TheRPGSite

Yesterday on Twitter, Greg Bilsland tweeted this when talking about the D&D Essentials sets coming up-

 "@gregbilsland (http://twitter.com/gregbilsland): There are a few significant revisions to core rules"

Significant revisions = D&D 4.5.  And it only took 2 years this time.

Quote from: mhensley;377631Yesterday on Twitter, Greg Bilsland tweeted this when talking about the D&D Essentials sets coming up-

 "@gregbilsland (http://twitter.com/gregbilsland): There are a few significant revisions to core rules"

Significant revisions = D&D 4.5.  And it only took 2 years this time.

Nice time machine you've got there. But he wasn't talking about D&D Essentials.

"At an end your reign is, and not short enough it was?"
More information would be good before we can really say anything, methinks.

re: the Rules Compendium, by the way...

flamewar in 3...2...1...

Houston we have burn

If I'm following that Twitter feed correctly (and I may not, since I don't look at them very often) it looks like they're planning on introducing some modifications to the core rules in a supplement (Compendium) or an online document.  I don't see anything about a reprint/revision of the core books that I would qualify as 4.5 ed.

Quote from: mhensley;377631Yesterday on Twitter, Greg Bilsland tweeted this when talking about the D&D Essentials sets coming up-

 "@gregbilsland (http://twitter.com/gregbilsland): There are a few significant revisions to core rules"

The other side of that conversation appears to be on http://twitter.com/paulbaalham

@gregbilsland  Thanks for the reply. Sorry to keep bothering you but which update will be the last one included in the Rules Compendium book?
(about 19 hours ago  via twidroid  in reply to gregbilsland)

@gregbilsland Are there any major rules revisions or is it mainly errata of powers/items? I'm glad WotC keeps doing these updates
(about 20 hours ago via web in reply to gregbilsland)

Yeah. You can break it down by clicking the "in reply to" links at the end of each tweet. Here's the full conversation:

QuoteGreg: Putting the final touches on the #dnd rules update document to go up next Tuesday.

Paul: @gregbilsland Are there any major rules revisions or is it mainly errata of powers/items? I'm glad WotC keeps doing these updates

Greg: @paulbaalham There are a few significant revisions to core rules.

Paul: @gregbilsland Thanks for the reply. Sorry to keep bothering you but which update will be the last one included in the Rules Compendium book?

Greg: All the updates you see next week will be included in RC. The July updates won't affect Rules Compendium, b/c it will focus on powers/feats.

I'm assuming that last is in reply to Paul, although it's not specifically addressed to him, because it answers his question.

The rules updates are nothing new. The last round of updates made a significant change to how staffs (and other magical implements that are also weapons) worked, changed the rules for forced teleportation, and a few other things. If the rules updates count as a significant change, we're at something like D&D 6.5 by now.

We'll know in a few years whether the 4E Essentials line was really a like 4.5E or a "dumbed down" version akin to B/X D&D or BECMI, in hindsight.

If it turns out to be regarded as a watered/dumbed down D&D (whether real or perceived), the detractors may lump it into the B/X D&D or BECMI category.

If it turns out to be just as complex and messy as the already released 4E D&D core books and splats, the detractors may very well regard it as a 4.5E (except in name).

The other scenario is if the 4E Essentials line is DOA and abruptly canceled.  Then we'll never know.  But it won't stop the detractors from claiming victory.

Quote from: ggroy;377661We'll know in a few years whether the 4E Essentials line was really a like 4.5E

We'll know in a few months if the new softcovers will serve any purpose beyond drawing in impulse buyers who've never heard of RPGs or D&D before (roughly the same thing).

As to whether these softcovers will replace the shiny hardcovers whose spines won't break the moment you flatten them on the table... for people who have them... remains to be seen.

Quote from: Windjammer;377665We'll know in a few months if the new softcovers will serve any purpose beyond drawing in impulse buyers who've never heard of RPGs or D&D before (roughly the same thing).

Even if they're trying to do that as their primary purpose, wonder how they're going to bring it to the attention of such customers.  For example, are they going to make tv commercials advertising 4E Essentials on cable channels like Nickelodeon, Spike, Syfy, etc ....?  Or are they going to be selling these books in the toy section of Wal-Mart or Toys R Us?

@ggroy - the thing to remember is that the core rules of D&D 4.0 are very simplistic. The complexity comes from the powers. This is a consequence of the exception based design.

The implication is that you can create an entirely different feel to the system by altering the package of powers, feats, rituals, and classes and it would still be using the same core rules as D&D 4.0.

Another implication that such a change would not automatically obsolete prior characters. You have the original set of classes in PHB 1 to 3 and now a new set of classes with similar names in the Essential line. It may be that the Esstential versions are underpowered or more limited choices. But it would not make them a 4.5.

Regardless of the rules' particulars, the Essentials line in effect fulfills the same marketing role as 3.5 did: to basically re-sell the core rules to the D&D audience (and beyond, if everything goes according to its stated plans, which I begin to doubt, given its cover - by which I mean, I suspect the product is targeted more at gamers already playing the game than the fabled larger audience WotC keeps claiming it wants to reach). So yes, Essentials = 3.5.

One way to gradually nudge present customers to the 4E Essentials line, would be to gradually phase out the older DDI character builder entries for 4E powers, feats, etc ... and replacing them with their 4E Essentials versions.  Though doing something like this too fast and abruptly may backfire considerably.

Something like this could be done under the guise of "corrections and revisions", albeit gradually.

The first place where this can probably be done easily, would be in the free demo version of the DDI character builder for the first three levels.

EDIT:  At a future date they may very well announce something like, "older 4E non-Essentials books are no officially longer supported by the DDI character builder".  Depending on how successful the 4E Essentials line is, this cut-off date could be anywhere from right away (ie. the free demo version) to a few years in the case where the Essentials line takes a considerable amount of time to catch on.

Quote from: Benoist;377678Regardless of the rules' particulars, the Essentials line in effect fulfills the same marketing role as 3.5 did: to basically re-sell the core rules to the D&D audience (and beyond, if everything goes according to its stated plans, which I begin to doubt, given its cover - by which I mean, I suspect the product is targeted more at gamers already playing the game than the fabled larger audience WotC keeps claiming it wants to reach). So yes, Essentials = 3.5.

No, it does not. WotC has been really clear about this: Essentials is designed to open up new markets and make it easier for non-hobby stores to sell the game to newcomers. You can suspect all you want, but all you're doing is making stuff up.

The nostalgic cover is /free/. It does not cost WotC anything in terms of the core purpose to have that cover. It ain't evidence of anything.

Quote from: Thanlis;377689No, it does not.

Does to me.

Quote from: Benoist;377690Does to me.

Me too.

Quote from: Benoist;377690Does to me.

Nuh-uh.

Quote from: Fifth Element;377694Nuh-uh.

Does SO!

I only see current 4e players buying these Essentials line, mostly for the dungeon tiles. If the new builds are in the DDI, then many won't buy the book. I don't see Essentials catering to the old D&D players since they would already made a decision to go 4e or not. As for new players, they had a starter set before and I don't remember hearing it being a hit with newbies.

Even if a new player buys into Essentials and got the 2 books, he will want new classes and races just like the core line. What will he have to do? Invest into the hardbacks or just get DDI? I think once the 10 Essentials product comes out, it won't be that much of a hype and people will just continue to look forward to the usual splat books.

Quote from: ggroy;377667Even if they're trying to do that as their primary purpose, wonder how they're going to bring it to the attention of such customers.  For example, are they going to make tv commercials advertising 4E Essentials on cable channels like Nickelodeon, Spike, Syfy, etc ....?  Or are they going to be selling these books in the toy section of Wal-Mart or Toys R Us?

The stated intent is the latter. No idea if we'll see commercials or not, although that would be pretty telling. The D&D Starter Set is in Toys R Us now (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/441621/d-d-4e-starter-set-a-solo-gamers-review), so I'd assume the new sets will be there at the least.

I got my 3.0 core books at Wal*Mart. Wal*Mart doesn't carry the 4e books in stores, although they'll sell them to you online. A change there would be significant.

Re: phasing out powers -- yeah, I've speculated on that too. Removing powers entirely seems like a hard sell to the core audience. What they could do really easily: set up campaign definitions in the Character Builder, such that you can set a character to be legal in, say, D&D Essentials. Such a character would be flagged as house-ruled if you used material outside the D&D Essentials line.

I say it'd be easy because the Character Builder already includes such functionality. I.e., I can set it to use the LFR character creation rules, and it'll filter out Dragonmark feats. (By which I mean it'll still show them to me, but I'll get a little alert if I select them.) Adding new campaign files is easy; you can do hand-built ones if you want to limit the material for your own campaign. Which is kind of funny given that everyone thinks WotC wants every campaign to use all the source material.

Quote from: Thanlis;377695Does SO!

Oh no you di'n't!

Quote from: Benoist;377678Regardless of the rules' particulars, the Essentials line in effect fulfills the same marketing role as 3.5 did: to basically re-sell the core rules to the D&D audience...

I think they're actually hoping to sell Essentials to the Pathfinder, 3.5, 3e, AD&D, OD&D, and retro-clone audience. I'm sure many current 4e players will pick them up, but...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;377738I think they're actually hoping to sell Essentials to the Pathfinder, 3.5, 3e, AD&D, OD&D, and retro-clone audience. I'm sure many current 4e players will pick them up, but...

Seanchai

Agreed. At least partially.

Do you think Essentials will have anything remotely resembling Skill Challenges?

Quote from: winkingbishop;377741Do you think Essentials will have anything remotely resembling Skill Challenges?

Why wouldn't they? Skill challenges are merely a use of the existing skill system.

You know, I was thinking about this last night, aren't the technology flowcharts in Gamma World 1e a little like skill challenges?.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;377753Why wouldn't they? Skill challenges are merely a use of the existing skill system.

Well, they might not deem them appropriate for the "beginner's box" or whatever role Essentials ultimately turns out to be.  And, like we discussed in the other thread: The original rules as printed had bad math and, even post-errata, a lot of people still choose to use their own system instead of the 'fix'.  So I'm wondering if they'll modify Skill Challenges again or just hand-wave them away for their basic set.

Well, They might explain them a bit differently but all skill challenges are is a way to conduct non-combat scenes using skills and grant XP for it. The skill system is going to be there, so I don't see why challenges wouldn't be included.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;377753Why wouldn't they? Skill challenges are merely a use of the existing skill system.

They also happen to suck, depending on who you ask (old schoolers, in particular).

Quote from: Aos;377765You know, I was thinking about this last night, aren't the technology flowcharts in Gamma World 1e a little like skill challenges?.

I can dig it.

You can't really compare 4e updates to 3.0 vs. 3.5.  It's more like WoW patches vs. Expansion Packs.  DDI has allowed them to distribute official updates to the game rules without printing anything.  At some point they will roll up all the rules changes along with new content in a printed book (an expansion pack) like the Compendium, but in between Compendiums there will be minor DDI updates (patches).

It's not the 3.5 of 4e, it's the Burning Crusade of 4e.

Quote from: Seanchai;377738I think they're actually hoping to sell Essentials to the Pathfinder, 3.5, 3e, AD&D, OD&D, and retro-clone audience. I'm sure many current 4e players will pick them up, but...

Seanchai

Hell, I'll probably buy the boxsets just for the counters.  I'm using them much more than minis these days (at least for the monsters)- numbered, easy to carry, and they stand out from the pc minis nicely.

Quote from: kregmosier;377635re: the Rules Compendium, by the way...

Isn't the RC part of the whole essentials roll out?

Quote from: Aos;377765You know, I was thinking about this last night, aren't the technology flowcharts in Gamma World 1e a little like skill challenges?.

Yes....

I'd say they were more effective than the skill challenges as presented as well.

Quote from: Aos;377765You know, I was thinking about this last night, aren't the technology flowcharts in Gamma World 1e a little like skill challenges?.

Actually the flow charts of gamma are such that the consequences of each failure are known, while in, at least first couple of generations, skill challenges, the consequence of failure is only reached at a totality of failure, just as success is only counted at its totality, if that makes sense. Considering that the math is fucked in 4e anyways, the gamma flowcharts look like a considerably more workable system then skill challenges.

A better system might be to roll until X total successes and failures and then the GM interprets based on how many and what they were.

Quote from: winkingbishop;377767Well, they might not deem them appropriate for the "beginner's box" or whatever role Essentials ultimately turns out to be.  And, like we discussed in the other thread: The original rules as printed had bad math and, even post-errata, a lot of people still choose to use their own system instead of the 'fix'.  So I'm wondering if they'll modify Skill Challenges again or just hand-wave them away for their basic set.

It really depends on who's writing the section on skill challenges. See, unless they're copy-pasting it from the DMG 1, you can certainly expect a fresh take on skill challenges. Whenever WotC employs a new writer to cover the area, it's a new take (and often improved on the original). As witness the recent case of Rodney Thompson doing that for the Star Wars Saga Edition, Galaxy of Intrigue - arguably, best written version of the whole thing yet.

Apart from that, I don't believe WotC wouldn't include them in the Essentials line. I don't even believe WotC might postpone their inclusion to a "Essentials" product appearing after the Red Box. See, the last Starter Kit, which was much more limited in scope, included them in a vastly simplified version (on 4 pages, iirc), and frankly, if that Kit can do it, so can the Red Box. But hey, what do we know about WotC' concrete plans on what to include and what not. I'm certainly curious, but as I said upthread, personally I'm too much of a bibliophile to see myself foregoing my glossy hardcovers in favour of these softcovers.

Speaking of which, how popular are the Mongoose pocket version of their rulebooks with you people? If you recall, Mongoose started the softcover pocket version of D&D during the 3.x times, and Mongoose still do that stuff for their own games e.g. Traveller. Whence my interest - how successful is that stuff with experienced players? I can envisage the benefit of having to carry less to a con, but beyond that - what's the catch? Just pricing?

Quote from: Windjammer;377928Speaking of which, how popular are the Mongoose pocket version of their rulebooks with you people? If you recall, Mongoose started the softcover pocket version of D&D during the 3.x times, and Mongoose still do that stuff for their own games e.g. Traveller. Whence my interest - how successful is that stuff with experienced players? I can envisage the benefit of having to carry less to a con, but beyond that - what's the catch? Just pricing?

I never wanted any of the Mongoose ones, but I have the Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and I'll be getting Greg Stolze's smaller edition of Reign. Portability wins.

Yeah, it seems a bit silly to me to try to describe this as 4.5.

RPGPundit

I think they may just do "evolution, not revolution" - For example, one of the PHB3 classes (Barbarian?) has all At-Will powers. With the "Core Book Expansion" strategy, they don't have to reboot every X years to keep profits up - For example, they could produce a "PHB1A" with things like a Fighter option for all At-Will powers, Wizards that use all Daily (Maybe also Encounter) powers.

Could also do "Power Framework Expansion" books.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;378156I think they may just do "evolution, not revolution" - For example, one of the PHB3 classes (Barbarian?) has all At-Will powers. With the "Core Book Expansion" strategy, they don't have to reboot every X years to keep profits up - For example, they could produce a "PHB1A" with things like a Fighter option for all At-Will powers, Wizards that use all Daily (Maybe also Encounter) powers.

Could also do "Power Framework Expansion" books.

PH2 introduced the Barbarian. Some, not just one, of the psionic power source classes introduced in PH3 have boostable (via power points) at-will powers.

I sit corrected.

Having bought most of the editions at one time or another, I guess I always see D&D as a constantly evolving set of rules so I don't see this as a big deal one way or the other.

From the very beginning (with Greyhawk) D&D liked to completely change core rules and class concepts with various supplements.  I mean, even basic D&D went through, what, a dozen different sets of rule revisions over a 15 year period or whatever.  If we were counting every little change to the core rules as a different "edition" then we'd be on a hell of a lot higher than 4.5 by now.

Quote from: Benoist;377772They also happen to suck, depending on who you ask (old schoolers, in particular).

I have a hard time considering a lot of the haters (including you) as "old schoolers" (and I kinda lump this in with forgies who try to set themselves up as authorities on rpgs they don't like and don't play). You simply don't have the insight or competence to know one way or the other.

I think there's definitely a sort of "douchebag zeitgeist" that seems to persist in RPG fandom.. Three years ago it was the forgies and their misery tourism, now it's the fringe element that has latched onto the "old school" stuff. I notice none of the old schoolers are particularly interested in associating with *you* guys.  I still can't figure out what any of you guys have to offer, in any case.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378220I have a hard time considering a lot of the haters (including you) as "old schoolers" (and I kinda lump this in with forgies who try to set themselves up as authorities on rpgs they don't like and don't play). You simply don't have the insight or competence to know one way or the other.

Your allegations concerning lack of insight, or lack competence on the part of others here is laughable at best, and also good example of that "douchebag zeitgeist" you mention. I like most of my peers, here am definitely an authority on RPGs that I don't like, and that I don't play. It's not like I haven't given said RPGs more than their fair share, of my time or attention already.

When it comes to good design, and an aesthetic that is healthy for a RPG, I'm your guy. Benoist, I'm certain, has similar experiences in defining what works for his players, and also for a proper definition of what is considered old-school play. I can rely on his judgement of such matters without having to second guess his motives. Sadly, I can't say the same thing for you.    

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378220I think there's definitely a sort of "douchebag zeitgeist" that seems to persist in RPG fandom.. Three years ago it was the forgies and their misery tourism, now it's the fringe element that has latched onto the "old school" stuff. I notice none of the old schoolers are particularly interested in associating with *you* guys.  I still can't figure out what any of you guys have to offer, in any case.

We, of course, play games with old schoolers, becuase we are old schoolers... and kid, I'm not here to offer you a single thing, so I'm not sure why you are hanging out here. Oh wait... I know, you're here trying real hard to dissuade us from enjoying the things we have enjoyed since our childhood.

GTFO

Is it even possible for you to refrain from typing such nonsense long enough to enjoy the benefits that others provide by posting here, or are you going to continue to pollute otherwise entertaining threads and continue to work at destroying the good experiences others have had with the older games?

This last thing, by the way, is one of the defining elements of the swine we identify as forgie, I am surprised it's coming from you.

Quote from: GameDaddy;378223When it comes to good design, and an aesthetic that is healthy for a RPG, I'm your guy. Benoist, I'm certain, has similar experiences in defining what works for his players, and also for a proper definition of what is considered old-school play. I can rely on his judgement of such matters without having to second guess his motives. Sadly, I can't say the same thing for you.


We, of course, play games with old schoolers, becuase we are old schoolers... and kid, I'm not here to offer you a single thing, so I'm not sure why you are hanging out here. Oh wait... I know, you're here trying real hard to dissuade us from enjoying the things we have enjoyed since our childhood.

