter what. Since minions are immune, and non-minions have 15+ hit points Reaping Strike is more of a consolation prize than a beefy ability.
First, I don't recall anyone saying it was a "beefy" ability - so that's not up for discussion, really.
Second, as I said, the only way to explain this is to make it something other than a "to-hit" roll (a power) - it's no longer a roll to see if you hit, just whether you did damage, or a lot more damage.
Quote from: James J SkachFirst, I don't recall anyone saying it was a "beefy" ability - so that's not up for discussion, really.
I don't recall saying anyone said that. :)
If you don't want to discuss it, that's cool. I just threw it out there to make sure folks who haven't seen the ability don't think that it's like 3.x, where a typical opponent for a 1st level party would die to one or two missed Reaping Strikes.
QuoteSecond, as I said, the only way to explain this is to make it something other than a "to-hit" roll (a power) - it's no longer a roll to see if you hit, just whether you did damage, or a lot more damage.
I'm not sure if how they described it fits your definition of the only way it can be done, but it works for me. If it doesn't for you, that's cool.
If it was a lot of damage or an automatic mook killer I'd look twice at it. But as is, you're rarely going to be using this ability if you're playing the fighter, unless it's a PCs-on-one fight. His other at will ability lets him cleave for 3 damage, which actually can kill minions. If you're fighting something that 3 damage is meaningful against, it's probably also something that you'll be able to hit easily. If 3 damage isn't meaningful, then Reaping Strike is just a way to make you feel a little better about yourself when you miss.
It looks like it's keyed off of strength, so if you can get a PC (or a giant(kin)) with really high strength and this ability, it might be kinda scary. But then again, the higher your strength, the higher your to-hit, so the less likely you are to miss.
That said, I haven't seen the monsters in the adventure (and won't until after I've played it), so I could be very wrong. If the adventure doesn't follow the design strategy they've professed and demonstrated in the demo modules people have already reported on.
The problem with the long combat rounds and the fact that your single roll represented the overall effect of the cut and thrust of battle was that other rules were in direct opposition. Particularly exception based rules like mirror image and a cloak of displacement.
Both of these have an effect of making an attack miss. If a round was as depicted a minute or even 6 seconds worth of two and frowing then the images would all be worked through in the first 10 seconds or whatever. So everyone ignored it and made a common sense decision.
Now in 4e these exceptions will probably be removed giving a more consistant approach but for most older players the damaage is as they say done.
The problem I have with the reaping strike is that it allows you to hit, with a miss, a creature that you might wel find it bloody hard to hit normally. Now what if you add say a weapon coated in poison. I miss my opponent and the other guy takes 3 damage, but my weapon is poisoned. Now the rule will say something like 'any special effects that are part of the strikes normal damage are not carried forward to the reaping damage', but that means I am missing the guy, not hitting him with my weapon and still doing damage. Or what about creatures that have powers triggered when they are hit, rust monsters or I have used creatures like Alien with acid for blood that attacks your weapons when you hit them. Will this reaping strike trigger these ?
Also remember that this is a 1st level ability odds to evens there is a super reaping strike that deals 6 or a mega reaping strike that deals 18 or whatever.I would expect if you look at the numbers that the effect will be about 5-10% of the hits of a creature of about the same level (here the effect is 3 hits and the creutures have 36 hits). Now you might say this is a trivial amount of damage but in the example its decisive and if its trivial why create so many of the issues I listed above for no reason?
Quote from: jibbajibbaThe problem I have with the reaping strike is that it allows you to hit, with a miss, a creature that you might wel find it bloody hard to hit normally. Now what if you add say a weapon coated in poison. I miss my opponent and the other guy takes 3 damage, but my weapon is poisoned. Now the rule will say something like 'any special effects that are part of the strikes normal damage are not carried forward to the reaping damage', but that means I am missing the guy, not hitting him with my weapon and still doing damage.
Not necessarily, you could have hit the guy just not pierced the skin with your poisoned weapon, getting hit with a weapon can still hurt even that weapon dosen't actually pierce the skin due to armor.
Quote from: jibbajibbaOr what about creatures that have powers triggered when they are hit, rust monsters or I have used creatures like Alien with acid for blood that attacks your weapons when you hit them. Will this reaping strike trigger these ?
Same as above you hit but didn't cut deep enough to spill the Alien blood, or get tangled by the rust monsters rusting tentacles. We'll know more in a few weeks.
Plus, there is the long-discussed notion that hit points don't all represent physical damage. That's something I've subscribed to since as far back as when I first began gaming. It seemed ludicrous to believe that a character simply became physically tougher as he gained hit points, or that one character could physically absorb a battleaxe blow that outright killed another.
