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.