Absolutely not. You want to enjoy something, enjoy away, but I just don't consider you an authority on anything, no matter how hard you assume that you do. I think that's the bottom line.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378224Absolutely not. You want to enjoy something, enjoy away, but I just don't consider you an authority on anything, no matter how hard you assume that you do. I think that's the bottom line.

This is another argument that originates with the forgies... absolutely no RPG game was good enough for them, so they had to go off and create their own, completely rejecting any existing mechanics or rules, even if the rules were good, just becuase they couldn't be bothered to trust the authority, or should I say authenticity, of the experiences of other GMs.

I thought this thread was about D&D 4.5? I think they are going to redesign 4.0 so it includes more old school elements in an attempt to woo back the gamers they have lost over the last half-decade or so, but that's just my guess now.

The absolute authorities on D&D, have been dead for more than a year or two.  Unless one has a way of communicating with the dead, it's largely moot at this point.

Otherwise, it's like trying to argue how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: GameDaddy;378226I thought this thread was about D&D 4.5? I think they are going to redesign 4.0 so it includes more old school elements in an attempt to woo back the gamers they have lost over the last half-decade or so, but that's just my guess now.

I am intrigued.  Considering how far afield the current rules have gone, what do you propose would or even could be changed?  Are you referring more to fluff or mechanics?

Quote from: GameDaddy;378226This is another argument that originates with the forgies... absolutely no RPG game was good enough for them, so they had to go off and create their own, completely rejecting any existing mechanics or rules, even if the rules were good, just becuase they couldn't be bothered to trust the authority, or should I say authenticity, of the experiences of other GMs.

Actually it wasn't that "no RPG was good enough for them".. the forgie movement was rooted in the idea that most gamers were unhappy with gaming and that they themselves also secretly held an elite status, able to appreciate things that the majority simply couldn't fathom. The forgies also felt that people who were enjoying themselves playing more popular games simply didn't know any better.

This is an exact parallel to what is going on now.  (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2010/04/theoretical-framework-for-osr.html)


And the fact of the matter is, it really shouldn't matter; people bring to the discussion whatever expertise and insight they have. But when those people have no insight, no expertise, zero talent, and yet still seem to merely assume that they should be taken seriously on topics they know nothing about  because they say so.. Well, there's a disconnect. It's just so much wasted words from someone who doesn't know shit.

Quote from: ggroy;378227The absolute authorities on D&D, have been dead for more than a year or two.  Unless one has a way of communicating with the dead, it's largely moot at this point.

Otherwise, it's like trying to argue how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.  :rolleyes:

I may have one foot in the grave, but you don't need to hurry me along... Dam kids! Get off my lawn!, and no, you can't have my cherry red 67 Ranchero that we spent the summer of 79 putting a 429CC V-8 into!, and yes... it has no problem at all going faster than 150 Mph!

And yes, I can communicate with the dead, let's see what they have to say about this, shall we?

"There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires us to put in the essentials only, and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule intrepretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

What I don't see in the above comment from the dead resurrected, is the words Game Designer, anywhere...

What? No one wants to talk about D&D 4.5?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378232And the fact of the matter is, it really shouldn't matter; people bring to the discussion whatever expertise and insight they have. But when those people have no insight, no expertise, zero talent, and yet still seem to merely assume that they should be taken seriously on topics they know nothing about  because they say so.. Well, there's a disconnect. It's just so much wasted words from someone who doesn't know shit.

First DeadUematsu, now you.  The introspection runs high around here these days.

Quote from: GameDaddy;378233And yes, I can communicate with the dead, let's see what they have to say about this, shall we?

Communicating with Gygax via a ouija board.  ;)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378232But when those people have no insight, no expertise, zero talent, and yet still seem to merely assume that they should be taken seriously on topics they know nothing about  because they say so.. Well, there's a disconnect.

Sounds like an armchair quarterback and/or a clueless theorist?

Quote from: ggroy;378239Sounds like an armchair quarterback and/or a clueless theorist?

Yes, he usually does.

"Proof by authority" doesn't always work out so well either.  ;)

Quote from: ggroy;378235Communicating with Gygax via a ouija board.  ;)

He willed to me a great set of little books that came in a little white box with some dice and stuff... Dungeons & Dragons.

It was a game pretty much designed to be continually redesigned by the referee, and his/her players in order to entertain, and to fulfill the fantastic interests of the aforementioned.

Quote from: GameDaddy;378242He willed to me a great set of little books that came in a little white box with some dice and stuff... Dungeons & Dragons.

It was a game pretty much designed to be continually redesigned by the referee, and his/her players in order to entertain, and to fulfill the fantastic interests of the aforementioned.

:) Nicely put.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378232Actually it wasn't that "no RPG was good enough for them".. the forgie movement was rooted in the idea that most gamers were unhappy with gaming and that they themselves also secretly held an elite status, able to appreciate things that the majority simply couldn't fathom. The forgies also felt that people who were enjoying themselves playing more popular games simply didn't know any better.

This is an exact parallel to what is going on now.  (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2010/04/theoretical-framework-for-osr.html)

If you find me a link where some OSR dude says "4e gives people brain damage" or "4e players aren't really having fun" not only will I denounce that position, I'll round up 20 other people to do so.  "I am having less fun playing 4e than earlier editions" or even "4e gives me brain damage" does not count.  If you think trollsmyth is actually making such a claim, please construct an argument rather than just posting a link.

Quote from: StormBringer;378231I am intrigued.  Considering how far afield the current rules have gone, what do you propose would or even could be changed?  Are you referring more to fluff or mechanics?

They could (but probably won't) redo the whole shebang. They did some really great things in streamlining 4.0. All that was lost though when they insisted on keeping all that stupid repetative math and added yet another complex detail for the GM/gamers to keep track of, powers. I thought 3.0 was bad in that regard with all the math and feats and stuff, but 4.0 took that to a whole new level. The point of good game design, is to take all the mechanics and make them transparent, so it doesn't interfere with play and fun time.


We know they are going after the kids, so there will be new design elements regarding that. Can't say what, or if it will be good, but fairly certain it will be in there.

I think they also figured out (Through the OSR Rennaissance of all things), that the champions that drive new player recruitment, are the guys running the games, and the guys (and gals) running the games have made major moves towards rules light.

I wouldn't hold my breath though. For every step they do right, they take four or five faux steps, or steps lacking in basic aesthetics.

We have more web traffic on this site now, than on the leading RPGA fan board. While WOTC claims 200,000 registered users for their newest social website/forum, the largest registered group of active players there only numbers about 800 or so (I checked, yesterday). Shows how far down the ladder they have gone since 2005.

We are comparable here alone. Enworld is Larger. Paizo is larger, Even Green Ronin has a larger active fan base. RPG.net is bigger as well.

Quote from: GameDaddy;378253We have more web traffic on this site now, than on the leading RPGA fan board. While WOTC claims 200,000 registered users for their newest social website/forum, the largest registered group of active players there only numbers about 800 or so (I checked, yesterday). Shows how far down the ladder they have gone since 2005.

I am not going to bother pointing out how stupid it is to look at the RPGA as equivalent to D&D as a whole any more, because nobody ever listens. But it's pretty dumb.

Quote from: jrients;378250If you find me a link where some OSR dude says "4e gives people brain damage" or "4e players aren't really having fun" not only will I denounce that position, I'll round up 20 other people to do so.  "I am having less fun playing 4e than earlier editions" or even "4e gives me brain damage" does not count.  If you think trollsmyth is actually making such a claim, please construct an argument rather than just posting a link.

It isn't the brain damage part of the argument, (which is simply the final destination the forgies eventually arrived at based on their own faulty premises). But "Brain Damage" is the inherent argument behind every single reference to D&D4e being "just a video game" or "just a skirmish game". I'm sure you can find links to that.

But read literally every single other statement on that page: See if you can find all of these- (it'll be like a game):
"System Matters", "For most of us, RPGs stopped being as much fun as they'd been...", "understand what sorts of activities you actually enjoy.." (this is how the forgies sold people on GNS).

I was actually looking at WOTC at Wotc.com in regards to D&D, after of course.... stumbling onto a fan-based 4.0 RPGA board yesterday while surfing the net.

I was very surprised to find only about 500 registered users on the RPGA 4.0 fan board with only 100 or so active. We post much more here than they do there.

Then being curious I went and looked at WOTC as to how many D&D players there are active... The largest group there: 800 and change.

The RPG Bloggers network is also larger than WOTC now, in terms of active readers. Don't they have about 200 more or less regular Blog writers who post at least once a month?

Quote from: GameDaddy;378253I wouldn't hold my breath though. For every step they do right, they take four or five faux steps, or steps lacking in basic aesthetics.

We have more web traffic on this site now, than on the leading RPGA fan board. While WOTC claims 200,000 registered users for their newest social website/forum, the largest registered group of active players there only numbers about 800 or so (I checked, yesterday). Shows how far down the ladder they have gone since 2005.

We are comparable here alone. Enworld is Larger. Paizo is larger, Even Green Ronin has a larger active fan base. RPG.net is bigger as well.

Well, the RPGA is more about playing games than talking about them. I think I myself only visit there about once every few months. But no, Paizo's fanbase is nowhere near the size of the RPGA, let alone the actual 4E fanbase. Who do you think that company is so huge? Why do think that they are able to sell so many books?  Is it a conspiracy?

This is kinda what I meant about "lacking insight."

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378265It isn't the brain damage part of the argument, (which is simply the final destination the forgies eventually arrived at based on their own faulty premises). But "Brain Damage" is the inherent argument behind every single reference to D&D4e being "just a video game" or "just a skirmish game". I'm sure you can find links to that.

Dude, you're having your cake and eating it too.  Is 'brain damage' relevant to your argument or not?

QuoteBut read literally every single other statement on that page: See if you can find all of these- (it'll be like a game):
"System Matters", "For most of us, RPGs stopped being as much fun as they'd been...", "understand what sorts of activities you actually enjoy.." (this is how the forgies sold people on GNS).

Explain to me how those statement don't apply to you.  Imagine yourself saying "System Matters, so I adopted 4e.  I want to have more fun, not less, so I adopted 4e in place of the previous version.  As I've gained better understanding of the parts of D&D I like best, I've discovered my preferences are better served by 4e than other versions."  If those things aren't true, I'm baffled as to why the heck you play 4e.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378268Well, the RPGA is more about playing games than talking about them. I think I myself only visit there about once every few months. But no, Paizo's fanbase is nowhere near the size of the RPGA, let alone the actual 4E fanbase. Who do you think that company is so huge? Why do think that they are able to sell so many books?  Is it a conspiracy?

This is kinda what I meant about "lacking insight."

Why would there be a conspiracy?

When I look at the bookshelves at my local bookstore (not the game store, the bookstore), I see a full shelf of 4.0 books, with one or two exceptions, they are not moving. No one is buying the books.

Sure WOTC got paid for them, and it counts as a sale. What do you suppose is going to happen to those books eventually? With magazines they simply shred the cover and ship them back to the publisher for a credit. Books though (especially hardbacks) tend to get discounted until someone buys them. Eventually the bookstore will sell them at a loss to recapture capital, and clear up the shelf space for something that will move.

Does each one of those books that WOTC "sells" create a new gamer, or GM?

Quote from: GameDaddy;378272When I look at the bookshelves at my local bookstore (not the game store, the bookstore), I see a full shelf of 4.0 books, with one or two exceptions, they are not moving. No one is buying the books.

Sure WOTC got paid for them, and it counts as a sale.  What do you suppose is going to happen to those books eventually?

At some bookstores I'm aware of, the books on the shelves are actually on consignment.  If it doesn't sell, it may eventually be returned to the distributor or publisher.

Quote from: ggroy;378279At some bookstores I'm aware of, the books on the shelves are actually on consignment.  If it doesn't sell, it may eventually be returned to the distributor or publisher.

Seriously?  That seems like a fairly odd arrangement for any retailer, let alone a bookseller.

Quote from: jrients;378271Dude, you're having your cake and eating it too.  Is 'brain damage' relevant to your argument or not?

It is, but not in the specific post you demanded to see evidence of it from. Do you not agree that the brain damage argument is evident in every single reference to D&D just being a video game?

QuoteExplain to me how those statement don't apply to you.  Imagine yourself saying "System Matters, so I adopted 4e.  I want to have more fun, not less, so I adopted 4e in place of the previous version.  As I've gained better understanding of the parts of D&D I like best, I've discovered my preferences are better served by 4e than other versions."  If those things aren't true, I'm baffled as to why the heck you play 4e.

On the surface it seems perfectly consistent to say something like that. However, that's not what any of those terms actually mean. "System Matters", and the various "but my playstyle is NARRATIVIST" sort of arguments have always been supremacist conceits -- essentially they are meant to give the writer an excuse for simply not fitting in anymore- of course not, he is simply too good. In the case of the forgies, most of these guys don't even have gaming groups- or when they do, they'd be the odd one out.. "but my group still doesn't get it.. I tried to introduce Sorcerer but they turned me down..again". A solid percentage were unable to game at all except by meeting up at conventions.

No, all of those terms are about solidifying an identity. (Don't believe me? re-read the post I linked).  I would go further and state that it's a falsely constructed identity, for the most part. Anytime I see a group saying "This is who we are defined by what we hate" (ie, the "Counter reformation" definition favored over at Grognardia) I see it as an affectation.
 
No, the thing is: People are much better described by what they like, and in the end there really is going to be a lot in common despite whatever "edition" or game people happen to enjoy. That's an observed truth. I run two games a week at a game store. I host a third at my apartment, and I get to play in another on alternate weekends. I see lots of different kinds of gamers. We're not that different.

Trying to drive in wedges or declare yourself the expert on shit you have no idea about? It flies here, but not so much in the real world.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378285It is, but not in the specific post you demanded to see evidence of it from. Do you not agree that the brain damage argument is evident in every single reference to D&D just being a video game?

I think that's a serious leap. Are you inferring that one must be brain damaged to enjoy video games?

Quote from: StormBringer;378283Seriously?  That seems like a fairly odd arrangement for any retailer, let alone a bookseller.

No idea why the book business functionally works that way.

People I know who worked in the book business, mentioned it has been generally a crappy business to be in for decades.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378285It is, but not in the specific post you demanded to see evidence of it from. Do you not agree that the brain damage argument is evident in every single reference to D&D just being a video game?

No, I do not agree.  The only thing I see is evidence of people being stupid and dismissive.

QuoteOn the surface it seems perfectly consistent to say something like that. However, that's not what any of those terms actually mean. "System Matters", and the various "but my playstyle is NARRATIVIST" sort of arguments have always been supremacist conceits -- essentially they are meant to give the writer an excuse for simply not fitting in anymore- of course not, he is simply too good.

Sounds like a reasonable argument.  So hypothetically a new edition of D&D comes out and you think it is subpar for your uses.  You don't fit in anymore with the mainstream.  What do you do differently to avoid these same accusations?

QuoteIn the case of the forgies, most of these guys don't even have gaming groups- or when they do, they'd be the odd one out.. "but my group still doesn't get it.. I tried to introduce Sorcerer but they turned me down..again". A solid percentage were unable to game at all except by meeting up at conventions.

Is there some sort of criticism of convention play in your argument here?

QuoteNo, all of those terms are about solidifying an identity. (Don't believe me? re-read the post I linked).  I would go further and state that it's a falsely constructed identity, for the most part. Anytime I see a group saying "This is who we are defined by what we hate" (ie, the "Counter reformation" definition favored over at Grognardia) I see it as an affectation.

If we're talking about a quote on Grognardia, please quote Grognardia.  If we're talking about trollsmyth, please quote trollsmyth.  Show me this hate language in context please.  Though to be honest, I don't see how any fandom of anything other than mainstream RPG could avoid being painted with your accusation.  That's the anxiety of influence in a nutshell, don't you think?  Your analysis leads to all later RPGs existing because the creators 'hate' OD&D or whatever later game they played and found wanting.
 

QuoteNo, the thing is: People are much better described by what they like, and in the end there really is going to be a lot in common despite whatever "edition" or game people happen to enjoy. That's an observed truth. I run two games a week at a game store. I host a third at my apartment, and I get to play in another on alternate weekends. I see lots of different kinds of gamers. We're not that different.

No disagreement on this point.  I just don't see the hate you're reading into trollsmyth.

Quote from: ggroy;378291No idea why the book business functionally works that way.

People I know who worked in the book business, mentioned it has been generally a crappy business to be in for decades.

No arguments there, I have read a few things here and there about bookselling over the years.

I think I see what you mean here, though, magazines and some paperbacks have always been technically on consignment, as the send back the unsold copies at the end of the month/quarter/whatever.  I assume the post I was replying to didn't mean 'consignment' in that context, or was I mistaken?

Quote from: jrients;378299Sounds like a reasonable argument.  So hypothetically a new edition of D&D comes out and you think it is subpar for your uses.  You don't fit in anymore with the mainstream.  What do you do differently to avoid these same accusations?

You know that's never going to happen.  ;)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378285No, all of those terms are about solidifying an identity. (Don't believe me? re-read the post I linked).  I would go further and state that it's a falsely constructed identity, for the most part. Anytime I see a group saying "This is who we are defined by what we hate" (ie, the "Counter reformation" definition favored over at Grognardia) I see it as an affectation.

"And we hate the OSR!"

I hate doing these "answer by answer quote blocks" but I guess I have no choice.

Quote from: jrients;378299No, I do not agree.  The only thing I see is evidence of people being stupid and dismissive.

The extrapolation is unspoken. If D&D is just a pointless videogame, and yet people still like it, they must be .. what? Fill in the blank.  

QuoteSounds like a reasonable argument.  So hypothetically a new edition of D&D comes out and you think it is subpar for your uses.  You don't fit in anymore with the mainstream.  What do you do differently to avoid these same accusations?

Well, I would do exactly what I did in 1989- I'd either continue with what I was doing or find something else I liked better and not sweat it.

QuoteIs there some sort of criticism of convention play in your argument here?

Not at all, I think conventions are great. But if that's all you have, that's not gaming, that's just an identity thing. Do people game because they want to be part of a movement on the internet, or are they part of a movement on the internet because they game? It sounds similar, but it's not. (Similar to "Girls looking for husbands" being a slight but significant difference than "husbands looking for girls".)

QuoteIf we're talking about a quote on Grognardia, please quote Grognardia.  If we're talking about trollsmyth, please quote trollsmyth.  Show me this hate language in context please.

"Counter reformation" is a term used in both sites. Do you know what a counter reformation is? It's a movement based on resentment.