The conception of hit points as more than simple physical damage seems even more true in 4e than previous editions, based on what I've read. That little bit of "damage" could mean a number of different things - the character loses a bit of confidence after witnessing the potential power of such a strike, his stamina is taxed a bit as he twists to avoid the blow, or some of his luck is simply used up. Looking at it like that pretty much obviates a lot of the special case loopholes discussed above.
4e combat sounds like a hoot, actually.
Arduin hit points finally won out in 4e. Funny how things turn around.
I started pre-AD&D, with Holmes and the OCE original rules when we got past 3rd level, and I can say that many, many groups did not use minis at all with the original rules. Some did, some didn't. I generally did not with D&D pre-3e though I did with fantasy trip. (Hexes would have worked better for some aspects of 3e combat also, Rob.) I found that I could not do good 3e combats without minis though.
'Talky parts of a porno' is a funny analogy. Outside of combat is often the most important part of the game to me, but I don't like rules for it. That's another thread.
Doing damage on a natural 1, that's a crime against God and Man.
Colonel,
There's two levels to the abstraction though. One is whether doing hit points = doing physical damage, the other is whether amount of hit points = amount of damage. I've never subscribed to the second, but the first I've always pretty much stuck with. A five point hit may mean broken ribs to a firstie and just a bruise to a high level character, but it always means something physical in my games. But what it means is totally contextual based on the type of attack, relative amount of damage to the hit points of the things being damaged, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that there are different levels of abstraction. You can be totally abstract if you like, where maybe it's just your 'aura' that's dented a little bit up until that last few hit points, but that's never what I've done. To me if you take a hit it's physical damage, it's just that the tenth level fighter mostly gets out of the way of the dragon's claw-swipe and only takes a flesh wound (though if he had been an inch closer...), where the second level fighter gets caught, popped in the mouth, and chewed up on the same damage roll.
Quote from: CalithenaColonel,
There's two levels to the abstraction though. One is whether doing hit points = doing physical damage, the other is whether amount of hit points = amount of damage. I've never subscribed to the second, but the first I've always pretty much stuck with. A five point hit may mean broken ribs to a firstie and just a bruise to a high level character, but it always means something physical in my games. But what it means is totally contextual based on the type of attack, relative amount of damage to the hit points of the things being damaged, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that there are different levels of abstraction. You can be totally abstract if you like, where maybe it's just your 'aura' that's dented a little bit up until that last few hit points, but that's never what I've done. To me if you take a hit it's physical damage, it's just that the tenth level fighter mostly gets out of the way of the dragon's claw-swipe and only takes a flesh wound (though if he had been an inch closer...), where the second level fighter gets caught, popped in the mouth, and chewed up on the same damage roll.
That's pretty close to how I've always envisioned what hit points represent. The only place I differ is that I never assumed, and neither did my players, that any and all deductions of hit points represented actual physical damage of some sort, even if it was very slight. It generally meant that, but not always. I see it as contextual as well; in the case of this Reaping Strike or whatever it's called, that damage on a missed strike would likely not be anything physical, or at least not until the character suffering the damage has a relatively few hit points left.
I'm totally cool with HP being partly, mostly, or even ALL abstracted. Although if it's luck, skill, stamina, etc being used up instead of being *hit* then it makes we wonder why a thrust from a spear does any more "damage" than a dagger? A solid hit would kill you either way -- and the OD&D method of all weapons doing 1d6 actually makes a lot of sense.
I think it's the healing surges that I've found it hard to get my head around. If you narrate some physical injury as part of losing a lot of hit points -- that might be gone in 5 minutes... unless they die, and then it's not. So I'd imagine you'd avoid talking about what those numbers represent during the combat at all. Again -- more focus on the figures, map and dice, and less focus on the descriptions and creative narration.
I think it's a change of tone / genre. If you think of it like Superhero action (and I don't mean that in a dismissive way) then you can imagine all sorts of smashing, bashing, cutting and bruising... and then they all get up, dust themselves off and go for a Malt shake. :)
Quote from: GrayPumpkinNot necessarily, you could have hit the guy just not pierced the skin with your poisoned weapon, getting hit with a weapon can still hurt even that weapon dosen't actually pierce the skin due to armor.
Same as above you hit but didn't cut deep enough to spill the Alien blood, or get tangled by the rust monsters rusting tentacles. We'll know more in a few weeks.
You don't think that you are stretching the justification here just a little? I mean if you were deisigning a game would you say that you have hit points that represent how much damage you can take but they are really more contextual and could mean you are just out of puff.
The poison example was just an example it could have just as easily have been a magical touch based power like a level drain or a shadow's strength sapping touch, or paralysis.
It would be an unusual case but it is feasible for the 'other' creature to eventually die from the reaping damage and he would be just as dead as if you toasted him with your breath weapon or smited him with a bolt of blue holy lightning.
There are some basic rules one of which is a miss is a miss another is never start a land war in Asia which you just don't break.
There is another post on the board about deal breakers. I just found one that does it for me. Its up there with Hellhounds in VTES riding sports bikes.
Quote from: jibbajibbaYou don't think that you are stretching the justification here just a little? I mean if you were deisigning a game would you say that you have hit points that represent how much damage you can take but they are really more contextual and could mean you are just out of puff..
Nope not a stretch me at all, but then, like others mentioned I've always seen HP as an abstraction.
Quote from: jibbajibbaThe poison example was just an example it could have just as easily have been a magical touch based power like a level drain or a shadow's strength sapping touch, or paralysis.
Again I'd just see it above, not deep enough of scratch to paralyze you, not solid enough of a touch to drain your strength, but it left you rattled thus the HP reduction.
Quote from: jibbajibbaThere is another post on the board about deal breakers. I just found one that does it for me. Its up there with Hellhounds in VTES riding sports bikes.
Fair enough, everyone has their deal breakers, this one is not me, in fact I rather dig it, but more power to ya.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonPlus, there is the long-discussed notion that hit points don't all represent physical damage. That's something I've subscribed to since as far back as when I first began gaming. It seemed ludicrous to believe that a character simply became physically tougher as he gained hit points, or that one character could physically absorb a battleaxe blow that outright killed another.
The conception of hit points as more than simple physical damage seems even more true in 4e than previous editions, based on what I've read. That little bit of "damage" could mean a number of different things - the character loses a bit of confidence after witnessing the potential power of such a strike, his stamina is taxed a bit as he twists to avoid the blow, or some of his luck is simply used up. Looking at it like that pretty much obviates a lot of the special case loopholes discussed above.
OK - maybe I'm just not being clear enough. I get the abstraction. I get that HP don't mean actual physical damage. I think I was the one in one of the previous threads HP that quoted the DMG (page 82 for those of you who are curious) where it discusses HP not representing just damage - particularly at higher levels.
But to somehow equate that concept with a miss reducing HP is...well...I don't want ot be too harsh, guys - but it's a bit of a silly argument. If you want to tell me that it's a change in the fundamentals and I just need to get over it - OK, I'm cool with that. But to somehow try to fit this into any version of D&D to date is more than a bit of a stretch (as I said, unless someone can point a strange concoction like, probably, ToB:Bo9S).
Look - your roll represents, at the most abstracted level, success or failure. In combat, if your roll indicates success, than you reduce the HP of the opponent - HP that could be luck, or divine favor, or anything else used in that abstraction. If your roll indicates failure, you do not reduce HP.
Until now. Has there ever been a time in D&D, in the core rules, that you can fail, and still reduce HP?
EDIT: A couple of them. First, it's the 1e DMG in that page reference - for that was the question in the thread IIRC. Second, it should be noted that I've said from the beginning that this is more like a power than anything else. So I'm aware that you can 'fail' - your opponent makes a save - and still do damage when discussing magic.
Quote from: jibbajibbaThe problem I have with the reaping strike is that it allows you to hit, with a miss, a creature that you might wel find it bloody hard to hit normally. Now what if you add say a weapon coated in poison. I miss my opponent and the other guy takes 3 damage, but my weapon is poisoned. Now the rule will say something like 'any special effects that are part of the strikes normal damage are not carried forward to the reaping damage', but that means I am missing the guy, not hitting him with my weapon and still doing damage. Or what about creatures that have powers triggered when they are hit, rust monsters or I have used creatures like Alien with acid for blood that attacks your weapons when you hit them. Will this reaping strike trigger these ?
I had a similar question when I noticed that the fighter with Reaping Strike had Power Attack (-2 to hit for +3 damage). Power attack specifically states "on a hit, you do +3 damage." All of the abilities that require an attack roll have an entry for what they do on a hit. Some have an entry for what they do on a miss. Presumably poison, ghoul touch, and the rest will be worded similarly.
Quote from: StuartI think it's the healing surges that I've found it hard to get my head around. If you narrate some physical injury as part of losing a lot of hit points -- that might be gone in 5 minutes... unless they die, and then it's not. So I'd imagine you'd avoid talking about what those numbers represent during the combat at all. Again -- more focus on the figures, map and dice, and less focus on the descriptions and creative narration.
I expect the hit points section to be much more detailed than what we've seen before, with more guidelines on how to handle descriptions. If not, I'll just assume that anything below x is actual damage, anything above it is fatigue, nerves, etc.
Quote from: James J SkachBut to somehow equate that concept with a miss reducing HP is...well...I don't want ot be too harsh, guys - but it's a bit of a silly argument. If you want to tell me that it's a change in the fundamentals and I just need to get over it - OK, I'm cool with that. But to somehow try to fit this into any version of D&D to date is more than a bit of a stretch (as I said, unless someone can point a strange concoction like, probably, ToB:Bo9S).