QuoteThough to be honest, I don't see how any fandom of anything other than mainstream RPG could avoid being painted with your accusation.  That's the anxiety of influence in a nutshell, don't you think?  Your analysis leads to all later RPGs existing because the creators 'hate' OD&D or whatever later game they played and found wanting.

Not at all. Fandom is liking things. Resenting things does not count as fandom except in a very twisted internet-ish way. I really don't think that new editions came about because people "hated" the previous editions, either. I do think that games evolve (and "accrete") over time, and then eventually there are changes. And some people like the changes and some people don't..and some people, for some topics, it doesn't matter so much so they'd just as soon do it one way as do it another.  

My main point is, people in the real world really aren't so stuck in these "boxes of preference" that we have simply accepted as fact here on the internet. When most people look at a game they don't see a bunch of "decadent art" and feel resentment for the company that makes it because it's bigger, or start grinding their teeth about treasure parcels. They just see a game.

Quote from: StormBringer;378305"And we hate the OSR!"

I don't hate the OSR. I have a lot of similar interests (although I draw the line at reverent readings of monsters from the fiend folio or whatever). I do think there are a lot of fringedwellers (like you).. that have attached themselves to it because they see it as a potential source of negativity and resentment. Since you've identified yourself with hatred and loathing for the last decade or so, you see it as comforting.

But let's face it. Your'e not old school, and they don't even acknowledge you.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378306My main point is, people in the real world really aren't so stuck in these "boxes of preference" that we have simply accepted as fact here on the internet. When most people look at a game they don't see a bunch of "decadent art" and feel resentment for the company that makes it because it's bigger, or start grinding their teeth about treasure parcels. They just see a game.

That is complete bullshit.  You need to get out of the basement a bit more, methinks.  Hang out at a videogame store for a couple of hours; RPG enthusiasts are absolutely British in their reserve and decorum compared to these folks.

Quote from: GameDaddy;378267I was actually looking at WOTC at Wotc.com in regards to D&D, after of course.... stumbling onto a fan-based 4.0 RPGA board yesterday while surfing the net.

I was very surprised to find only about 500 registered users on the RPGA 4.0 fan board with only 100 or so active. We post much more here than they do there.

Then being curious I went and looked at WOTC as to how many D&D players there are active... The largest group there: 800 and change.

The RPG Bloggers network is also larger than WOTC now, in terms of active readers. Don't they have about 200 more or less regular Blog writers who post at least once a month?

What are you /talking/ about? There are 3,000 people in the D&D group on the WotC site. It has a fairly quiet board, mostly people talking about D&D Encounters, but it's active. This 800 person number you keep citing is a fever dream.

More relevant: the D&D forums (http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/viewcategory/75882/Dungeons_38_Dragons). 259,866 posts in the general forum alone. You're just spouting nonsense.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378307I don't hate the OSR. I have a lot of similar interests (although I draw the line at reverent readings of monsters from the fiend folio or whatever). I do think there are a lot of fringedwellers (like you).. that have attached themselves to it because they see it as a potential source of negativity and resentment. Since you've identified yourself with hatred and loathing for the last decade or so, you see it as comforting.

And how have I attached myself to it?  Do you see me in any publications or on anyone's blogroll in the OSR?  Does my name come up very often?  Does my sig block say 'Join the Old School Renaissance'?  And where is this hatred and loathing for the last decade?  Do you have a quote file on me like you do on Andy K, or was his a special case of stalking?  In fact, how can I possibly have attached myself to it, when in your very next sentence...

QuoteBut let's face it. Your'e not old school, and they don't even acknowledge you.

Is that supposed to mean something?  That they don't acknowledge me?  Did you suppose I give a shit what they do?  JRients has some good stuff out there, but I don't read his blog regularly, nor do I comment on it.  I have the first issue of Fight On!, but that is likely the only one I will ever buy.  I don't know how many times I have said I am not interested in the OSR until they start working on things that aren't exclusively D&D.  I mean, seriously, if that statement isn't the clearest proof that you are only here to troll, I don't know how it can be made any clearer.

Think I am just saying that to save face or something?  Here, lemme show you:

JRients, Zach, T. Foster, Philotomy and all you other OSR guys around these parts:  The OSR can go fuck itself until there is more to it than D&D.  You guys make some great stuff, don't get me wrong, it's just too narrow of a scope.

So, if you think I am looking for acknowledgement, you should check in the mirror.  You are the one who claimed to offer some stuff to the OSR and got rejected, and you have been pissed off ever since.  In essence, you define yourself by what you hate.

You are so desperate to lash out at the people who knocked you off your high pedestal you thought you had here, it's getting fairly pathetic.  I wouldn't be surprised if you think I was somehow behind everyone at theRPGHaven telling you to fuck off, too.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378306Well, I would do exactly what I did in 1989- I'd either continue with what I was doing or find something else I liked better and not sweat it.

Back in '89 did you spend a lot of time talking about D&D on the internet?  If my hypthetical came true would you feel obligated to stop posting about D&D?

AM, comparing the OSR to the Forge would carry more weight if you actually understood the Forge or the theories associated with it.  Rambling on about things from the Forge just makes you sound like you're tossing around uneducated labels and judgments on both the Forge and the OSR.

I still think the comparison is weak, but just sayin'.

Quote from: Peregrin;378316AM, comparing the OSR to the Forge would carry more weight if you actually understood the Forge or the theories associated with it.  Rambling on about things from the Forge just makes you sound like you're tossing around uneducated labels and judgments on both the Forge and the OSR.

I still think the comparison is weak, but just sayin'.

You must be new here.  ;)

Quote from: StormBringer;378312JRients, Zach, T. Foster, Philotomy and all you other OSR guys around these parts:  The OSR can go fuck itself until there is more to it than D&D.  You guys make some great stuff, don't get me wrong, it's just too narrow of a scope.

"You guys aren't catering to my specific needs" is a helluva complaint to level at Do It Yourself scene.  Especially when you are ignoring the growing interest in stuff like Mutant Future and X-Plorers.  Personally, I think my best work to date has been my Mutant Future and Encounter Critical adventures.  I wish Fight On! covered Classic Trav stuff but CT fandom doesn't really need the OSR.

Quote from: StormBringer;378303I think I see what you mean here, though, magazines and some paperbacks have always been technically on consignment, as the send back the unsold copies at the end of the month/quarter/whatever.

More or less.  Individual hardcovers end up being returned in the same manner.

I've heard that trade paperbacks and hardcovers in large quantities are done slightly differently.  (ie. All that stuff which ends up in the bargain section after awhile, in huge piles).  If I had to guess, it's probably the equivalent of liquidation.  It may very well be too expensive to ship back and/or deal with so many hardcovers, that the distributor/publisher just sells off that stuff to the retailers for pennies on the dollar.  Probably pointless to ship large heavy inventories around, which would otherwise just sit around in a warehouse collecting dust.

That's my understanding from friends who worked in that business before.

Quote from: Sigmund;378288I think that's a serious leap. Are you inferring that one must be brain damaged to enjoy video games?

I'm "brain damaged" when it comes to video games.  ;)

Though in my case, I've been so "brain damaged" by late 70's/early 80's video games, that I find most modern video games today kind of on the unplayable side.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Peregrin;378316AM, comparing the OSR to the Forge would carry more weight if you actually understood the Forge or the theories associated with it.  Rambling on about things from the Forge just makes you sound like you're tossing around uneducated labels and judgments on both the Forge and the OSR.

I still think the comparison is weak, but just sayin'.

You do know that AM was there from before the Forge kicked off, don't you?

Quote from: Peregrin;378316AM, comparing the OSR to the Forge would carry more weight if you actually understood the Forge or the theories associated with it.  Rambling on about things from the Forge just makes you sound like you're tossing around uneducated labels and judgments on both the Forge and the OSR.

I still think the comparison is weak, but just sayin'.

I understand it just fine, Peregrin. I was there when it was created.

Quote from: ggroy;378323More or less.  Individual hardcovers end up being returned in the same manner.

I've heard that trade paperbacks and hardcovers in large quantities are done slightly differently.  (ie. All that stuff which ends up in the bargain section after awhile, in huge piles).  If I had to guess, it's probably the equivalent of liquidation.  It may very well be too expensive to ship back and/or deal with so many hardcovers, that the distributor/publisher just sells off that stuff to the retailers for pennies on the dollar.  Probably pointless to ship large heavy inventories around, which would otherwise just sit around in a warehouse collecting dust.

That's my understanding from friends who worked in that business before.

Ok, I get what you are saying, then.

Regarding the bargain bin stuff, they can usually get away with dumping it off at fire sale prices, because they already sold through the portion of that order that turned a profit for them, or at least broke even.  If you have a 50% discount from the distributor, then you only have to sell half the books at cover price to pay for that order.  After that, it may not be the profit you wanted, but as you say, it is better than incurring huge costs shipping heavy books back to a distributor and paying the restock fee or whatever and getting a couple of bucks for each unit.

Quote from: jrients;378313Back in '89 did you spend a lot of time talking about D&D on the internet?  If my hypthetical came true would you feel obligated to stop posting about D&D?

Well.. no. (and we didn't really have commercial internet until like 1992 or so..) But I wouldn't spend time complaining about D&D-I-Wasn't-Playing, that's all.

I really think there's value in looking for commonalities rather than searching for heretics.

Quote from: StormBringer;378327Regarding the bargain bin stuff, they can usually get away with dumping it off at fire sale prices, because they already sold through the portion of that order that turned a profit for them, or at least broke even.  If you have a 50% discount from the distributor, then you only have to sell half the books at cover price to pay for that order.  After that, it may not be the profit you wanted, but as you say, it is better than incurring huge costs shipping heavy books back to a distributor and paying the restock fee or whatever and getting a couple of bucks for each unit.

Wonder how much 4E stuff is sitting around in WotC's warehouse collecting dust, especially the 4E PHB1.  (PHB1 is probably the most likely 4E book to have the highest number of books printed).

So far I haven't seen any 4E D&D books (yet) in the bargain sections at big box bookstores.

Quote from: jrients;378320"You guys aren't catering to my specific needs" is a helluva complaint to level at Do It Yourself scene.

That's precisely it, though. There's a fundamental disconnect in what AM's talking about.

I think he's the one striving to be both recognized and relevant, judging by the way he uses both to bludgeon other people who actually don't give much of a fuck about it. He assumes they care. It's strange.

Quote from: One Horse Town;378325You do know that AM was there from before the Forge kicked off, don't you?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378326I understand it just fine, Peregrin. I was there when it was created.

Well, I know now.  Maybe it was mentioned in a previous conversation, but I probably forgot.  I haven't been involved in the online...scene?...whatever, for very long (since Sept of last year), so my knowledge of different people's histories is fuzzy, at best.

That said, I guess you took a completely different impression of the Forge than I did, AM.

Quote from: ggroy;378330Wonder how much 4E stuff is sitting around in WotC's warehouse collecting dust, especially the 4E PHB1.  (PHB1 is probably the most likely 4E book to have the highest number of books printed).

So far I haven't seen any 4E D&D books (yet) in the bargain sections at big box bookstores.

I have heard some rumours that people pick them up at Half Price Books and the like, but not in signficant numbers.

Quote from: Peregrin;378332That said, I guess you took a completely different impression of the Forge than I did, AM.

Totally not a big deal. I'm the first to admit that my issues with the forge have been personal from the beginning, but that's because I was (and still am) friends with a lot of the people involved. And no longer friends with some of them.  

The paralells behind the forgies (and the rise of D20--- forgers rode the wave of D20 resentment while trying to co-opt the pdf publishing movement it pretty much spawned) and the OSR (and the rise of 4E ...oh hello RPG Bloggers Network and Targa) are kind of shocking. If you look closely and remember names, I think you'll see some of the same people in both groups.  I had really hoped at first that this trend would be more about unification than resentment, but I was really saddened that some people were so invested in the opposite.

Quote from: StormBringer;378333I have heard some rumours that people pick them up at Half Price Books and the like, but not in signficant numbers.

I haven't seen many 4E books yet (nor many 3.5E books) being sold widespread at places like that.  More commonly I've seen stuff like the 2E AD&D PHB + DMG, and the 1E AD&D hardcover books (ie. Unearthed Arcana, PHB/MM1/DMG, etc ...).  Occasionally I've seen the 3E D&D core books.

I suppose many of the old AD&D books may very well be from people cleaning our their houses, and disposing of them.  Probably stuff left over from their youth that they have no use for anymore, or parents chucking away their kids' old stuff sitting around the house collecting dust.

Quote from: Benoist;378331That's precisely it, though. There's a fundamental disconnect in what AM's talking about.

I think he's the one striving to be both recognized and relevant, judging by the way he uses both to bludgeon other people who actually don't give much of a fuck about it. He assumes they care. It's strange.

Psst, chinstrap!  I think Jeff was addressing Stormbringer in that post.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378328I really think there's value in looking for commonalities rather than searching for heretics.

I agree.  I just don't know who the hell you think is looking for heresies to quell.  The only people I see actively supressing alternatives would be WotC cutting off the OOP pdf market to spite their face.

Quote from: jrients;378340I agree.  I just don't know who the hell you think is looking for heresies to quell. The only people I see actively supressing alternatives would be WotC cutting off the OOP pdf market to spite their face.

Well , see that's where it's all twisted up. At any given point are we talking about a game, are we talking about the rules to the game (for example treasure parcels), are we talking about the "decadent" art for the game, the people playing it, video games, young people, the company that makes the game, the convention, the bloggers? other things that hurt everyone's feelings? Is it all wrapped up into one thing? I don't think it matters.

Somehow, at some point--it really doesn't even matter what any given thing is, all anyone can agree on is how angry and resentful they are. Which makes we think, ah, it's all bullshit.  These are spectators who are doing the internet equivalent of discussing the weather.

Quote from: ggroy;378336I haven't seen many 4E books yet (nor many 3.5E books) being sold widespread at places like that.  More commonly I've seen stuff like the 2E AD&D PHB + DMG, and the 1E AD&D hardcover books (ie. Unearthed Arcana, PHB/MM1/DMG, etc ...).  Occasionally I've seen the 3E D&D core books.

I suppose many of the old AD&D books may very well be from people cleaning our their houses, and disposing of them.  Probably stuff left over from their youth that they have no use for anymore, or parents chucking away their kids' old stuff sitting around the house collecting dust.

Agreed.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378345Well , see that's where it's all twisted up. At any given point are we talking about a game, are we talking about the rules to the game (for example treasure parcels), are we talking about the "decadent" art for the game, the people playing it, video games, young people, the company that makes the game, the convention, the bloggers? other things that hurt everyone's feelings? Is it all wrapped up into one thing? I don't think it matters.

Somehow, at some point--it really doesn't even matter what any given thing is, all anyone can agree on is how angry and resentful they are. Which makes we think, ah, it's all bullshit.  These are spectators who are doing the internet equivalent of discussing the weather.

No, you are pretty much the only one talking about those other things.  The rest of us talk about games.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378345Well , see that's where it's all twisted up. At any given point are we talking about a game, are we talking about the rules to the game (for example treasure parcels), are we talking about the "decadent" art for the game, the people playing it, video games, young people, the company that makes the game, the convention, the bloggers? other things that hurt everyone's feelings? Is it all wrapped up into one thing? I don't think it matters.

I'm not following you.  What does that laundry list have to do with the price of a bagel in Antwerp?  Please name names as who was involved in this witch-hunt.  Who is asking for people to be kicked out of the club?  Really, this sounds more and more like you are talking at 'some guy on the internet said it' level, which is a far sight less credible than linking to trollsmyth and claiming his article supports your argument.
 

QuoteSomehow, at some point--it really doesn't even matter what any given thing is, all anyone can agree on is how angry and resentful they are. Which makes we think, ah, it's all bullshit.  These are spectators who are doing the internet equivalent of discussing the weather.

Except the difference is that you can't do much about the weather.

Quote from: StormBringer;378348No, you are pretty much the only one talking about those other things.  The rest of us talk about games.

You can disagree with AM, but come on -- there's an eight page thread right here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17126) about how mean WotC is cause they had the wrong people send a letter. (Which, I note, you had the great common sense to ignore. I'm pretty sure you and I would get along quite nicely face to face.)

Quote from: ggroy;378324I'm "brain damaged" when it comes to video games.  ;)

Though in my case, I've been so "brain damaged" by late 70's/early 80's video games, that I find most modern video games today kind of on the unplayable side.  :rolleyes:

In that case so am I. I'm playing through GRAW 2 right now, still have my Total War: Rome, and with the new computer I plan on even newer games :) Wanna play Oblivion, and many others I've missed the last few years.

Quote from: Thanlis;378351You can disagree with AM, but come on -- there's an eight page thread right here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17126) about how mean WotC is cause they had the wrong people send a letter. (Which, I note, you had the great common sense to ignore. I'm pretty sure you and I would get along quite nicely face to face.)

I will concede that in the larger circle of the posters here, he is not entirely wrong.  I usually assume he is referring to a much smaller group with those kinds of grand pronouncements, however.

And I thank you for the complement, you are a gentleman and a scholar.  If you find yourself around Salt Lake City at any time, I will take you out for a beer, as I think you are correct about getting along off-line.

In fact, the only thing I really would have contributed to that thread was my old story about the run in with Games Workshop and how very polite and considerate they were in contrast to the malevolent ogres everyone else portrays them as.  So, in general, I am of the opinion that few companies (especially gaming companies!) have the funds or malice to engage their lawyers on a whim, just to piss people off.

Not even WotC.  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;378372I will concede that in the larger circle of the posters here, he is not entirely wrong.  I usually assume he is referring to a much smaller group with those kinds of grand pronouncements, however.

And I thank you for the complement, you are a gentleman and a scholar.  If you find yourself around Salt Lake City at any time, I will take you out for a beer, as I think you are correct about getting along off-line.

In fact, the only thing I really would have contributed to that thread was my old story about the run in with Games Workshop and how very polite and considerate they were in contrast to the malevolent ogres everyone else portrays them as.  So, in general, I am of the opinion that few companies (especially gaming companies!) have the funds or malice to engage their lawyers on a whim, just to piss people off.

Not even WotC.  :)

And honestly, it most likely was not a lawyer that was engaged to send that letter, it was most likely a paralegal or legal secretary who wrote the letter on law firm letterhead, or in the case of an email, the law office sig line. My ex-wife is a paralegal and does this stuff all the time. Not a big deal at all really. Probably just standard procedure in any case involving possible copyright issues, especially when they know very well that ENWorld would promptly comply and so most likely didn't anticipate any issues. Just following SOP.

Quote from: Sigmund;378374And honestly, it most likely was not a lawyer that was engaged to send that letter, it was most likely a paralegal or legal secretary who wrote the letter on law firm letterhead, or in the case of an email, the law office sig line. My ex-wife is a paralegal and does this stuff all the time. Not a big deal at all really. Probably just standard procedure in any case involving possible copyright issues, especially when they know very well that ENWorld would promptly comply and so most likely didn't anticipate any issues. Just following SOP.

Agreed, even though mine originated in Britain, I doubt I was being attended to by an actual barrister either.  As I recall, the person I was corresponding with held whatever the equivalent position of paralegal is over there.

So, I can't really jump on WotC for this one.  If you don't aggressively protect your copyrights/IP, you lose them, plain and simple.  While I could rant a bit about what they consider 'IP', that is really neither here nor there.

Is anyone willing to defend mhensley's OP as something other than a troll?

Quote from: Mistwell;378376Is anyone willing to defend mhensley's OP as something other than a troll?

On this thread?  Meh, we all get jumpy and want to catch that scoop, right?  Turns out to be nothing, well, mea culpa.  Turns out to be something, hey, I broke that story!  Can't really fault him for that.  I think the natural filters around here worked pretty well, we are more or less on to other topics now.

Quote from: jrients;378250If you find me a link where some OSR dude says "4e gives people brain damage" or "4e players aren't really having fun" not only will I denounce that position, I'll round up 20 other people to do so.

It didn't give me brain damage, but it was close.  I damn near had an aneurysm the other night from the retarded new powers that one of guys started doing.  It took all I had to not choke him.

Quote from: Mistwell;378376Is anyone willing to defend mhensley's OP as something other than a troll?

It worked didn't it?  Abyssal Maw fell right into another pointless argument.:teehee:

Plus I really do think that the level of rules changes present in the upcoming essentials sets and RC will be equivalent to the level of changes that happened with 3.5.  I mean really the changes from 3 to 3.5 were not tremendous, but it was just enough to get people to buy more books.

The rules changes from 3 to 3.5 weren't "tremendous", but they were significant in that it was not completely backwards compatible and it affected gameplay in significant ways unless you houseruled some things back to 3.0.

Quote from: Peregrin;378445The rules changes from 3 to 3.5 weren't "tremendous", but they were significant in that it was not completely backwards compatible and it affected gameplay in significant ways unless you houseruled some things back to 3.0.

This.

Quote from: jrients;378250If you find me a link where some OSR dude says "4e gives people brain damage" or "4e players aren't really having fun" not only will I denounce that position, I'll round up 20 other people to do so.  

Nah, you'd just say "that guy doesn't represent the OSR", just like you guys do whenever its not convenient, while speaking as a single entity whenever it is.

The Forge Swine really loved doing that too,  come to think of it.

Not that I'm saying Abyssal Maw is right, except in the limited sense that he is: the OSR have used some of the Forges own tactics. That's undeniable, as far as I can see. That this is universally a bad thing is where I disagree; in fact I'd been saying for some time that what was needed was to use the same sort of techniques the Forge uses against them (like I have with control of language and jargon).
In the OSR's case, there are a few things they've stolen from the Forge that was for the good, and a handful of things, like my example above, that's really not.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;378518Nah, you'd just say "that guy doesn't represent the OSR", just like you guys do whenever its not convenient, while speaking as a single entity whenever it is.

Exactly how is "that guy doesn't represent the OSR" not a denouncement of whatever shit "that guy" is saying?

And when exactly have you ever got the impression that the OSR scene has its act sufficiently together to speak with a single voice?

Quote from: jrients;378541Exactly how is "that guy doesn't represent the OSR" not a denouncement of whatever shit "that guy" is saying?

And when exactly have you ever got the impression that the OSR scene has its act sufficiently together to speak with a single voice?

He got that impression immediately after it made his arguments that the OSR is some hive-mind monolithic entity easier to support.

I'm going to have to call a possible "No true Scotsman" falacy here. If someone who supports the OSR says that 4e causes brain damage, then that's exactly what happened.

I think it takes a twisted mind of bad taste indeed to have fun with 4e as a player. We finished "Talon Pass" at this moment, and it was terrible beyond belief.

Quote from: Settembrini;378606I think it takes a twisted mind of bad taste indeed to have fun with 4e as a player. We finished "Talon Pass" at this moment, and it was terrible beyond belief.

The published adventures are shit, anyway.  Not that I've ever played any, but they don't read well.

I used to be meh on it as a player (like it a lot coming from a DM's standpoint), but now that I've dug into the system a bit more, I find the gameplay a little more rewarding.  Once you get the hang of the whole push/pull paradigm, it's fun to cooperate with the other players on pulling off some interesting tactics.

It doesn't do everything I want, especially for campaign play, but it's a fun game in its own right if you approach it the right way.

Currently starting a full campaign right now, with the intent to keep playing as long as possible, so we'll see how it holds up compared to our quick playtest run-through of the levels.

The only tactics I could identify were ass-backwards. There exists some metagame behind it, a diluted form of strategy even. But that is blocked in effectiveness by the dreadful grind. And even more frustration upon frustration WITHOUT relief by death or somesuch. We avoided fights, not because of the danger but because of the boredom. Dave Noonan makes it impossible to avoid too many, though.

Wow, I'm surprised it took all of 12 pages to get back to "4e is teh suxxorz". Fucking weak.

Whoa, dude.
This thread had me reconsidering and setting up a game with the introductory box to actually generate more insight. I played yesterday, and sorry, but it IS teh suxxorz.

Quote from: Settembrini;378688Whoa, dude.
This thread had me reconsidering and setting up a game with the introductory box to actually generate more insight. I played yesterday, and sorry, but it IS teh suxxorz.

Yeah, yeah I've heard it all before. That horse has been beaten ad nauseum around here. Spare me.

Well, the published modules aren't very good- and the early ones were especially weak. Treasure of Talon Pass was the "Free RPG Day"adventure for 2008. With pregens, lacking context.. I don't see how anyone could get much out of it other than a general sense of how the system works and what dice to roll.

Really getting adventures off the ground requires you to 1) know the PCs and 2) build the adventure yourself. Which isn't hard. Just create them as you would in any edition of D&D.


This isn't an especially stellar version of a 4e adventure (http://writer.zoho.com/public/pseckler/Hall-of-Mirrors/), but it is one I wrote for one of my groups. In this case the group are all students at an arcane academy (somewhat like Hogwarts or the New Mutants).

I've been running the first few modules of their first adventure path (which you can still download for free) and they are pretty sucky.  So far they are completely linear, one-track, greased railroads with paper-thin plots with lots of holes.  The fights are pretty good, but it's dead simple to make good fights in 4e.  The modules fail at everything else.

Quote from: Settembrini;378663The only tactics I could identify were ass-backwards. There exists some metagame behind it, a diluted form of strategy even. But that is blocked in effectiveness by the dreadful grind. And even more frustration upon frustration WITHOUT relief by death or somesuch. We avoided fights, not because of the danger but because of the boredom. Dave Noonan makes it impossible to avoid too many, though.

The grind does suck.  I feel your pain.  But it's just poor design on the part of the adventure-writer.  Grinds are easily avoided once you have a DM with a working knowledge of the system.  A lot of things have been errata'd (especially monster HP for the tougher ones).  The way defense scales with level is a bit off, but nothing too horrible.  The good news is that it doesn't get too much worse at higher levels the way 3.5 fights could devolve into utter standstills.

And yeah, you're not going to find any sort of logical, wargame type strategies, it's mostly just metagame tactics/decision making.  But they can be fun when you find a group of people who are willing to engage with it.  If that sort of "made-up tactics for the sake of having tactics" turns you off, the game's not going to work for you.

I look at it the way you'd look at Magic or something.  The rules are just in place (mostly) for the sake of having a game, and you're more interested in the outcome of events rather than whether getting there makes perfect sense.  It's built to be a fun game first, an accurate/satisfying model second.  That extra game layer can be an issue for some people, though, and I completely understand if it doesn't work for you.

Quote from: Settembrini;378606I think it takes a twisted mind of bad taste indeed to have fun with 4e as a player. We finished "Talon Pass" at this moment, and it was terrible beyond belief.

:rolleyes:

I'm not a 4e fan but give me a break; if you didn't enjoy it you had a SHITTY GM.  A good GM can make any game great regardless of system and can patch a crappy module into something decent, even on the fly.

For one thing, nowhere in the rules does it say "Balanced encounters". In fact, it says "Up to five levels above". The RAW *Only* give you a guideline for an "equal encounter".

Note: By RAW. I'm not going to argue intent.

Yeah...hate to break this to you...but D&D Essentials isn't edition 4.5.

This has already been well proven by now I'm sure.

But straight from Bill Slavisek's Ampersand (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2010February) column:

"These 10 products won't be added to or taken away from. They're designed to be the starting point and baseline for all Dungeons & Dragons games moving forward."

If this were a reboot of the game, like 3.5 was, then they would continue to support it rather than limiting the line to a mere 10 products.

Ze game will remain ze same??

Supposedly the Essentials classes will be less mechanically extravagant than the classes of the primary 4E line...but they are basically an introduction to the game...kind of like basic D&D was to AD&D 1st edition.

The primary core line (PHB's, DMG's, MM's) will still be supported going into 2011.

Quote from: Shazbot79;378879Yeah...hate to break this to you...but D&D Essentials isn't edition 4.5.

This has already been well proven by now I'm sure.

But straight from Bill Slavisek's Ampersand (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2010February) column:

"These 10 products won't be added to or taken away from. They're designed to be the starting point and baseline for all Dungeons & Dragons games moving forward."

If this were a reboot of the game, like 3.5 was, then they would continue to support it rather than limiting the line to a mere 10 products.

The reasoning I heard at DDXP went a bit like this:

If you were to ask what book you would need to start, most people would guide you to the players handbook.

...Well, now there's three players handbooks. Only the first one actually has the rules for the game, the other two are just extra content. (content isn't rules). But because they started out trying to keep things close to the way it has been always been done, they didn't realize that wasn't the way they should be doing it, at least at first.

So the boxed set (and the compendium, which is a standalone softcover, and according to the presentation at DDXP, this will be included in the DM's Essentials kit as well) will just be what you need to start, and then the hardcovers will be like the content expansions.

Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;378849:rolleyes:

I'm not a 4e fan but give me a break; if you didn't enjoy it you had a SHITTY GM.  A good GM can make any game great regardless of system and can patch a crappy module into something decent, even on the fly.

Holy fuck, a voice of reason.

Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;378849:rolleyes:

I'm not a 4e fan but give me a break; if you didn't enjoy it you had a SHITTY GM.  A good GM can make any game great regardless of system and can patch a crappy module into something decent, even on the fly.

Even FATAL? Or Poison'd?

:)

Quote from: jeff37923;378893Even FATAL? Or Poison'd?

:)

FATAL set in the Muppets universe.

Quote from: Windjammer;377928I'm certainly curious, but as I said upthread, personally I'm too much of a bibliophile to see myself foregoing my glossy hardcovers in favour of these softcovers.

As a  true bibliophile and--more importantly!--a biblioholic, I will desperately want both. And will probably end up with multiple copies of some of them. Wait...I already do...damn.

Biblioholism (http://www.columbia.edu/~fuat/biblioholic.net/)

The price point is actually working in favor for newer 4E players I game with. One of my groups has 4 players for whom 4E is their first foray in to D&D. They are (mostly) patiently waiting for the Essentials line to come out later this year while mooching off of my own collection and subbing to DDI.*


*Yes, the idea of a $10/month subscription does not phase them. They are all former WoW junkies.

A good GM can´t make 4e combat enjoyable. And the module was lots of combat. And we wanted to enjoy the new combat rules. But they weren´t made for entertainment, they were made for killing time. The grind was so ridiculous...don´t know about how typical that is, but we also found that the monsters didn´t do anything to be distinguishable, except for the Dragon.

I had thought that, too, Sett, as I had a lot of bad experiences with 4e combat (one was a two-and-a-half hour slugfest), but a well-built encounter makes all the difference in the world in terms of entertainment and length.  The last game I played in had two half-hour fights that moved quickly, but still knocked the party around quite a bit.

You're probably playing low level fights for the quicker battles, and higher level for the longer ones.

My level 15ish party has regular 2.5 hour fights, and some go longer. There are just so many random unique powers and interrupt-interrupt-interrupts going on that combat is a real mess at that level.

But my level 5ish campaign can still have four or five fights in a night, as well as some actual role-playing.

Quote from: Doom;378928My level 15ish party has regular 2.5 hour fights, and some go longer. There are just so many random unique powers and interrupt-interrupt-interrupts going on that combat is a real mess at that level.

Jesus fuck, man. Two HOURS and a half for a single fight.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378889The reasoning I heard at DDXP went a bit like this:

If you were to ask what book you would need to start, most people would guide you to the players handbook.

...Well, now there's three players handbooks. Only the first one actually has the rules for the game, the other two are just extra content. (content isn't rules). But because they started out trying to keep things close to the way it has been always been done, they didn't realize that wasn't the way they should be doing it, at least at first.

So the boxed set (and the compendium, which is a standalone softcover, and according to the presentation at DDXP, this will be included in the DM's Essentials kit as well) will just be what you need to start, and then the hardcovers will be like the content expansions.

Thanks, that's certainly a helpful way to look at it, with the added bonus that the reasoning comes from the very people who made the "Essentials". Just to clarify (and ensure that I understand you aright), previously the situation was this:

I'm new to 4E, never played it before. I'd like to play a shaman. I better buy myself copies of the PHB 1 and PHB 2. Or, if I can't (or don't want to) afford both straight away, I'd be recommended to: pay for a copy of the PHB 1 and get the rest of the stuff off DDI. With the irony being that (in that second scenario) I actually paid money for the one book that doesn't contain my class instead of buying a book that did contain the class of my choice.

Now the situation is this:

I'm new to 4E, never played it before. I'd like to play a shaman. I better buy a copy of the Starter's Kit, and of "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" (or whatever the 'Essentials' supplement is called that got the shaman in it). That way I get the entirety of the base rules [do I?] and will get a write up of the class of my choice. (Same for any class out of PHB 3, like the psion.)

Bolded bit is where my question comes in. What's the new core rules reference? I buy the Red Box, and that's it? Or is it not the Red Box but the Rules Compendium? If so, how come WotC releases two versions of the RC (one for "Essentials", one for 4.0)? I assume we aren't looking at mechanically distinct rules systems *, but whence the need for two distinct books?

As a pure aside, you know I've been following the 4E releases quite closely - there's not a single DM oriented book for it that's missing from my shelves - and I'm still utterly confused by WotC' move. I hope you can clarify some bits for me (and others possibly interested), but more than that, I also hope that WotC makes a better effort to communicate that sort of stuff to its core customers. That said, I'm not subscribing to DDI so I guess I've been missing 90% of the essential news updates.

*hey, you know how tiring it is to defend that assumption on the 'net? ;)

Quote from: Settembrini;378924A good GM can´t make 4e combat enjoyable. And the module was lots of combat. And we wanted to enjoy the new combat rules. But they weren´t made for entertainment, they were made for killing time. The grind was so ridiculous...don´t know about how typical that is, but we also found that the monsters didn´t do anything to be distinguishable, except for the Dragon.

If its simply a matter of distast for heavy rulesets, I understand completely.  My own inclinations for running games tend toward much lighter systems.  Marks are a huge pain in the ass, but overall I don't think combat is that much slower than 3.X derivatives.

Dull combats are a wet blanket in any game system from any period of time.  I go out of my way to include interesting venues and try and make a few notes about what kind of tactics a particular monster or mob prefers in the heat of battle.  Vivid descriptions make combats memorable.

If a goblin does nothing but: "stab at you with his spear", that is wholly the fault of the GM.

I'm not sure where people are getting 2.5 hour combats from. We have a limited time period (from ~6:30 to 9:30 pm, and we have to leave when they close the shop.. sometimes we don't get started until 7pm) to play adventures in over at my weekly game.. if we all had 2.5 hour combats.. nobody would ever finish an adventure. I ran Prince of Undeath (level 27-30) in 3.5 hour blocks at my apartment and we did 2+ combats per game until the battle with Orcus himself (which I thought was best played as it's own single session, just because I wanted to cap it off in style..)

My feelings on "grindy" combats:  I find 4E combats to be fun roleplaying opportunities, and I don't really separate them from the roleplaying. Maybe that's the key? 4e is probably the most action oriented system I've played- the characters are in constant motion, interacting with the terrain, their enemies, and their allies, in ways that I still find unpredictable and fun. If you are spending more than a minute declaring your actions, describing your actions, maybe doing a few "action one-liners" and not treating the entire thing like the action-movie it is.. maybe you are doing it wrong?

Quote from: Windjammer;378930I'm new to 4E, never played it before. I'd like to play a shaman. I better buy a copy of the Starter's Kit, and of "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" (or whatever the 'Essentials' supplement is called that got the shaman in it). That way I get the entirety of the base rules [do I?] and will get a write up of the class of my choice. (Same for any class out of PHB 3, like the psion.)

Bolded bit is where my question comes in. What's the new core rules reference? I buy the Red Box, and that's it? Or is it not the Red Box but the Rules Compendium? If so, how come WotC releases two versions of the RC (one for "Essentials", one for 4.0)? I assume we aren't looking at mechanically distinct rules systems *, but whence the need for two distinct books?

Ok, so we have rules.. and then we have content. Everyone gets that, right? The confusing part is, previously, they never really split it up. The PHB (for example) has both rules and content all in one book. Here's a movement rate. And here's a description of a bohemian ear-spoon.

Rules are like "here's what happens when you are restrained.." "here's how movement works.." or "here's what you roll to attack.." Think of it like the Hoyle's book of cardgame rules. Or the combat section. But it's more than combat, it's the actual mechanics of the game.

..and then Content is like "Here's what the wizard does, here's how many hit points he has. Here's the spells.."

So to understand (most of) the Essentials line, I think this is what it will be:
   

• The compendium is rules.


• The "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" type books are content.

The red box is the one piece that doesn't fit everything else.. it actually seems to be a bit of both: it's meant to be a complete game with a minimal selection of content--  it has a basic selection of the rules, and then it has just a few races, and just a few classes. Who is it for? Well, new players of course.  

So your example is hard to address: a new player could just play with the red box, but the red box just gets you some basic rules and a bare minimum of the races and classes. Red Box gives you dwarf, elf, halfling, and human and then cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. You have a grand total of 16 possible character combinations.

So, if our hypothetical new player really wants to be Shaman, he somehow needs to get that Shaman content, which is only in the PHB2. Or DDI.

Quote from: Windjammer;378930That said, I'm not subscribing to DDI so I guess I've been missing 90% of the essential news updates.