I don't think it's a change in the fundamentals so much as it is a reapplication of the flavor text we've had for decades. But I won't tell you that you have to get over it. Other options include maintaining Luddite status, or playing and inventing a house rule to get past the hurdle.
QuoteUntil now. Has there ever been a time in D&D, in the core rules, that you can fail, and still reduce HP?
There have been attacks which only needed to hit touch AC, but did more damage if they hit real AC. But no, AFAIK there have been no cases where two swordsmen with blades could lower each others' hit points on a missed attack roll using a special ability available to their class. There also hasn't been a point in the game's where the hit points section said "hit points aren't all physical damage" and the game rules actually took that definition into account when abstracting combat. Up until now it's been fluff that you were free to ignore or apply as you saw fit, and which caused problems either way (for example, either you take 15 arrows to the chest or cure critical wounds closes up 15 hit points worth of cuts you never took).
To me this looks like a good step towards making the abstract RP aspect of hit points a more concrete mechanic. I haven't seen the full rules, but I like this piece.
This:
Quote from: James McMurrayI don't think it's a change in the fundamentals so much as it is a reapplication of the flavor text we've had for decades.
doesn't jibe with this:
Quote from: James McMurrayBut no, AFAIK there have been no cases where two swordsmen with blades could lower each others' hit points on a missed attack roll using a special ability available to their class.
And these:
Quote from: James McMurrayThere have been attacks which only needed to hit touch AC, but did more damage if they hit real AC.
still need to succeed. It's a choice between success..and lots of success.
And this:
Quote from: James McMurrayThere also hasn't been a point in the game's where the hit points section said "hit points aren't all physical damage" and the game rules actually took that definition into account when abstracting combat. Up until now it's been fluff that you were free to ignore or apply as you saw fit, and which caused problems either way (for example, either you take 15 arrows to the chest or cure critical wounds closes up 15 hit points worth of cuts you never took).
is, as I mention, not the point. I'm well aware of the abstraction. And...it's meaningless because it doesn't say you can fail and still succeed.
Contrary to your sense that it makes the abstract nature of more concrete (yeah, you said something that amounts to that, so I'm sure you understood the conundrum it brings up), it confuses the issues if you use this as the justification - are those three hit points luck parts of the HP? Are they some other source, but not physical? You get into the same issue
from the other angle.
I guess I'm just not explaining it well, because all of those statements fit together perfectly in my mind. We have, until now, been given fluff text that said that hit points can represent things that aren't physical damage, but that in order to reduce hit points you have to hit your opponent with your attack roll. That doesn't make any sense.
Now, we are told that hit points don't all represent physical damage, and if you're really good and you focus on it, you can still wear your opponent down like Errol Flynn or Inego Motoya. That, to me, makes sense. I understand that it doesn't for you and that I'll never make it so, but that's cool. We're not at the same table, so we don't even have to agree to disagree if we don't want (although I'm happy to do it).
QuoteContrary to your sense that it makes the abstract nature of more concrete (yeah, you said something that amounts to that, so I'm sure you understood the conundrum it brings up), it confuses the issues if you use this as the justification - are those three hit points luck parts of the HP? Are they some other source, but not physical? You get into the same issue from the other angle.
Without seeing the hit point section there's no way I can answer that and be sure of matching 4e's rules. However, I would almost certainly narrate it based on the situation, just like I've done with BD&D - 3.5: they're luck, fatigue, and minor scrapes until hit points run low; then larger cuts until you get dropped; at which point the actual wound depends on the combatants and the weapon (although often it's just "he drops" because describing every hit and miss slows things down more than we like).
Quote from: James McMurrayI guess I'm just not explaining it well, because all of those statements fit together perfectly in my mind. We have, until now, been given fluff text that said that hit points can represent things that aren't physical damage, but that in order to reduce hit points you have to hit your opponent with your attack roll. That doesn't make any sense.
Ummmm...OK...you're right. We'll never see eye to eye because that's....ummm...well...yeah...
Quote from: James McMurrayNow, we are told that hit points don't all represent physical damage, and if you're really good and you focus on it, you can still wear your opponent down like Errol Flynn or Inego Motoya.
By...ummm...
missing...with a fumble, even....sure...ok...
There's no such thing as a fumble, at least not in the 4e rules I've seen. If we add in a house rule for them, we'll almost certainly extend that house rule to things like Reaping Strike.
Quote from: James J SkachUntil now. Has there ever been a time in D&D, in the core rules, that you can fail, and still reduce HP?
Sure Fireball, Lighting Bolt, Page 73,74, 1st AD&D PHB, Save for 1/2 damage.
In 4th edition that would read something like
Fireball 1/day
+4 vs Reflex
Hit: 1d6 per level of caster
Miss: as above, divided in half
Frankly my opinion is that all the editions of D&D lost more than they gained by the "abstract" combat system. It causes no end of confusion. They should just made a roll = a blow which is a concept easily grasped by anybody. Note I am not saying that AD&D 1st combat should have been different in any broad sense but rather just explained it different.