*hey, you know how tiring it is to defend that assumption on the 'net? ;)

FWIW:   Here's the rules revisions that Greg Bilsland was working on that are being described as "D&D4.5" in this same thread.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateMay2010.pdf

I'm kind of excited by the change to the tiefling racial power, myself.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378696This isn't an especially stellar version of a 4e adventure (http://writer.zoho.com/public/pseckler/Hall-of-Mirrors/), but it is one I wrote for one of my groups. In this case the group are all students at an arcane academy (somewhat like Hogwarts or the New Mutants).

Woah, that's my campaign.

Seriously, that's the description of my 4e campaign.  How...odd that we both came to that concept.

Quote from: Settembrini;378924A good GM can´t make 4e combat enjoyable.

You're an idiot, a troll, or both :)

So the RedBox is useless after a player reaches level 4 above when he has the Heroes of.. and Rules Compendium no? Not to say entirely useless but akin to the old starter set or KoTS.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378938My feelings on "grindy" combats:  I find 4E combats to be fun roleplaying opportunities, and I don't really separate them from the roleplaying. Maybe that's the key? 4e is probably the most action oriented system I've played- the characters are in constant motion, interacting with the terrain, their enemies, and their allies, in ways that I still find unpredictable and fun. If you are spending more than a minute declaring your actions, describing your actions, maybe doing a few "action one-liners" and not treating the entire thing like the action-movie it is.. maybe you are doing it wrong?

Of course!  That has to be it!

Quote from: Mistwell;378968You're an idiot, a troll, or both

I am cornholio.

Quote from: Mistwell;378968You're an idiot, a troll, or both :)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

:rolleyes:

Stormbringer, perhaps you should find somewhere else to go and stop stalking my posts.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378993Stormbringer, perhaps you should find somewhere else to go and stop stalking my posts.

As I have said before, when you stop saying stupid shit, I will stop pointing out that you say stupid shit.

And your bullshit accusation of stalking?  No one buys it.  No one buys it when you say someone is a sock-puppet, either.  Everyone knows that is just you pitching a bitch because you have no valid opinion on anything, but want people to take you seriously anyway.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, and find somewhere less critical of morons spewing nonsense.  I hear tBP is good for that.

Stormbringer, do you have any more questions about whether the rules update constitutes a new edition or not?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378938I'm not sure where people are getting 2.5 hour combats from.

I'm getting them because week in, week out, that's how long they take, and have been since around level 11 or so. A six hour session is basically 2 combats and a skill challenge, and the skill challenge rarely takes a whole hour (I finally dropped challenges a few weeks ago...after almost 2 years of trying, just can't make them work in a way players like).

Of course, when you say 'people', you're indicating others are saying the same thing.  Kinda reminds of this girl, a student in one my classes, a real whiner. I told her to grow up.

She responded with "Why do people keep telling me that?", and, I'm glad to say, I wasn't the only one who found it amusing.

Anyway, there's a reason why people keep saying combats past a certain level easily take over 2 hours, honest.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379014Stormbringer, do you have any more questions about whether the rules update constitutes a new edition or not?

Do you have any more posts telling people how they are playing wrong?  Let's not pretend you ever had any interest in posting to this thread to clear up any misunderstandings or discuss a set of errata.

Quote from: Benoist;378929Jesus fuck, man. Two HOURS and a half for a single fight.

I could do it in at least half that time with GURPS - as long I was the GM.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Doom;379019I'm getting them because week in, week out, that's how long they take, and have been since around level 11 or so. A six hour session is basically 2 combats and a skill challenge, and the skill challenge rarely takes a whole hour (I finally dropped challenges a few weeks ago...after almost 2 years of trying, just can't make them work in a way players like).

Of course, when you say 'people', you're indicating others are saying the same thing.  Kinda reminds of this girl, a student in one my classes, a real whiner. I told her to grow up.

She responded with "Why do people keep telling me that?", and, I'm glad to say, I wasn't the only one who found it amusing.

Anyway, there's a reason why people keep saying combats past a certain level easily take over 2 hours, honest.

Well, so far it's really just you. The rest is just irrelevant chatter from non-players. Or in Stormy's case, just a non-gamer who flopped over here from some heap.

I guess my question is.. is it still fun? If it isn't fun, how is it worth it? And what types of encounters are we even talking about?


As I recall, you're the guy that also felt that not having an 18 in a prime stat made a character "useless".. Perhaps you could also look at how you balance encounters. Are you generally trying to pick encounters that are budgeted over the PCs level? (This is a common mistake for DMs who fall into the arms race idea that they have to keep "challenging" their PCs simply by picking tougher monsters..)  At some point monster defenses are high enough that you have indeed screwed yourself over in battles as players can't hit anything that often. And yes, your battles will take a lot longer.

Is it something else?

Post a sample encounter and the average PC level.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027Well, so far it's really just you.

I don't disagree with you but the statement above is disingenuous; it is not only Doom.  Even without going through this thread post by post the same complaint has multiple threads on ENworld voicing the same issue.  Although I have yet to see the grind complained about by others, this shouldn't be marginalized as the complaint of one person.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027Well, so far it's really just you.  Or in Stormy's case, just a non-gamer who flopped over here from some heap.

Uh, every forum, every board, has posts from people saying the fights take a long time. You're really saying everyone else is a liar?

QuoteI guess my question is.. is it still fun? If it isn't fun, how is it worth it? And what types of encounters are we even talking about?

Sometimes, sure, but it's also pretty grindy. Like most folks, once there's only one or two monsters left, I break RAW and just end it already.

QuoteAs I recall, you're the guy that also felt that not having an 18 in a prime stat made a character "useless"

Not a question of 'felt', it's a question of 'math'. I'm not 'the' guy, either...once again, at every table you see every character with the 'golden' bonuses. It really sucks that there race/class combos are so minimal.

I guess I could demonstrate with math what happens if you fall into too many (i.e., 2) traps of poor character design, but I'm guessing you feel math is just gobbledigook for dweebs, and so not much point.

Or do you think I'm the only guy who still plays 4e?

QuotePerhaps you could also look at how you balance encounters.

Yes, perhaps it's me, and every other forum on the internet is just filled with posers. Possibly.

QuoteAre you generally trying to pick encounters that are budgeted over the PCs level? (This is a common mistake for DMs who fall into the arms race idea that they have to keep "challenging" their PCs simply by picking tougher monsters..)  At some point monster defenses are high enough that you have indeed screwed yourself over in battles as players can't hit anything that often. And yes, your battles will take a lot longer.

Heh, you should listen to yourself sometime. No, I don't pick higher level monsters, I've never once gone past level +3 on monster level, last thing I want to do is make monsters tough to hit. Usually, most of the monsters are level -1 or so (i.e., hittable on a 7+), with maybe one or two level +1 monsters.

Maybe now you'll accuse my players of all being sub-optimal? The cleric has all the broken powers (healing more than double a surge with each 'surge' power), the paladin has the broken 'Certain Justice', the Ranger combos off the broken Bard prestige path...not exactly a weak group, really. I think the lowest plus to-hit is +22, not bad for 15 and 16.

The problem is the math is wrong. The same thing that says Fireball, even from a high level wizard, is deeply unlikely to kill a level 1 monster says you need lots of high damaging attacks to kill an even remotely same level monster.

I don't feel like posting an encounter, one encounter proves nothing, anyway. On the other hand, every encounter, every week, for the last six months is more than sufficient empirical evidence for me that the comments seen on every...single...4e...board about the fights taking a long time are fairly accurate.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027Well, so far it's really just you. The rest is just irrelevant chatter from non-players. Or in Stormy's case, just a non-gamer who flopped over here from some heap.

Yes, non-gaming is how I got the second longest play by post thread here, with three times the responses and four times the views as the third most popular thread.

Doom and Stormbringer are NOT alone in this.

For a year and two months I was a player in a 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Whenever a combat encounter came up - it always took close to two hours or more to resolve. Any shot at actual roleplaying went out the window.

Now whats funny is you guys should realize that Wizards of The Coast agrees with me, Stormy, Doom, and othe other detractors on this. Or at least they have indirectly acknowledged the issue.

For the past month or so game stores around the country have been hosting ""D&D Encounters" on Wednesday nights. The company that makes D&D - WotC has allocated the time slot of 6:00pm to 9:00pm for these 'encounters, not game sessions, encounters,...they're saying ' encounters'.  Thats THREE hours aloocated for just an encounter!

Looks like some kind of corporate acknowledgement to me.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;379031For a year and two months I was a player in a 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Whenever a combat encounter came up - it always took close to two hours or more to resolve. Any shot at actual roleplaying went out the window.

I've been playing 4e for a little under a year, in total, and this matches my experience.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027The rest is just irrelevant chatter from non-players.

So, you'll only consider criticism from people dumb enough to play a game they don't like?  Well, I'm your guy.  It's at least partly the fault of my group (including myself), but my experience with D&D 4e has been very disappointing.  It's been full of long, boring combats, along with unappealing imagery mashed up from various old settings, ridiculously over-the-top classes, races, and monsters that somehow seem alike, distractingly stupid counterintuitive rules... I don't even want to get started, since it's all been said before. IMO, it's a bloated wreck of a game, and I play weekly.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027I guess my question is.. is it still fun? If it isn't fun, how is it worth it?  

For me, playing 4e is fun about 10% of the time. I might be able to push that up to 20 or 25%, if I really immersed myself in it and spent more money, but 4e strikes me as a thin, sterile, numbers-based slog of a minis game.  It is fun hanging around with the guys, since it gets me out of the house, and sometimes we play boardgames, too.  

I don't waste much time complaining about it, since I should just get off my ass and run something else for the guys, instead.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378889The reasoning I heard at DDXP went a bit like this:

If you were to ask what book you would need to start, most people would guide you to the players handbook.

...Well, now there's three players handbooks. Only the first one actually has the rules for the game, the other two are just extra content. (content isn't rules). But because they started out trying to keep things close to the way it has been always been done, they didn't realize that wasn't the way they should be doing it, at least at first.

So the boxed set (and the compendium, which is a standalone softcover, and according to the presentation at DDXP, this will be included in the DM's Essentials kit as well) will just be what you need to start, and then the hardcovers will be like the content expansions.

"Start with D&D Basic, kid.  Then we'll sell you all the Advanced hardbacks you want".  ;)

Quote from: jrients;379041"Start with D&D Basic, kid.  Then we'll sell you all the Advanced hardbacks you want".  ;)

Frankly, I wouldn't call that a bad thing. :) Well, okay, okay, it is 4e, but still. No problem with that strategy.

Quote from: Koltar;379031For the past month or so game stores around the country have been hosting ""D&D Encounters" on Wednesday nights. The company that makes D&D - WotC has allocated the time slot of 6:00pm to 9:00pm for these 'encounters, not game sessions, encounters,...they're saying ' encounters'.  Thats THREE hours aloocated for just an encounter!

That's totally untrue. The reference page is here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4new/event/dndencounters). I quote: "Each session only takes 1-2 hours to play, so it's easy to fit your game in after school or work."

I ran a game for a bunch of level 15s last week. Three fights, probably around 15 minutes of intro, around an hour of pure roleplaying, half an hour of skill challenge. The whole thing took five and a half hours.

Obviously some people take two or more hours to run a fight; nobody's disputing that. But in every thread on every board in which someone complains about that, you get other people saying "weird, cause our fights go relatively quickly." Doom can be as upset as he wants that AM is telling him he's doing it wrong, but every time he says that fights above a certain point take two hours, he's being factually inaccurate. His fights do.

Before anyone gets all ruffled, note that I'm not talking about shoulds, here. Until I know more about Doom's sessions, I'm not gonna make guesses as to why.

Quote from: Doom;379029Uh, every forum, every board, has posts from people saying the fights take a long time. You're really saying everyone else is a liar?

I was mainly just talking about right here in this conversation. I only scrolled back a few posts, though. In any case, I have seen it, and I chalk it up to either the encounter or the DM is trying to be a little too cagey with the fight.

D&D is a tactical game. Monsters move and take advantage of terrain and positioning. DMs can  make a simple fight take much longer just by fighting conservatively. They can turn it into a chess match. They can carefully move so that each combatant never sets off an opportunity attack. And probably every instinct tells them that's exactly what they should be doing- more skill, more challenge.

It's a bad idea, though. It takes longer.

Quote from: Doom;379029Not a question of 'felt', it's a question of 'math'. I'm not 'the' guy, either...once again, at every table you see every character with the 'golden' bonuses. It really sucks that there race/class combos are so minimal.

I guess I could demonstrate with math what happens if you fall into too many (i.e., 2) traps of poor character design, but I'm guessing you feel math is just gobbledigook for dweebs, and so not much point.

Well, I just don't think the math will play the game for you. But I don't change any of it, and I don't really think about it too much.

QuoteHeh, you should listen to yourself sometime. No, I don't pick higher level monsters, I've never once gone past level +3 on monster level, last thing I want to do is make monsters tough to hit. Usually, most of the monsters are level -1 or so (i.e., hittable on a 7+), with maybe one or two level +1 monsters.

So.. where is the issue? Do players take too long to declare their actions? Have you tried to analyze where the holdup is?

QuoteMaybe now you'll accuse my players of all being sub-optimal? The cleric has all the broken powers (healing more than double a surge with each 'surge' power)..

(Errata'd by the way!) I assume if your'e in an arsmrace with your players, they'd be anything but sub-optimal. They'd be the opposite.

QuoteThe problem is the math is wrong. The same thing that says Fireball, even from a high level wizard, is deeply unlikely to kill a level 1 monster says you need lots of high damaging attacks to kill an even remotely same level monster.

Do the players concentrate their attacks? can you give me a sense of what the party balance is like?

One of the reasons fireballs don't just kill everything in a room anymore is because wizards are controllers, not strikers. It's a 5th level daily that does (a mere) 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage. No matter what level the iwzard is. So non-players aren't going to get that. The point of a controller spell like fireball in 4E is that it attacks a large area. It's going to kill a lot of minions, and its going to soften up other stuff.. but it isn't the spell that ends the encounter anymore.

By contrast, an arcane striker like a sorcerer can hit something with serpentine blast that does 3d10+charisma modifier, ignores cover and concealment, and attacks a single target.

A level 1 monster (skirmisher or soldier, anyhow) has around 29 hit points. It has a reflex defense of 14 or 15. I'll grant that it's probably also not going to be killed by a single serpentine blast.. but at the same time, it's probably at least bloodied.

You know it's funny, but the other common slur is that D&D combats are all too easy for the PCs. You say they are too hard, and the same douchebags are here to agree with both points of view, because they see any negative assessment for D&D as a win for their big war on mainstream roleplaying.

QuoteI don't feel like posting an encounter, one encounter proves nothing, anyway. On the other hand, every encounter, every week, for the last six months is more than sufficient empirical evidence for me that the comments seen on every...single...4e...board about the fights taking a long time are fairly accurate.

I'll post one:

Level 11 encounter is 3000 XP.

Tiefling Necromancer (elite level 9 controller) 800xp
(3) Spine Creep Skeletons (level 11 soldiers) 1800xp
(2) Horde Ghouls (Level 13 minions) 400 xp

Tiefling Necromancer
HP 188; Bloodied 94
AC 23; Fortitude 20, Reflex 23, Will 21
 
Spine Creep Skeletons (x3)
HP 113; Bloodied 56
AC 27; Fortitude 25, Reflex 25, Will 22

Horde Ghoul (x2)
HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion.
AC 25; Fortitude 22, Reflex 24, Will 20

So the question is: can 11th level PCs hit the skeletons? They have an AC of 27. But they have a will of 22. How long would you predict a party of 5 11th level adventurers would take to fight this group?

Quote from: Thanlis;379044That's totally untrue. The reference page is here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4new/event/dndencounters). I quote: "Each session only takes 1-2 hours to play, so it's easy to fit your game in after school or work."

I ran a game for a bunch of level 15s last week. Three fights, probably around 15 minutes of intro, around an hour of pure roleplaying, half an hour of skill challenge. The whole thing took five and a half hours.

Obviously some people take two or more hours to run a fight; nobody's disputing that. But in every thread on every board in which someone complains about that, you get other people saying "weird, cause our fights go relatively quickly." Doom can be as upset as he wants that AM is telling him he's doing it wrong, but every time he says that fights above a certain point take two hours, he's being factually inaccurate. His fights do.

Before anyone gets all ruffled, note that I'm not talking about shoulds, here. Until I know more about Doom's sessions, I'm not gonna make guesses as to why.

We only allot ONE hour for D&D encounters at the place I run them. However, I've missed the last two sessions.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379048We only allot ONE hour for D&D encounters at the place I run them. However, I've missed the last two sessions.

We're doubling up on sessions and playing every other week, so I give it two hours and a bit. One of my players is seriously dyslexic, so the early ones were somewhat slower, but he's picking it up amazingly quickly -- I'm pretty impressed by him, in what is hopefully a non-condescending way.

But I still like to let the encounters breathe, provide plenty of room for roleplay, and so on.

I will post some random thoughts on paragon level play later.

Quote from: Koltar;379031Doom and Stormbringer are NOT alone in this.

For a year and two months I was a player in a 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Whenever a combat encounter came up - it always took close to two hours or more to resolve. Any shot at actual roleplaying went out the window.

Stormbringer has never even played.

What I'm saying here is, if you stop roleplaying for combat, that's a missed opportunity.

Quote from: Thanlis;379044That's totally untrue. The reference page is here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4new/event/dndencounters). I quote: "Each session only takes 1-2 hours to play, so it’s easy to fit your game in after school or work."

I ran a game for a bunch of level 15s last week. Three fights, probably around 15 minutes of intro, around an hour of pure roleplaying, half an hour of skill challenge. The whole thing took five and a half hours.

Obviously some people take two or more hours to run a fight; nobody's disputing that. But in every thread on every board in which someone complains about that, you get other people saying "weird, cause our fights go relatively quickly." Doom can be as upset as he wants that AM is telling him he's doing it wrong, but every time he says that fights above a certain point take two hours, he's being factually inaccurate. His fights do.

Before anyone gets all ruffled, note that I'm not talking about shoulds, here. Until I know more about Doom's sessions, I'm not gonna make guesses as to why.

When our group played 4e our fights took from an hour to two, maybe two and a half. It's not an isolated incident, and our DM was very good. Ran 3.x and other games just fine. We were playing through the Shadowfell thing, and the enemies were bunches of goblins. He played the gobs as clever and dangerous, and didn't pull punches. It was a serious grind, hated it.

Quote from: Sigmund;379052When our group played 4e our fights took from an hour to two, maybe two and a half. It's not an isolated incident, and our DM was very good. Ran 3.x and other games just fine. We were playing through the Shadowfell thing, and the enemies were bunches of goblins. He played the gobs as clever and dangerous, and didn't pull punches. It was a serious grind, hated it.

Didn't say it was isolated, dude.

Quote from: Thanlis;379054Didn't say it was isolated, dude.

What you said was that Doom says fights take too long, it's his fights. I'm just pointing out it's not just his fights. Maybe not everyone's, but apparently more than just a few. If we're all just "doing it wrong" then perhaps they should make the rules more clear, because we're not all stupid.

Quote from: Sigmund;379055What you said was that Doom says fights take too long, it's his fights. I'm just pointing out it's not just his fights. Maybe not everyone's, but apparently more than just a few. If we're all just "doing it wrong" then perhaps they should make the rules more clear, because we're not all stupid.

You're reading way too much into what I said. (Reminder: "Obviously some people take two or more hours to run a fight; nobody's disputing that." Didn't say just Doom, I said "some people.") I'm just saying: plenty of people run fights which don't take that long. Not sure why that's such a radical statement.

Well, I'm not saying isn't happening either. In fact, that's been a major concern of Paragon level adventures in LFR- they take too long for the slot.

The thing is, I think that's something that can be helped. From direct observation: The answer is DMs need to stop trying to turn it into a chess match. They have to stop treating it like it's 3e.  

If there is one major problem with a tactical game like D&D4, this is it: you can play it well enough that players are always denied a decisive victory. You can play it well enough that people will sit there and stare at the board trying to figure out what to do before finally deciding.  This is frustrating, and it really is built into the game (and this was true of D&D3 as well, and the situation was even more complicated then). The kicker is, players are probably wasting their time if they take too long to act. D&D4 is great for direct assaults, bold strategems, tumbling into the thick of combat, concentrating fire.

What to do about that? I have no idea. Chess timers?

Quote from: Thanlis;379058You're reading way too much into what I said. (Reminder: "Obviously some people take two or more hours to run a fight; nobody's disputing that." Didn't say just Doom, I said "some people.") I'm just saying: plenty of people run fights which don't take that long. Not sure why that's such a radical statement.

Didn't say it was radical. Just clarifying.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379051Stormbringer has never even played.

As much as you would desperately like that to the point, it isn't.  The point is that you are unable to make any kind of critical assessments, but want to be taken seriously anyway.  There is no attempt on your part to ascertain what could be the problem with exceptionally long combats, only that they obviously don't take that long, so the other people must be doing something wrong.  Because in your pure understanding of the rules, it doesn't take that long, and in all cases, 4e can do no wrong.

I don't need any particular experience with a product or good to recognise unadulterated shilling.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379060Well, I'm not saying isn't happening either. In fact, that's been a major concern of Paragon level adventures in LFR- they take too long for the slot.

The thing is, I think that's something that can be helped. From direct observation: The answer is DMs need to stop trying to turn it into a chess match. They have to stop treating it like it's 3e.  

If there is one major problem with a tactical game like D&D4, this is it: you can play it well enough that players are always denied a decisive victory. You can play it well enough that people will sit there and stare at the board trying to figure out what to do before finally deciding.  This is frustrating, and it really is built into the game (and this was true of D&D3 as well, and the situation was even more complicated then). The kicker is, players are probably wasting their time if they take too long to act. D&D4 is great for direct assaults, bold strategems, tumbling into the thick of combat, concentrating fire.

What to do about that? I have no idea. Chess timers?

It's almost like WotC decided to emphasize highly tactical combat to the near exclusion of everything else, and for some magical, unknown reason, the players turn combat into a highly tactical exercise.

Quote from: StormBringer;379068It's almost like WotC decided to emphasize highly tactical combat to the near exclusion of everything else, and for some magical, unknown reason, the players turn combat into a highly tactical exercise.

Put differently:

"If there is one major problem with a tactical game like D&D4, this is it: you can play it well enough that players are always denied a decisive victory. You can play it well enough that people will sit there and stare at the board trying to figure out what to do before finally deciding. This is frustrating, and it really is built into the game."

So what I am reading here is that people agree that one of the major criticisms of 4E that has been around since its release is correct: D&D4 concentrates too much on tactical combat to the detriment of all else in the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;379073So what I am reading here is that people agree that one of the major criticisms of 4E that has been around since its release is correct: D&D4 concentrates too much on tactical combat to the detriment of all else in the game.

Actually that would be a certain subgroup of players that concentrate on that. But the payoff is worth it, because that tactical game makes for awesome action scenes. And in the hands of anyone who isn't trying to wargame it out, it's pretty great.

Quote from: StormBringer;379067I don't need any particular experience with a product or good to recognise unadulterated shilling.

Well, go "recognize it" somewhere else. Over here it's still gamers trying to talk about gaming.

Just wanted to point out an inconsitency in the 4e arguments.

You can't use both

'Your 4e combats are too slow because you are being too tactical and trying to optimise the tactics for the monsters so it turns into a chess game.'

and

'Some people complain that 4e combats are too easy so your arguments about the weakness of casters to kill a L1 monster in a sigle hit are moot.'


Either you are supposed to play the monsters tactically to the best of their abilities and the encounters are balanced or you play the encounters fast and loose and possibly suboptimally in which case they will be easier.

I assume you are not advocating that DMs go for rapid TPK on an encounter as the optimal resolution, and I also assume you still maintain your position from eariler threads that 4e has fixed the 15 minute adventuring day by use of the new power system and healing surges.

So either combats are tactical and lengthy and stretch the party or combats are quick and relatively simple for the party.

The only alternative would be a game where combats were short and lethal for the PCs such as you find in OD&D and 1e where unless you eliminted the opponents in 5 rounds Pcs started dropping (in  1e a 5th level figther would average c 33 hp inc con bonus) if fronting off to a bunch of say 3 ogres while his thief and wizard run the back office so to speak, he would expect to get hit 3 times every 2 rounds (based on an ac of 2 and the monster needing a 13 to hit ac2) each time he would get hit for an average of 10 damage(ish). Basically, you have 3 rounds to kill one ogre and 5 rounds to take them all out or you are dead.  

I say if you are having fun in the fights then great otherwise just halve the monsters hit points and remove healing surges for PCs during combat or something :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;379077Just wanted to point out an inconsitency in the 4e arguments.

You can't use both

'Your 4e combats are too slow because you are being too tactical and trying to optimise the tactics for the monsters so it turns into a chess game.'

and

'Some people complain that 4e combats are too easy so your arguments about the weakness of casters to kill a L1 monster in a sigle hit are moot.'


Either you are supposed to play the monsters tactically to the best of their abilities and the encounters are balanced or you play the encounters fast and loose and possibly suboptimally in which case they will be easier.

I assume you are not advocating that DMs go for rapid TPK on an encounter as the optimal resolution, and I also assume you still maintain your position from eariler threads that 4e has fixed the 15 minute adventuring day by use of the new power system and healing surges.

So either combats are tactical and lengthy and stretch the party or combats are quick and relatively simple for the party.

The only alternative would be a game where combats were short and lethal for the PCs such as you find in OD&D and 1e where unless you eliminted the opponents in 5 rounds Pcs started dropping (in  1e a 5th level figther would average c 33 hp inc con bonus) if fronting off to a bunch of say 3 ogres while his thief and wizard run the back office so to speak, he would expect to get hit 3 times every 2 rounds (based on an ac of 2 and the monster needing a 13 to hit ac2) each time he would get hit for an average of 10 damage(ish). Basically, you have 3 rounds to kill one ogre and 5 rounds to take them all out or you are dead.  

I say if you are having fun in the fights then great otherwise just halve the monsters hit points and remove healing surges for PCs during combat or something :)

I consider that a "We Tried Baseball and it didn't work (http://xprogramming.com/articles/jatbaseball/)" sort of solution. *

The thing is there's a false split that happens. First your'e in roleplaying mode.. and then a battle breaks out and (as Koltar says above) "all roleplaying goes out the window". Well, I'm saying these two issues are possibly related.

1) why stop the roleplaying during a battle?
2)  If you are roleplaying during the battle (as the DM), you don't have to suddenly go into chess match mode.
3) If you aren't roleplaying during the battle, and the monsters and such really are just pieces to move around to you, well then of course you are going to have issues of "less roleplaying" as well as "and the battle takes too long.. because these goblins are moving around tactically as if they were controlled by a single entity...using denial tactics and conserving their resources for as long as possible, so the party must really scramble for every last ounce of effort..."

Players should be less conservative in battle because there are far less resources to hoard. DMs should be less conservative because there is simply no benefit to doing so. I personally think it's a habit.

But that's sort of the players and DMs fault. Because those same rules given to someone else will probably seem to run fine.

I can definitely say I have not seen even a single 15 minute adventuring day in any of my 4e games. That is, defined as a game where the characters use all of their daily powers in the first encounter, and then go home and rest afterwards. And then go back to the adventure for ONE MORE ENCOUNTER..and do it again. and so on.

* "We tried baseball and it didn't work" is not about 4E, but it illustrates the self-nominated-yet-completely-clueless "expert" phenomenon we know from the internet.. pretty well.

Quote from: StormBringer;379068It's almost like WotC decided to emphasize highly tactical combat to the near exclusion of everything else, and for some magical, unknown reason, the players turn combat into a highly tactical exercise.

Who could have guessed? :jaw-dropping:

4E is very clearly designed to provide you with long combats, with many turns assigned to each player per combat. What looks like a good idea - fast paced turn order - turns on its back when you factor in the 4E idea that a combat with 5 combatants per side is now standard. Because now we aren't simply looking at fast turn order but on a too high amount of turns per combat.

Now I'm intrigued because 90% of the discussion on how to reduce combat time in 4E focuses on how to speed up taking turns - e.g., we're recommended to use power cards, know the rules forth and back and so on- instead of focussing on the simpler question on how to reduce the number of turns.

In this vein, here's two things.

1. Play with only 3 players-. This cuts down on the number of turns by 40% compared to your 5 players + 1DM group. If you have large gaming groups (6 players + 1 DM), I'd actually recommend you to either split the group or play something else.

2. Artificially induced victory conditions. I owe this point to Abyssal Maw. It's very simple, and very effective. Instead of having encounters where the PCs need to kill all 5 foes by depleting them down to the last pitiful hitpoint you say, "If they get THAT guy (say, the kobold tribe's shaman) bloodied by round 4, everyone - the shaman included - will surrender; and if the kobolds manage to get one of the PCs they perceive to be a 'leader' in some sense (say, the magician who keeps commanding the rest of the PCs) bloodied, the kobolds' morale will be boosted + they fight to the last man standing". The point is twofold here. First you have to HAVE these victory conditions. Then you have to COMMUNICATE them to the players in in-game terms (i.e. not in the manner I just did).

The end result won't just be quicker combats - it will also have clearly defined stakes which help focus the PC's interest in the combat as such. For instance, why is it so vital that the shaman doesn't get bloodied - how does that relate to the tribe's history and its customs, and so on and on. The point is, combats can be long as long as you consider that what's inherently interesting about combats is what surrounds them. This is where I, personally, feel that the 4e books (esp. the modules) fall flat. Players are happy to endure, indeed keep their excitement and attention on, long combats if there's a POINT to it that is directly proportional to the amount of attention given. If it's just fight #08 against kobolds, it's downright boring by turn 3.

I've linked to some of this before, but it's worth re-linking:

Part 1: The whole point about a light saber duels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWPCCzSgu0#t=5m57s)

Part 2: Like anything that's cool, if it's used too much it becomes boring (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blkx6axytKQ)

And as a PS:

Quote from: Amazon Review of 4E Eberron Module 1The big problem is that Fourth Edition really is not about dungeon crawling - period. Older editions of D&D had PCs hack their way from room to room in a series of small skirmishes, killing an orc here, a troll there, and hustling through even a large dungeon in a single night. 4E fights are meant to be big tactical setpieces, life-or-death struggles large and significant enough that a single fight is intended to take characters a tenth of the way to the next level. Filling a dungeon with ten of those epic setpiece battles, one after the other, is a recipe for the most extreme boredom. I like 4E's combat, but since it represents both a large investment of time and a large reward for the PCs, I make sure that every fight feels significant and is set up with a lot of story and characterization and avoid back-to-back encounters. The module designers still haven't fully come to grips with this new form of pacing, unfortunately.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379079I consider that a "We Tried Baseball and it didn't work (http://xprogramming.com/articles/jatbaseball/)" sort of solution. *

The thing is there's a false split that happens. First your'e in roleplaying mode.. and then a battle breaks out and (as Koltar says above) "all roleplaying goes out the window". Well, I'm saying these two issues are possibly related.

1) why stop the roleplaying during a battle?
2)  If you are roleplaying during the battle (as the DM), you don't have to suddenly go into chess match mode.
3) If you aren't roleplaying during the battle, and the monsters and such really are just pieces to move around to you, well then of course you are going to have issues of "less roleplaying" as well as "and the battle takes too long.. because these goblins are moving around tactically as if they were controlled by a single entity...using denial tactics and conserving their resources for as long as possible, so the party must really scramble for every last ounce of effort..."

Players should be less conservative in battle because there are far less resources to hoard. DMs should be less conservative because there is simply no benefit to doing so. I personally think it's a habit.

But that's sort of the players and DMs fault. Because those same rules given to someone else will probably seem to run fine.

I can definitely say I have not seen even a single 15 minute adventuring day in any of my 4e games. That is, defined as a game where the characters use all of their daily powers in the first encounter, and then go home and rest afterwards. And then go back to the adventure for ONE MORE ENCOUNTER..and do it again. and so on.

* "We tried baseball and it didn't work" is not about 4E, but it illustrates the self-nominated-yet-completely-clueless "expert" phenomenon we know from the internet.. pretty well.

I agree Rping in battle is great (hard in a highly tactical system though especially one with a break between real effect and game effect).

My 15 min day comment was that a combat could be completed quicker if the party blew all their dailies but then they would probably insist on resting. So you get quick resolution but re-instigate the 15 minute day as a result.

Oh and baseball is a shit game, its not as bad as cricket but its still shit :D Any game where half the players are sitting down waiting to bat and the other half are standing around waiting on the off chance that some one might hit the ball towards them... shit.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379046I was mainly just talking about right here in this conversation. I only scrolled back a few posts, though. In any case, I have seen it, and I chalk it up to either the encounter or the DM is trying to be a little too cagey with the fight.

Possible, I suppose, that nearly everyone is doing it wrong. But, please, consider the possibility that there's something else going on.

>>

QuoteIt's a bad idea, though. It takes longer.

So it's the players' fault for playing a tactical game, tactically? I certainly have a few players that like to think about their moves, and I don't see this as a bad thing. I don't think it's fair to blame players for a game playing a certain way.

I use all the aids I can. Miniatures, whiteboard, status effects board, initiative board, $80 Aleatools set to help with tracking conditions, beads to track marks and curses and whatnots, color coded dice, GM screen, and draw-on battle board. Some of the players, the less math-facile ones, even have charts to facilitate adding a d20 roll to their + to-hit roll.

I'm just not about to say everyone is playing wrong.

QuoteI don't really think about it too much.

Indeed

QuoteHave you tried to analyze where the holdup is?

Of course. The issue is the mathematics is wrong.

Quote(Errata'd by the way!) I assume if your'e in an arsmrace with your players, they'd be anything but sub-optimal. They'd be the opposite.

Yep, a few days ago...but healing is still fairly excessive. A level 15 character has access to roughly an effective 250 hit points in a combat, a bit much when a level 15 monster hits for an expected 8 or so, and combats are intended to last half a dozen rounds, tops.

I really wish you'd stop blaming the players for the game playing a certain way.

QuoteDo the players concentrate their attacks? can you give me a sense of what the party balance is like?

Again, I really wish you'd stop blaming the players for the game playing a certian way.

Focus fire is irrelevant, however--the GM's turn is fairly quick (the monsters only have one or two powers to 'choose' from), each monster representing 2 seconds or so. What focus fire does is reduce the expected damage players take, as it indirectily reduces the number of times they're attacked. Doesn't really speed up the game, and you weren't kidding about not thinking about it much.

Party balance? Again, you're trying to blame the players, unless you can find something in the PHB saying certain balances are not illegal. In any event, the party has two strikers, so not exactly an issue.

QuoteOne of the reasons fireballs don't just kill everything in a room anymore is because wizards are controllers, not strikers....

Wow, way to miss the point. The point was, mathematically, the players will need many attacks to bring down the big bags of hit points. The issue isn't specifically fireball, the issue is the HP bloat is extreme, the damage bloat much less so.

QuoteA level 1 monster (skirmisher or soldier, anyhow) has around 29 hit points. It has a reflex defense of 14 or 15. I'll grant that it's probably also not going to be killed by a single serpentine blast.. but at the same time, it's probably at least bloodied.

Ok, you're getting a glimmer of the underlying issues.

QuoteYou know it's funny, but the other common slur is that D&D combats are all too easy for the PCs. You say they are too hard,

You are flat out lying here. I never said combats are too hard, never implied combats are too hard, never in any way said combats are too challenging, as per DMG guidelines. Mathematically, past a certain level the vast majority of same level monsters (as well as all solos, and all minions) are simply incapable of doing relevant damage to characters in anything remotely resembling a sane amount of time, RAW.

I just said combats take 2.5 hours with consistency.

Quoteand the same douchebags are here to agree with both points of view, because they see any negative assessment for D&D as a win for their big war on mainstream roleplaying.

Once again, I have presented only one 'point of view' in this particular thread, namely, that fights into paragon level regularly consume over 2 hours of combat, by game design. I dispute this is any more a 'point of view' than asserting water is wet, or 3 + 5 = 8, however.

QuoteSo the question is: can 11th level PCs hit the skeletons? They have an AC of 27. But they have a will of 22. How long would you predict a party of 5 11th level adventurers would take to fight this group?

Specific encounters mean nothing, especially ones with the completely broken minions wildly distorting things. I did subject my players to 'level + 20' battle, with 80 grimlock minions (along with half a dozen 'real' monsters)...even doubling the damage on the minions, and having the party attacked on all sides, no player was brought to zero (this was actually a fairly quick fight, right at 2 hours, if I recall correctly). But the brokenness of minions is another issue for another thread.

Quote from: Doom;379085Once again, I have presented only one 'point of view' in this particular thread, namely, that fights into paragon level regularly consume over 2 hours of combat, by game design. I dispute this is any more a 'point of view' than asserting water is wet, or 3 + 5 = 8, however..

YOUR fights do that, and mine don't. Why is that?

Hrm, no response to the rest of it?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379087YOUR fights do that, and mine don't. Why is that?

I don't know, but I'm guessing, from how most everyone's fights look like mine, and you're the only one whose fights look like yours, is that you're doing it wrong...but it's really hard to say how you're messing up. I can't help but notice from errors here, and in other posts by you, that you're probably not actually playing the game, but that's just conjecture.