In AD&D little was lost by pretending that a roll = blow. it was what most people did anyway. However in 4th edition they return to the idea of abstract combat with a vengeance.
I been saying that the combat system as whole and the reduced level of customization are likely what going to make or break people perception of 4th edition.
Rob Conley
The catch is, the Fighter actually has to shout "Lighting Bolt!" for this to work. :haw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw
Quote from: StuartThe catch is, the Fighter actually has to shout "Lighting Bolt!" for this to work. :haw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw
That was what I was doing from 1992 to 2004. Even owned my own chapter for a couple of years. I had to get out because with the birth my 2nd child I couldn't run my chapter anymore so I sold it.
One thing I want to point out is that in NERO that guy couldn't do what he is doing. He has to say "I call forth a Lightning Bolt". The longer incant changes the dynamics enough that a fighter has a chance.
Assuming these guys are running a NERO type system. The lightning bolt is a 2nd level spell doing about 8 points of damage. The monster they were fighting probably has about 100+ hit points.
Also as silly as all this may look from the outside it is very different feel when you are actually playing. It is very easy to get immersed. And long term play is enhanced by the fact you have friends going and you become part of a team of people. LARPS have advantages and disadvantages over tabletop.
Quote from: estarAlso as silly as all this may look from the outside it is very different feel when you are actually playing.
I
love how silly it looks. That just makes it more awesome! :haw:
"Go raise an army and bring them to me immediately!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwxtNOkGLBU
:haw:
Quote from: estarSure Fireball, Lighting Bolt, Page 73,74, 1st AD&D PHB, Save for 1/2 damage.
Uhhh...Rob...you did see my disclaimers for magic, right?
Even with magic, saves were rarely, if ever, described as misses, but as latch ditch, heroic efforts that reduced the
success to one extent or another. In other words, it didn't take failure and make it success, it too automatic success and gave the target an attempt to defend and turn that success into failure. Even then, people must have taken issue as you can see by the attempts to explain it (see pages 80-81 of the DMG)
But no matter how you slice the abstraction, in combat a miss did not result in reduced HP. Now it can. Like I said, no skin off my nose - but the change is evident.
Quote from: James J SkachOK - maybe I'm just not being clear enough.
No, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that I don't have a problem with this particular element of 4e. It represents an unusual case and essentially "breaks the rules," so to speak, which is something I've seen 4e powers/abilities/feats described as doing. Matter of fact, feats were supposed to represent rules exceptions in 3e, as well.
There's no argument here. I was just shooting the shit in a relaxed game conversation, not trying to one-up anyone with my rules-lawyering, so no offense intended if it came off that way.
Quote from: James J SkachBut to somehow try to fit this into any version of D&D to date is more than a bit of a stretch
I don't recall ever trying to say anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out the rationale for the feat. Yes, I realize exactly what you were saying - that it has always required a successful role for a combat action to deal any kind of damage. But I submit it isn't that much of a stretch, now that I see your edit and consider magic, to fit this into any given previous edition of D&D - a number of spells will deal damage of one sort or another even if they fail - that is, saving throws are made against them, as you note. But, magic is, well, magic, which by definition works outside the rules of the game and the real world, and a combat action is a mundane ability that should, in theory, work pretty much like it would in the real world. So, I see that comparing the two is a bit faulty.
Regardless, I understand your objection. I'm sure you'll simply disallow the feat, and I think you have a very good precedent for doing so. Allowing such a feat could very well set a precedent also, in which failure can still equal success for other feats/powers/abilities.
This reminds me of something from, IIRC, Sword & Fist, the early fighter-type splatbook for 3e. There was mention of a potential feat that was cut from the rules called Too Ugly To Die, in which a creature's low charisma gave it a bonus to resist dying at negative hit points or some-such (it's been a long time and I can't recall the details). Anyway, the designers noted that they didn't want to set a precedent by rewarding a negative like a low ability score. At first, I scoffed at that rationale, but came to see why such a feat wouldn't really add to the game as an element of the official rules, as it could open the flood gates for more beneficial failures. At the local level, of course, an individual DM can add it in at his own discretion.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonNo, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that I don't have a problem with this particular element of 4e. It represents an unusual case and essentially "breaks the rules," so to speak, which is something I've seen 4e powers/abilities/feats described as doing. Matter of fact, feats were supposed to represent rules exceptions in 3e, as well.
That's a design goal in 4e. The quick start rules give three basic assumptions that all other rules are based one:
1) simple rules, many exceptions: every class, race, feat, and monster breaks the rule in some way.
2) specific beats general: if something specific breaks a general rule, the specific power wins and does what it says. The example given is that you can't normally move as part of an attack, but you can if you have an ability that allows it.