From the sample encounter, I'm guessing it's because you think minions and elites are designed properly, but a single encounter demonstrates very little.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379075Actually that would be a certain subgroup of players that concentrate on that. But the payoff is worth it, because that tactical game makes for awesome action scenes. And in the hands of anyone who isn't trying to wargame it out, it's pretty great.

So you are saying that the Players wargaming out a RPG that concentrates on tactical combat are doing it wrong?

Quote from: StormBringer;379068It's almost like WotC decided to emphasize highly tactical combat to the near exclusion of everything else, and for some magical, unknown reason, the players turn combat into a highly tactical exercise.

Quote from: Benoist;379081Who could have guessed? :jaw-dropping:

Anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the rules of 4E.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379079I consider that a "We Tried Baseball and it didn't work (http://xprogramming.com/articles/jatbaseball/)" sort of solution. *

The thing is there's a false split that happens. First your'e in roleplaying mode.. and then a battle breaks out and (as Koltar says above) "all roleplaying goes out the window". Well, I'm saying these two issues are possibly related.

1) why stop the roleplaying during a battle?
2)  If you are roleplaying during the battle (as the DM), you don't have to suddenly go into chess match mode.
3) If you aren't roleplaying during the battle, and the monsters and such really are just pieces to move around to you, well then of course you are going to have issues of "less roleplaying" as well as "and the battle takes too long.. because these goblins are moving around tactically as if they were controlled by a single entity...using denial tactics and conserving their resources for as long as possible, so the party must really scramble for every last ounce of effort..."

Players should be less conservative in battle because there are far less resources to hoard. DMs should be less conservative because there is simply no benefit to doing so. I personally think it's a habit.

But that's sort of the players and DMs fault. Because those same rules given to someone else will probably seem to run fine.

I can definitely say I have not seen even a single 15 minute adventuring day in any of my 4e games. That is, defined as a game where the characters use all of their daily powers in the first encounter, and then go home and rest afterwards. And then go back to the adventure for ONE MORE ENCOUNTER..and do it again. and so on.

* "We tried baseball and it didn't work" is not about 4E, but it illustrates the self-nominated-yet-completely-clueless "expert" phenomenon we know from the internet.. pretty well.

Roleplaying in 4e combat will just increase duration of combat. Since people who aren't tactically interested in combat wants to get over with combat as soon as possible, they would just roll, apply effect, repeat until its over. TO these people, the focus out of combat exploration is the main part of gameplay and combat is just one of the ways to deals with situations.

Quote from: Thanlis;379069Put differently:

"If there is one major problem with a tactical game like D&D4, this is it: you can play it well enough that players are always denied a decisive victory. You can play it well enough that people will sit there and stare at the board trying to figure out what to do before finally deciding. This is frustrating, and it really is built into the game."

I wasn't disagreeing.  I was trying to point out that there seems to be a consensus that it is at least within the realms of possibility that the highly tactical combat can certainly drag on for far too long.

Even when someone is trying to desperately convince everyone that this only occurs when you are "playing it wrong".

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379076Well, go "recognize it" somewhere else. Over here it's still gamers trying to talk about gaming.

When Pundit decides that I should be somewhere else, he is certainly free to act on that decision.  Your request is worth about as much as a polished turd.

And over here, it's you trying to look like a gamer while madly shilling 4e.

Quote from: jeff37923;379093Anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the rules of 4E.

And really, it's great when as a player and/or DM, you're into that sort of tactical minutiae. Look: I've used miniatures in many of my D&D games, I like tactical combat*, and if I was presented with the occasion to play 4e, I think I'd approach it with a "Advanced D&D Miniatures" frame of mind. I could have fun over a one-shot with it that way.

That's just that nay-saying that obvious trait of the game's design is ... hypocritical at best.

* Though 4e has its own particular, narrow understanding of what "tactical" actually means in terms of game play.

Quote from: jibbajibba;379084Oh and baseball is a shit game, its not as bad as cricket but its still shit :D Any game where half the players are sitting down waiting to bat and the other half are standing around waiting on the off chance that some one might hit the ball towards them... shit.

No doubt.  It's like only one player has the spotlight, and everyone else sits around cooling their heels.  20mins of fun packed into three or four hours of game.  ;)

Quote from: Benoist;379099And really, it's great when as a player and/or DM, you're into that sort of tactical minutiae. Look: I've used miniatures in many of my D&D games, I like tactical combat*, and if I was presented with the occasion to play 4e, I think I'd approach it with a "Advanced D&D Miniatures" frame of mind. I could have fun over a one-shot with it that way.

That's just that nay-saying that obvious trait of the game's design is ... hypocritical at best.

* Though 4e has its own particular, narrow understanding of what "tactical" actually means in terms of game play.

Agreed. I can see scenarios where 4E would be the ideal tool for gameplay. It is just that those scenarios would involve play closer to Space Hulk or Blood Bowl, which are not the gameplay that everyone expects when they want to play D&D.

Quote from: Doom;379089Hrm, no response to the rest of it?



I don't know, but I'm guessing, from how most everyone's fights look like mine, and you're the only one whose fights look like yours, is that you're doing it wrong...but it's really hard to say how you're messing up. I can't help but notice from errors here, and in other posts by you, that you're probably not actually playing the game, but that's just conjecture.

From the sample encounter, I'm guessing it's because you think minions and elites are designed properly, but a single encounter demonstrates very little.

I think minions and elites are fine.

Would you like to see the the play logs? Video evidence? Are you coming to GenCon? Here's my schedule.  (http://nixie-queen.wikidot.com/gencon-schedules) Id' be happy to DM for you.

A lot of my gaming is actually reported as RPGA events. So I can show you the Warhorn signups, my RPGA logs, and I have some one-offs I do at Meetup.com. Where are you located? This is not hard to prove.

EDIT: Here are the Drow adventures I've been running since March.  (http://house-of-exile.wikidot.com/adventures) They include dates. Players are listed here.  (http://house-of-exile.wikidot.com/characters) Here's a Major Quest the entire Adventuring Company is on.  (http://house-of-exile.wikidot.com/reconsecrating-the-temple) Yes, I have a 15 person gaming group. Two different weeknights, and there's some overlap.

Quote from: areola;379095Roleplaying in 4e combat will just increase duration of combat. Since people who aren't tactically interested in combat wants to get over with combat as soon as possible, they would just roll, apply effect, repeat until its over. TO these people, the focus out of combat exploration is the main part of gameplay and combat is just one of the ways to deals with situations.

I think that's a really boring way to do things. What you do and how you do it (in combat) are great ways to express a character.

Quote from: jeff37923;379103Agreed. I can see scenarios where 4E would be the ideal tool for gameplay. It is just that those scenarios would involve play closer to Space Hulk or Blood Bowl, which are not the gameplay that everyone expects when they want to play D&D.

Yeah, kinda like this. Advanced Space Hulk with some role-playing going on too.

Quote from: jeff37923;379092So you are saying that the Players wargaming out a RPG that concentrates on tactical combat are doing it wrong?

Absolutely.

Quote from: StormBringer;379097I wasn't disagreeing.  I was trying to point out that there seems to be a consensus that it is at least within the realms of possibility that the highly tactical combat can certainly drag on for far too long.

Even when someone is trying to desperately convince everyone that this only occurs when you are "playing it wrong".

Well, um, yeah. If it's a problem that can be fixed -- and I hope everyone not named Doom in this thread is willing to admit that high level combat doesn't have to be a drag -- then I think refusing to make changes which might improve your enjoyment of the game is in fact "playing it wrong."

Quote from: ggroy;378985I am cornholio.

Do you need T.P. for your Bungholio?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379105I think minions and elites are fine.

.

What you've provided is a list of names and dates, hardly illuminating of anything one way or the other. I could construct a similar page showing myself attending Lincoln during the Civil War.

On the other hand, stuff you say about the game, such as the above, is quite demonstrative.

Something seriously isn't right about your assertions about the game, and your claims of playing the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;378989Pot. Kettle. Black.

:rolleyes:

Fuck off Jeffrey :)

The guy just made a blanket statement that nobody in the world could make an aspect of a game, a game he's played a handful of times and doesn't like, enjoyable.  Even you wouldn't support that kind of generalization and hyperbole.

Quote from: Thanlis;379115Well, um, yeah. If it's a problem that can be fixed -- and I hope everyone not named Doom in this thread is willing to admit that high level combat doesn't have to be a drag -- then I think refusing to make changes which might improve your enjoyment of the game is in fact "playing it wrong."

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I never said high level combat has to be a drag. It just typically takes 2.5 hours, whether that's a 'drag' is strictly a matter of opinion.

Quote from: Mistwell;379116Do you need T.P. for your Bungholio?

Are you threatening me?  I am cornholio!

For us, easy combats in 4e last 15-20 mins, average last 30 mins, and hard last an hour (except one, which lasted an hour and 45 mins, but that was really two encounters in one, because someone ran away and opened the door to another room in the middle).

I can see how combat could grind if people do not know what they are going to do on their turn when it comes around to them.  Except for the first few games (when we didn't really comprehend all the rules and how they interacted with each other), we just have not encountered that problem.

I also have not seen a lack of non-combat "stuff" in our 4e games.  Then again, I have a really good DM.

Quote from: Doom;379117What you've provided is a list of names and dates, hardly illuminating of anything one way or the other. I could construct a similar page showing myself attending Lincoln during the Civil War.

On the other hand, stuff you say about the game, such as the above, is quite demonstrative.

Something seriously isn't right about your assertions about the game, and your claims of playing the game.

Well..uhm..you could suppose that this all an elaborate hoax, but the thing about gaming is.. it doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are not only witnesses.. there are not only just "6 other witnesses" to any game I run, there's often 20+ because Thursdays happen in a public space.  (http://warhorn.net/GamesAndStuffLFR)

 I run a game at my apartment on Tuesdays (http://house-of-exile.wikidot.com/), D&D Encounters on Wed, gamenight (see warhorn, above) on Thursdays. This saturday I will be at a game in Frederick, MD with my GF.  (http://www.meetup.com/Frederick-RPG-Consortium/calendar/12943745/)

Where are you located? I'll DM. I'm DMing constantly already, it won't put me out.

Nixie Queen  (http://nixie-queen.wikidot.com/)is the adventuring group we put together just for GenCon, by the way. The adventures haven't taken place yet, but you (yes you, random person reading this) might be able to get in on them, provided you aren't some psychotic jerkface. Feel free to PM. I'll be at GenCon. The slots are detailed here (http://nixie-queen.wikidot.com/gencon-schedules), and they are free of course.

I'm beginning to get embarrassed by some of our user-base.

Quote from: One Horse Town;379125I'm beginning to get embarrassed by some of our user-base.

Jesus, just fucking now?!! I passed that point months ago and I'm not here all that much. You must be made of sterner stuff than me.

Quote from: One Horse Town;379125I'm beginning to get embarrassed by some of our user-base.

If you used the weapon vs. AC tables as they were written, you wouldn't have that problem.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379123Well..uhm..you could suppose that this all an elaborate hoax, ... of course.

Okeedokee, then. I'm near Baton Rouge, if you want to come by so we can figure out what you're doing wrong, you're welcome to do so.

But the question still remains: why do you keep saying stuff that only those unfamiliar with the game would say?

Quote from: Doom;379130Okeedokee, then. I'm near Baton Rouge, if you want to come by so we can figure out what you're doing wrong, you're welcome to do so.

But the question still remains: why do you keep saying stuff that only those unfamiliar with the game would say?

I'm unlikely to be anywhere near Baton Rouge. I'm in Baltimore. But the offer is open! I will possibly be in Arizona this summer, and Indiana in August.

Here's my snappy retort!:

If I'm doing it wrong, and you're doing it right, why am I having such a good time? And why do you have such issues with stuff?

Doom, Abyssal maw,

Are you both going to visit either ORIGINS or Gen Con?

If the answer is yes - then do your test game there.

Hell advertise it!
Make it benefit a charity somehow.
 The Gamer Doubting Thomas vs. The 4th/e D&D afficianado (apologist?)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;379133Doom, Abyssal maw,

Are you both going to visit either ORIGINS or Gen Con?

If the answer is yes - then do your test game there.

Hell advertise it!
Make it benefit a charity somehow.

I can't believe I'm quoting Koltar (that's a first ever for me, I believe), but I'd like to join that proposal. Make it a charity event, video tape it, do what you like, but for God's sake, make it kids friendly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycp2VrKfm-A#t0m15s).

Quote from: Koltar;379133Make it benefit a charity somehow.

My booze fund is getting low and I am accepting donations.

Quote from: jeff37923;379137My booze fund is getting low and I am accepting donations.

Not quite what I meant.....

However such a 'stunt' game might collect funds for the local club's refreshment or party fund - if that gaming club has funds for such things.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;379138However such a 'stunt' game might collect funds for the local club's refreshment or party fund - if that gaming club has funds for such things.


- Ed C.

Just send your tax-deductable donations via PayPal to jeff37923@yahoo.com.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379132If I'm doing it wrong, and you're doing it right, why am I having such a good time? And why do you have such issues with stuff?

Uh, I don't have issues? Why is it always about putting words in my mouth with you?

Stating "combats take 2.5 hours" is a statement of fact, not an issue. It's a natural consequence of the game design, nothing more. I guess I can sit down later and go into detail why this must be the case, but you don't seem particularly vulnerable to input here. Similarly, "minions are broken" is a statement, not an issue.

The simple fact that "level +20 encounter", if it's mostly minions, need not be a challenge for a party, while a "level +20 encounter" without minions, will always be problematic, if not fatal for the party, demonstrates quite well that there's something wrong, specifically with minions.

I can come up with any number of "level +20" encounters with minions that wouldn't threaten a party, even using minions five or more levels above the party members.

Can you give me an example of a level 21 encounter that wouldn't threaten a level 1 party, even using monsters 5 or more levels above the party members?

Quote from: Doom;379141Can you give me an example of a level 21 encounter that wouldn't threaten a level 1 party, even using monsters 5 or more levels above the party members?

I wouldn't try and prove such a thing. I could however, (probably) easily challenge a 5-member level 1 party with 20 goblin cutters. Those are level 1 minions.


A single level 21 minion, could wipe out a level 1 party. They'd need a natural 20 to hit it, and it would hit every round.


Here's the stats:
Legion Devil Legionnaire   Level 21 Minion
Medium immortal humanoid   XP 800
Initiative +11      Senses Perception +11; darkvision
HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion.
AC 37; Fortitude 33; Reflex 32; Will 32
Resist 15 fire
Speed 7 , Teleport 3
m Longsword (standard; at-will) • Weapon
+26 vs AC; 8 damage
 Squad Defense
The legion devil legionnaire gains a +2 bonus to its defenses when adjacent to at least one other legion devil.
Alignment Evil   Languages Supernal
Str 14 (+12)   Dex 12 (+11)   Wis 12 (+11)
Con 14 (+12)   Int 10 (+10)   Cha 12 (+11)
Equipment Plate Armor, Heavy Shield, Longsword

Quote from: jeff37923;379139Just send your tax-deductable donations via PayPal to jeff37923@yahoo.com.

I am tempted to donate to a fellow 1987 California grad :)

Quote from: Doom;379141Stating "combats take 2.5 hours" is a statement of fact, not an issue.

Empirically, it is not a fact.  Others routinely report it takes significantly less time for them.

Now if you said "Combats take 2.5 hours, for my group", that would be an accurate statement of fact.  Or "For some people, combats take 2.5 hour" would also be an accurate statement of fact.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379132If I'm doing it wrong, and you're doing it right, why am I having such a good time? And why do you have such issues with stuff?

Shill tunnel vision? :D

Quote from: Thanlis;379115Well, um, yeah. If it's a problem that can be fixed -- and I hope everyone not named Doom in this thread is willing to admit that high level combat doesn't have to be a drag -- then I think refusing to make changes which might improve your enjoyment of the game is in fact "playing it wrong."

Again, I don't think we are arguing.  :)

As Doom mentioned in his response above, it's not necessarily a 'problem' for him, although I don't see coming onto an RPG discussion forum to simply make a statement and leave.  So, there is some degree of 'problem' there.  And there are certainly solutions to it.  They don't involve "it doesn't take that long for our group" followed by "you must be doing something wrong".

So, I am not primarily concerned with the 'length of combat' portion of the discussion.  I am more involved in the "no, you really aren't offering solutions" part where people are replying ultra-defensively as though their very lifestyle were under attack.

Quote from: StormBringer;379102No doubt.  It's like only one player has the spotlight, and everyone else sits around cooling their heels.  20mins of fun packed into three or four hours of game.  ;)

Exactly, its just like inviting your mates round for a XBOX console session then each of you takes an hour long turn on GTA then you swap to the next guy :)

Quote from: Benoist;379152Shill tunnel vision? :D

Alas, it is mere irony that you actually have a link in your signature where you actually are trying to shill something, whereas I have none. (No offense Rob).

Quote from: Koltar;379133Doom, Abyssal maw,

Are you both going to visit either ORIGINS or Gen Con?

If the answer is yes - then do your test game there.

Hell advertise it!
Make it benefit a charity somehow.
 The Gamer Doubting Thomas vs. The 4th/e D&D afficianado (apologist?)


- Ed C.

Holy crap, that gives me an idea.

Scrub all the flavor elements from 4e and rebrand it as a Lucha Libre RPG.

Quote from: Mistwell;379151Empirically, it is not a fact.  Others routinely report it takes significantly less time for them.

Now if you said "Combats take 2.5 hours, for my group", that would be an accurate statement of fact.  Or "For some people, combats take 2.5 hour" would also be an accurate statement of fact.

In fact, I am pretty sure that last one is exactly what is being proposed.  The qualifiers are usually assumed in response to categorical statements to the contrary.

Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;379158Holy crap, that gives me an idea.

Scrub all the flavor elements from 4e and rebrand it as a Lucha Libre RPG.

Have you seen the Brawler fighter build? It's basically a wrestler.

Quote from: jeff37923;379103Agreed. I can see scenarios where 4E would be the ideal tool for gameplay. It is just that those scenarios would involve play closer to Space Hulk or Blood Bowl, which are not the gameplay that everyone expects when they want to play D&D.

This was one of the reasons I proposed in another thread that 4e woudl make a good GMless game with some random monster selection and dungeon generation tables.

Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;379158Holy crap, that gives me an idea.

Scrub all the flavor elements from 4e and rebrand it as a Lucha Libre RPG.

Glad I could help - even if unintentionally.

Hell, something good should come out of this flamefest somehow.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379157Alas, it is mere irony that you actually have a link in your signature where you actually are trying to shill something, whereas I have none. (No offense Rob).