3) always round down
This thread and Orcus' post on the Necro boards sold me some 4e corebooks. Well, that and I respect Mearls as a designer. I think that's my first new RPG purchase since Aces & Eights.
I don't know that I expect to run or play 4e, and I doubt I'll ever think of it as D&D in my heart of hearts - though you never know how kind of thing will go in the end - but it sounds weird and different enough that I'm convinced I need to at least read it and test drive a half dozen minis combats in my basement.
Honestly, doing damage on a missed attack roll, in and of itself, is enough to make me never, ever want to purchase or even play this game.
I agree with Skach, it's a fundamental paradigm change in how combat works. It says to me very clearly that it uses a style of play for which I want nothing to do with.
Cool. As long as we stick to "I dislike/like __" and avoid "You shouldn't dislike/like ___". :)
For the record, I agree completely that it's a change in how the mechanics work. I think its more in keeping with how the fluff has worked. I can understand the opposite viewpoint, I just disagree with it.
Doing damage on a miss doesn't bother me in and of itself -- but I'd prefer if there was a reason to choose the "basic" attack and all the other attacks had some advantage / disadvantage combinations to them.
Here's the fighter's options (grabbed from over here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80286 )*
Basic Attack
+6 vs AC
Hit: 2d6+3
Cleave
+6 vs AC
Hit: 2d6+3 plus an adjacent enemy take 3 damage
Reaping Strike
+6 vs AC
Hit: 2d6+3
Miss: 3 damage
Why would they ever choose the Basic Attack?
I'd prefer something like:
Basic Attack
+6 vs AC
Hit: 2d6+3
Savage Attack
+6 vs AC
AC: -3 penalty
Hit: 2d6+3
Miss: 3 damage
Guarded Attack
+6 vs AC
AC: +3 bonus
Hit: 2d6
That would keep the Basic Attack the default, and the others would be "special" and not "the new default".
If he charges, he only gets to make a basic attack. There are probably other things that restrict you to basic attacks and/or enhance your basics, since there are some abilities that say they allow basic attacks with them (Magic Missile is an example).
Beyond charging (+1 to hit as a standard action during which you must move at least 2 squares in a straight line), the quick start rules don't give the dwarf fighter any reason not to use his at will abilities. But, since Charging lets you move twice your speed and still attack, it's likely that the dwarf will be doing it every now and then.
You could argue that a charge is an of itself a special attack... but I see the point. One imagine that AoO would be 'basic' strikes as well.
I can see the hit points are abstract paradigm I just wonder why they chose to adopt it after all it does nothing to simplify the game. I wonder if we will see rules for fatigue etc expressed as lost hit points that would begin to make some sense I guess, though I suspect rules on encumberance and so forth have been radically simplified (rating items as slots and then giving slots based on Str or something like they do in computer games would probably do it).
Out of curiosity has anyone that has designed a game wether commercial or homebrew ever used an abstracted combat system of this type? Even in Amber where combat can be vastly abstracted if you wish I have never met a DM that doesn't describe it in detail.
I guess my problem is that it doesn't feel terribly heroic. I mean you have these larger than life uber characters, more so now than ever before, but rather than the warrior swinging a single mighty blow getting that 20 and finishing the beast you have to think of it as the beast and the warrior locked in a complex melee and the fighter eventually landing that blow... It's like they wanted to be both abstract, hit points, and realistic, combat rounds represent the ebb and flow of a melee. Now I can see the wargaming background that inspired this in OD&D and early editions but I can't see why they kept to this concept in the redesign. It just seems awkward and unnecessary.
I can see the hit point and class models were set in stone and you can't pull them, you can't pull the core stats and you can't touch the base d20 roll high mechanic. I just can't see the design meeting where someone said "we should keep combat rounds loose and not equate a to hit roll to an actual pysical strike" meeting with a chorus of approval.
Quote from: James McMurraythere are some abilities that say they allow basic attacks with them (Magic Missile is an example).
You can attack and cast Magic Missile? :raise:
My game has an abstracted combat system. (Older editions of D&D are abstracted too.)
I'm not sure I'd say it's of this type though. This does have a mix of abstract and detailed.
QuoteI mean you have these larger than life uber characters, more so now than ever before, but rather than the warrior swinging a single mighty blow getting that 20 and finishing the beast you have to think of it as the beast and the warrior locked in a complex melee and the fighter eventually landing that blow...
I don't mind either, and if it's abstracted enough you could describe either. I've grown to not be such a fan of "this d20 roll represents a single attack" and "this d8 roll represents how deeply my sword goes into his arm" type of system though.
Quote from: jibbajibbaYou could argue that a charge is an of itself a special attack... but I see the point. One imagine that AoO would be 'basic' strikes as well.
The quickstart just says "when ... you can make an opportunity attack." There may be abilities that let you make nonbasic attacks as opportunity attacks, but none of the sample characters have them.
QuoteI guess my problem is that it doesn't feel terribly heroic. I mean you have these larger than life uber characters, more so now than ever before, but rather than the warrior swinging a single mighty blow getting that 20 and finishing the beast you have to think of it as the beast and the warrior locked in a complex melee and the fighter eventually landing that blow...
D&D abstract combat has always represented one or more blows per die roll in my mind. A natural 20 that does enough to drop the dragon can be described as a flurry of blows that take it down, or as a single devastating strike, whichever is more fun for the group.
I don't know why they chose to keep it either, but I imagine it's because the more realism you add to a game, the more of it people expect. If you leave abstract combat but not hit points (or vice versa), people wonder why. Plus, they have competitors (White Wolf, Shadowrun, etc.) all focusing on one roll per attack and wound systems that mean physical damage must have occurred.
They've already got a framework for abstract combat in place and the game has been on top since it came out. There wasn't really any impetus to change.
Quote from: James McMurrayCool. As long as we stick to "I dislike/like __" and avoid "You shouldn't dislike/like ___". :)
For the record, I agree completely that it's a change in how the mechanics work. I think its more in keeping with how the fluff has worked. I can understand the opposite viewpoint, I just disagree with it.
I apologize fully is my posts came across as telling anyone how to play. I think I used the term "no skin off my nose," and I mean it. The bolded part was my point - not that people should henceforth never play D&D because of it.
Quote from: StuartYou can attack and cast Magic Missile? :raise:
It says that you can make basic attacks with it, not that you can attack alongside casting it. It's a standard action, and attacks are also standard actions. AFAIK there's nothing in the quickstart rules that explains why that clause is there.
I also got the opportunity to play with the quickstart rules. I was going to make a thread about my impressions until I saw this one, so I thought I'd weigh in.
First of all, combat is usually my least favorite part of a game. I tend to enjoy it for the first few rounds, but it always ends up dragging on. I'm pretty sure that the introductory fight lasted for the better part of an hour, but I figure I can partially chalk this up to the fact that we were playing with a couple of 12 year olds, and we'd never used these rules before. In general, it seemed to move at a decent clip.
I guess it did kind of feel like an MMO, but to me it actually felt more like... i guess what I'd think of as a RTS game like Warcraft III or Starcraft turned into a turn-based thing. Maybe a little Fallout-esqe. I played the Wizard, and while I didn't really have a problem with using a may-miss Magic Missle every round (with a huge range, actually, which made me feel a bit like artillery), I was a little dissapointed by my spell setup. There were lots of blasty spells, but the closest I could get to utility was a Sleep spell I could use one a day and a Light/Create Noise spell.
While HP was boosted quite a lot, I got hit once, and it ended up doing over half my HP. Meanwhile, the Fighter soaked up quite a significant amount of damage compared to me. I took that to indicate I shouldn't be fooling around in combat, considering I still think I'd go down in two decent hits. The Fighter and Paladin, on the other hand, didn't have too much to fear from Kobolds, though the Fighter would have gotten chewed up quickly. It looks like bad tactics will still get you eaten, but I need to play some more to find out.
I've got no idea what the rules are for out of combat. There were some skills we didn't get around to using, and even though we had formed the ghost of a background and personality about five minutes in, there wasn't much of an oppertunity to put them to use.
It seemed that the fighter took 2 damage every round he was on fire. Was this a set amount or was it rolled and just happened to come up every round?
Quote from: wulfgarIt seemed that the fighter took 2 damage every round he was on fire. Was this a set amount or was it rolled and just happened to come up every round?
I haven't seen the adventure, so can't be sure, but it was probably a set amount. All of the continuous damage the PCs can do is a set amount every round. For instance, Acid Arrow's damage is 2d8+4 and ongoing damage 5 (save ends). That means that at the start of your turn you take 5 damage, then at the end of your turn you make a save (10 or higher on a d20). If the save is successful the ongoing damage ends.
Quote from: wulfgarIt seemed that the fighter took 2 damage every round he was on fire. Was this a set amount or was it rolled and just happened to come up every round?
Set amount listed in the description of the power on the monster card.
The notion of combat is now abstract is reinforced by the Warlord's abilities found here
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TieflingWarlord.zip
QuoteLead the Attack Warlord Attack 1
Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive home.
Daily ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: +6 vs. AC
Hit: 3d8 + 3 damage. Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a +5 power bonus
to attack rolls against the target.
Miss: Until the end of the encounter, you and each ally within
5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to attack rolls against the target.
QuoteWolf Pack Tactics Warlord Attack 1
Step by step, you and your friends surround the enemy.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Special: Before you attack, you let one ally adjacent to either you or the target shift 1 square
Also show an example of multiclassing where the Warlord takes a wizard's power at 2nd level.
Thanks for the link. I like the Warlord, he looks like he'll make combat even more dynamic and active.
One thing that does disturb me a little was when the rogue moved past the kobold.
Not that I object to moving around the battlefield to get into a good spot, thats all well and good. What bothered me was that the Kobold got and AoO.
Not that NPC's having AoO's bother me the least, seeing as how I like all the rules to work the same way more or less.
No, what bothered me was the Kobold HIT with the AoO and the Rogue kept right on moving past him.
See, that right there disturbs me. I dislike me some 'unstoppable moves' in combat. They breaky me sense of 'how things work'. Diving through the Giant's legs to swat his backside only works of the Giant has a chance to stop you. Being able to hit you as you go by, but not stop you? No maky the sense.
Now, this could lead to something like 'reflex to keep going' or what have you, but an extra roll just slows things down. What IS the rule for 'stopping someone from sliding past you to smack you ass hard'?
I think this is where the "hit points: abstract or not?" issue crops up again.
Did the Kobold actually hit the Rogue, or did the Rogue need to use up some luck, karma, energy, stamina (etc) to get past the Kobold without getting hit.
Bah. Even if you use the abstract HP, this is the scene in the movie where Short-Round dives for the legs and the Thuggee whips the sword down hitting the ground in front of him, bringing him up short.
In short, aborting the move by means of an AoO...
which appears to be absent...
I caution against the dangers of drawing too many non-combat-related conclusions from this purely combat-oriented report.
Quote from: EngineI caution against the dangers of drawing too many non-combat-related conclusions from this purely combat-oriented report.
Well, skimming through the PHB, I see very little that has anything to do with stuff outside of combat. Over 95% of all powers and abilities (including wizard "spells") are combat related. About the only non-combat things are skills like Bluff and Diplomacy, although there is a rule about how to use Bluff in combat.
Quote from: GoOrangeWell, skimming through the PHB, I see very little that has anything to do with stuff outside of combat. Over 95% of all powers and abilities (including wizard "spells") are combat related. About the only non-combat things are skills like Bluff and Diplomacy, although there is a rule about how to use Bluff in combat.
Is that the released, live, official, PHB? Or are you referring to the quickstart?
Someone on rpg.net posted that they have the core books:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=396755
I haven't read the thread yet, so who knows, maybe the guy is a bullshitter...
EDIT: Oops, I didn't mean to imply you were a bullshitter, GoOrange. Didn't process the fact that you said you had the books...so the rpg.net guy is for real, yo.
Quote from: James J SkachIs that the released, live, official, PHB? Or are you referring to the quickstart?
Buy.com has shipped books early, and the PDFs have begun to circulate.
Quote from: GoOrangeBuy.com has shipped books early, and the PDFs have begun to circulate.
that's why I asked - because with news of the books shipping, it helps to get clarification...
I didn't doubt you, I was just making sure I understood about what you were speaking...
Quote from: GoOrangeWell, skimming through the PHB, I see very little that has anything to do with stuff outside of combat.
That's always been one of my --oh, wait, you're talking about the 4e PHB?
;)
role-playing will be addressed in a follow-along rule book for $39.95.
it kinda feels like i've come full-circle. at 40, i'm learning Melee (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3464) again and the new phb should just have the old tagline "Basic fantasy combat rules". :D
Yeah, I should have been clearer in the original post that I was referring to the 4E PHB and not the quickstart rules. And James, no worries, I knew what you meant (and I was just heading off to dinner and kept my reply brief.)
If anyone is interested, some people are reporting purchasing the core set from Buy.com today and getting confirmation emails that the books are shipping right away (although expedited shipping will cost you a pretty penny).
Quote from: kregmosierrole-playing will be addressed in a follow-along rule book for $39.95.
It feels that way.
I don't need rules or explanations to tell me how to roleplay, but I like character options that give some kinds of bonuses or effects that are relevant outside of combat and in social situations. I really like L5R because it has several courtier schools (classes) and plenty of social and non-combat skills. That's always been largely missing from D&D and seems even more true of 4E.
I'm fairly certain I could run and play a 4E game that focused on political intrigue, social interaction, mystery and investigation but it seems that if I did so, no one would ever need to look at their character sheet.
I'm thinking that if I ran GURPS or L5R, there would be a few more non-combat entries on the character sheet that might come into play.
Perhaps I'm just fooling myself. Perhaps it's been that way all along and I just never noticed.
IIRC Basic D&D had few roleplaying related rules either.
4e has a large chunk of the character creation chapter devoted to fleshing out your character's personality, which is more than I recall in other editions.
I don't remember if it was in this thread, but there was talk about Reaping Strike and how it's a no brainer compared to the basic attack. That's still true, but there are other fighter options that make reaping strike not as clear a choice for them. Sure Strike is a normal damage attack at +2. Tide of Iron lets you push them if you hit. Both will often be much better than a gauranteed Str/2 (Str if wielding a 2-handed weapon).