WOW. Get a sense of humour, douchebag.

Quote from: Benoist;379163WOW. Get a sense of humour, douchebag.

I'm sorry, were you not aware that is exactly what you are doing? I don' think there's anything wrong with it, but you are what you are.  Didn't you even like..crosspost it?

Man. Neckbeard strikes again!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379164I'm sorry, were you not aware that is exactly what you are doing? I don' think there's anything wrong with it, but you are what you are.  Didn't you even like..crosspost it?

Man. Neckbeard strikes again!

Nice cheap shots again, douchy (or should I start second grade insults as well and call you four eyes?).
Care to go on?

So Doom I am actually interested in the maths (i know uber geekdom)

In a 2 hour combat how many rounds would there be on either side ?

Typically how many Hp does a monster at say 15th level have and how much damage does a typical PC deal in a round?

I am interested to see if the issue stems from the tactical time it takes for your particular group to make moves or if its actually a factor of the mathematics.

As I suggested up there somewhere a 1e combat would typically have an outcome after 5 rounds (albeit a 5th level example) I was wondering if we could work out a similar value for a typical 4e 15th level encounter (I could do that for a 1e one but my guess would be that the fighter would be on c. 90hp at that point but his opponents say a trio of cloud giants would be making 2 attacks at 2d10 +10 damage each so the math more or less averages out although the fighter would hit more often as acs in 1e didn't scale as fast as hp/levels).

If you have PCs at 15th level in 4e with closer to 200 HP and the monsters are dealing only 8 points (surely that is way too low) with a hit then the maths is certainly screwed.

We would also need to know the chance to hit and the PC average damage.

It could be that there is a systemic problem in that it takes 20 rounds of combat to kill a matched encounter for a 15th level group of 5 PCs. If that is the case then taking 6 minutes per round or 1 minute for each PC and 1 minute for the DM is far from exceptional and your case is proved. If on the other hand we find that the average combat should take 5 rounds mathematically then either your guys are takign too long and AM has a point or there is a build/rule error someplace and your guys or your monsters aren't stated out right.

As a comparison I play a lot of scrabble. sometimes I play a 20 minute game where both players have 20 mins (+1 min emergency time) on the clock and games typically take 30 minutes to complete. But I also play 3 minute games where players have just three minutes (+ a minute's emergency time) and in these games you have to make sub-optimal choices as there is no time and games typically take 7.5 mins to complete. I even play social games with my family and they take hours and hours and its largely my fault.
It's the same game all versions are fun, although I do find time for role play in the short games somewhat limited :)

ok, typical level 15 monsters:

Eladrin Knight (Skirmisher)
HP 144;
AC 29; Fortitude 27; Reflex 29; Will 25
m Longsword (standard; at-will) • Weapon
+20 vs AC; 2d8 + 6 damage, and the target grants combat advantage until the end of its next turn

Cyclops Slaver (controller)
HP 149; Bloodied 74
AC 29; Fortitude 27; Reflex 29; Will 25
m Spear (standard; at-will) • Weapon
Reach 2; +20 vs AC; 2d10 + 4 damage

Drow Inquisitor (soldier)
HP 147; Bloodied 73
AC 31; Fortitude 27; Reflex 23; Will 26
m Scourge (standard; at-will) • Weapon
Reach 2; +22 vs AC; 1d8 + 6 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the drow inquisitor's next turn
M Punishing Strike (standard; at-will)
Marked target only; +20 vs Fortitude; 2d8 + 6 damage, and ongoing 10 damage (save ends)


You can kinda see that the soldier (the drow here at the end)  is tougher in the defenses, but his attack is initially weaker.. but once he marks someone and uses punishing strike, they take ongoing 10 damage until they save, and he can do that every round.

For a typical PC I would suggest grabbing the first level 15 out of http://iplay4e.com

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379146I wouldn't try and prove such a thing. I could however, (probably) easily challenge a 5-member level 1 party with 20 goblin cutters. Those are level 1 minions.

Good, so you see the issue, then. it's so bad you can't even try.

On the other hand, when it comes to minions, "Probably easily" is the best you can hope for, and any party that even uses remotely crude combat tactics will have no difficulty dispatching the cutters, and then only if it's a party of extremely poorly built characters.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of any party that would have trouble with such a minimal encounter. Can you propose such a party, such a scenario, that would work? Everything I think of makes this, like any high-minion encounter, trivial, due to minions being broken.

And so, indeed, we've demonstrated that there is something very wrong with minions.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379172ok, typical level 15 monsters:

Eladrin Knight (Skirmisher)
HP 144;
AC 29; Fortitude 27; Reflex 29; Will 25
m Longsword (standard; at-will) • Weapon
+20 vs AC; 2d8 + 6 damage, and the target grants combat advantage until the end of its next turn

Cyclops Slaver (controller)
HP 149; Bloodied 74
AC 29; Fortitude 27; Reflex 29; Will 25
m Spear (standard; at-will) • Weapon
Reach 2; +20 vs AC; 2d10 + 4 damage

Drow Inquisitor (soldier)
HP 147; Bloodied 73
AC 31; Fortitude 27; Reflex 23; Will 26
m Scourge (standard; at-will) • Weapon
Reach 2; +22 vs AC; 1d8 + 6 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the drow inquisitor's next turn
M Punishing Strike (standard; at-will)
Marked target only; +20 vs Fortitude; 2d8 + 6 damage, and ongoing 10 damage (save ends)


You can kinda see that the soldier (the drow here at the end)  is tougher in the defenses, but his attack is initially weaker.. but once he marks someone and uses punishing strike, they take ongoing 10 damage until they save, and he can do that every round.

For a typical PC I would suggest grabbing the first level 15 out of http://iplay4e.com

Okay i will do some sums, I am also watching the Life of Brian with the misses and the au-pair so it might not get finished tonight and I will typically fudge stuff out to an average.

Typically what numbers would be talking about? My guess would be on a party of 5 PCs we would be looking at 3 soldiers, 4 skirmisher minions and a controller. I will just go with some numbers. My first glance is that the damage does seem to be low compared to the hits and if the monster and pc hits are clsoe I can see it taking a lot of hits at 1d8 +6 (11 average damage) to deal 150 damage although I am sure that thsi is s tad more complex :)

Quote from: Doom;379175Good, so you see the issue, then. it's so bad you can't even try.

No, but you asked "Can you give me an example of a level 21 encounter that wouldn't threaten a level 1 party, even using monsters 5 or more levels above the party members?"

I don't think such an example exists. All level 21 encounters will threaten  level 1 parties.

QuoteOn the other hand, when it comes to minions, "Probably easily" is the best you can hope for, and any party that even uses remotely crude combat tactics will have no difficulty dispatching the cutters, and then only if it's a party of extremely poorly built characters.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of any party that would have trouble with such a minimal encounter. Can you propose such a party, such a scenario, that would work? Everything I think of makes this, like any high-minion encounter, trivial, due to minions being broken.

And so, indeed, we've demonstrated that there is something very wrong with minions.

I'm reasonably certain I could take many parties apart with a large group of minions. I ran a "36 Skeletons" encounter two weeks ago. (April 15th by my recently impugned wiki!)

Thats about 900XP, or equal to a level 3 encounter. If it weren't for a pair of fireburst bolts, the party would have been mobbed and destroyed within 3 rounds. I was able to surround near every character quickly, and then it was 4-6 encounters a round, many of them with flanking, doing 4 damage each, and more when they attempted to break out of the bonepile. This encounter ended with 2 out of 6 characters unconscious.

I still think minions are great! My crazy misconceptions are probably just going to keep on being successful, I guess.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379146I wouldn't try and prove such a thing. I could however, (probably) easily challenge a 5-member level 1 party with 20 goblin cutters. Those are level 1 minions.

In one game I played in, the DM used 16 minions for an encounter.  It took forever to kill them all, especially since the player party didn't have a controller.  It basically resembled "death by a thousand cuts".

Quote from: jibbajibba;379177Typically what numbers would be talking about? My guess would be on a party of 5 PCs we would be looking at 3 soldiers, 4 skirmisher minions and a controller. I will just go with some numbers. My first glance is that the damage does seem to be low compared to the hits and if the monster and pc hits are clsoe I can see it taking a lot of hits at 1d8 +6 (11 average damage) to deal 150 damage although I am sure that thsi is s tad more complex :)

Nope, an average party is 1 monster of equal level per each PC. You can mess with these numbers a bit, because the real benchmark is the XP. But that's the standard. An elite is equal to two monsters, a solo is equal to 5 monsters, and 4 minions=1 monster.

So if I've shown 3 level 15 monsters here, it would be a typical encounter for 3 level 15 player characters.

Quote from: ggroy;379180In one game I played in, the DM used 16 minions for an encounter.  It took forever to kill them all, especially since the player party didn't have a controller.  It basically resembled "death by a thousand cuts".

It is death by a thousand cuts. The minions die quickly, but there are a lot of them, and all they have to do is close and flank, and they are suddenly absorbing a ton of hit points. Or rather, they are taking them away from the PCs.

If you mix minions in with other monsters, players are torn whether or not to "waste" an attack just killing a minion (no matter how much damage you do, you only have to hit it once..) or suffering the mob effect. In the long run, I feel like the mob effect is worth shutting down as early as possible.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379182Nope, an average party is 1 monster of equal level per each PC. You can mess with these numbers a bit, because the real benchmark is the XP. But that's the standard. An elite is equal to two monsters, a solo is equal to 5 monsters, and 4 minions=1 monster.

So if I've shown 3 level 15 monsters here, it would be a typical encounter for 3 level 15 player characters.

That's why I said for 5 PCs we would have 3 soldiers 4 minions and a controller :) on the basis that minions are 4 for 1 :)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379183If you mix minions in with other monsters, players are torn whether or not to "waste" an attack just killing a minion (no matter how much damage you do, you only have to hit it once..)

The extra damage the strikers did, was effectively a waste.  Marks, etc ... were largely useless.

At first when I DM'd my own 4E game, I didn't bother using minions at first.  But apparently my players liked the famous trope of cutting through a bunch of kobolds or goblins.  The most minions I bothered to use was eight, where the players just cut into them while the wizard hit some of them with ranged area attacks.

Quote from: ggroy;379187The extra damage the strikers did, was effectively a waste.  Marks, etc ... were largely useless.

At first when I DM'd my own 4E game, I didn't bother using minions at first.  But apparently my players liked the famous trope of cutting through a bunch of kobolds or goblins.  The most minions I bothered to use was eight, where the players just cut into them while the wizard hit some of them with ranged area attacks.

Yeah; I like minions for precisely that effect. More recent monster design layers some sort of handy effect on minions. I'm running a game tomorrow where the minions have this power:

   Harrier
If a hyena is adjacent to an enemy, all other creatures have combat
advantage against that enemy when making melee attacks.

While all three of the other monster types are getting bonus damage when they have combat advantage. I think that's a significant improvement over bland minions that just do damage.

In general, I assume that anyone who just looks at raw damage output from a level 15 monster is missing the point. 8 damage on average is wrong to start with -- according to the table in the DMG, standard damage for a level 15 monster is 2d8+6, or 15 points of damage. But damage-focused monsters will be running 3d6+6 on their at-will attacks, and for a damaged-focused monster's one-shot attack, they're doing 4d10+6.

And that's before you layer in conditions, auras, stuff like that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;379186That's why I said for 5 PCs we would have 3 soldiers 4 minions and a controller :) on the basis that minions are 4 for 1 :)

I misread you, my apologies!

Quote from: jibbajibba;379170So Doom I am actually interested in the maths (i know uber geekdom)

In a 2 hour combat how many rounds would there be on either side ?

This will take a long answer, and I don't know if I want to sit down and work it all through theoretically. Apologies if I paint broad strokes.

If you have a pointless, completely non-challenging fight (i.e., where nobody loses more than a single surge, if that much), it can end in under an hour, easily.

So, most encounters are "level + n" in some sense, but this has more to do with the fact that the maths are completely messed up at the higher levels. Many GMs consider "level +3" or thereabouts to be the 'fair' 'level' encounter (with adding damage).

I'm just going to do a basic 'level' fight, which is really so trivial it shouldn't take place at 15th level.

Much as Dungeons and Dragons rather collapses in the 'teens, so too does 4e unless the GM puts some effort into it (hey, it's a similarity, at least, much as CR was meaningless past a few levels in D&D).

As a caveat, I'm talking about level 15 play, primarily. At low levels (say, 1 or 2), where the game was clearly playtested, things work out quite well, and cracks don't start appearing until level 5 or so.

QuoteTypically how many Hp does a monster at say 15th level have and how much damage does a typical PC deal in a round?

A typical level 15 monster has around 140 hit points, and deals around an expected 6 points of damage a round, RAW (by 'expected', I'm assuming the monter hits half the time, but these numbers are low enough that changing to 60% isn't going to matter much). I emphasize RAW because many GMs houserule the damage up, monsters simply don't do enough damage at this level.

A typical 15th level character has around 120 hit points (plus another 120, usually more, available through a wide and myriad array of healing effects, from healing surge, to regeneration to dwarven armor to self-healing powers to many temporary and healing effects sloshing off other players).

Expected damage from a 15th level character varies wildly. Overall expectation for hits are for 20 points, although this has a relatively huge standard deviation (20 points or so--a pacifist cleric expects to hit for 0, after all, and broken powers like Astral Seal, don't deal damage directly with a hit).

On the basis of this alone, "even" combats are supposed to last around 7 rounds. with the monsters completely incapable of even bloodying a character, unless that character actively seeks it, RAW.

A player can easily take 2.5 minutes for his turn. First, remove and/or resolve beginning of turn effects (ongoing damage, regeneration, numerous special powers) (10 seconds). A move takes 40 seconds--lots of interrupts at this level, including lots of deliberately triggered opportunity attacks. The minor action can take 30 seconds--especially if it's a leader (healing power, determine target, determine effect, change hit point totals). Then comes the standard action (60 seconds): determining the actual power, figuring out what it does, declaring the target, rolling the die, factoring in a wide variety of situational effects, determining the hit, determining the damage, putting down the special effect that nearly every power inflicts, resolving any generated special effects like healing or granting temporary hit points.

Then remove and resolve end of turn effects, including saves (10 seconds).

I emphasize, these are AVERAGES, and the standard deviation can be high. Just moving can take 5 minutes if particularly complicated, and missed attacks resolve quickly (sometimes 'rolling a 1' is a relief not to have to go through all the other calculations).

Yes, a turn can take less than 2 minutes, but it can easily take more than 5 minutes, especially if lots of opportunity attacks are involved or there's any discussion at all about what to do. At low level, you don't have NEARLY as many effects going off, speeding up combat dramatically.

Then the GM takes his turn; I try to be fast, but 2 minutes for 5 monsters is hardly out of the question.

So, 7 turns, 6 players at 2.5 minutes a turn, GM at 2 minutes a turn. 119 minutes (i.e., nearly 2 hours), and that's for a very easy fight that offers no challenge whatsoever to the players, a fight so simple that the GM should not bother even having it.

Now, if you want a challenging fight, you have to do *something*. Abyssal Maw correctly noted the game can't handle higher level monsters against lower level players, the increased hit points, combined with rising defenses, make that just a horrible idea. Most GMs add damage (1/2 level seems to be about right, although it makes all the damage 'same-y'), but more than that is necessary to have any real interesting situations come up.

Since you can't add higher level monsters, add same level monsters. Each such monster adds one more round to the combat. Two such monsters (and they're just clones of the monsters the players are already facing), you're now at a "level +2" encounter, still entirely trivial.

Now you're at a 2.5 hour combat, easy.

Want a challenging combat? Add a level +2 monster maybe. Daily powers mean such fights aren't that much longer, but, as shown above, a 2.5 hour combat is intrinsic to the design of 4e, at least at higher levels.

QuoteWe would also need to know the chance to hit and the PC average damage.

I assume 50%. Yes, sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, but that's good enough for dozens upon dozens of rolls.

I hope this answers your question sufficiently.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379178I'm reasonably certain I could take many parties apart with a large group of minions. I ran a "36 Skeletons" encounter two weeks ago. (April 15th by my recently impugned wiki!)

Thats about 900XP, or equal to a level 3 encounter. If it weren't for a pair of fireburst bolts, the party would have been mobbed and destroyed within 3 rounds. I was able to surround near every character quickly, and then it was 4-6 encounters a round, many of them with flanking, doing 4 damage each, and more when they attempted to break out of the bonepile. This encounter ended with 2 out of 6 characters unconscious.

I still think minions are great! My crazy misconceptions are probably just going to keep on being successful, I guess.

And my players had no difficulty with 80 same-level minions backed up by 5 same-level monsters in a wide open area. I'm guessing your whole party somehow managed to build without any burst or area effect attacks, or even familiarity with something called a 'wall'. I'll just call that an anecdotal fluke that proves nothing, like I've indicated many a time now.

Considering how every class has area or multiple target effect powers, and simply lining up on a wall can prevent flanking (especially against skeletons that don't have any movement-inflicting attacks), that's some pretty uber bad play there. Big time.

Anyway, you're talking about level 1, where the game actually works for the most part, I'm talking about higher levels. Let's keep them goalposts in the same spot, eh?

I have found, that in 4e you always need to roll a 12 or better to do stuff. You get a +2 bonus if your class is supposed to be good at stuff, and another +2 for any advantage you gain.
This stays the same across levels, as does the damage done/hitpoint ratio. the number of useful powers is also fixed...

For the most part, yes, but players that really put effort into min-maxing, and don't fall into traps, they can get to 50% (as opposed to your 45%) well enough. My players are a mix of l33t dudes and typical players, like, I suspect, most groups are.

I'm tempted to sit down and show a dwarf fighter that falls into one trap of character design can lead to a ridiculously long fight against a level -1 encounter...maybe later.

Quote from: Doom;379193This will take a long answer, and I don't know if I want to sit down and work it all through theoretically. Apologies if I paint broad strokes.

If you have a pointless, completely non-challenging fight (i.e., where nobody loses more than a single surge, if that much), it can end in under an hour, easily.

So, most encounters are "level + n" in some sense, but this has more to do with the fact that the maths are completely messed up at the higher levels. Many GMs consider "level +3" or thereabouts to be the 'fair' 'level' encounter (with adding damage).

I'm just going to do a basic 'level' fight, which is really so trivial it shouldn't take place at 15th level.

Much as Dungeons and Dragons rather collapses in the 'teens, so too does 4e unless the GM puts some effort into it (hey, it's a similarity, at least, much as CR was meaningless past a few levels in D&D).

As a caveat, I'm talking about level 15 play, primarily. At low levels (say, 1 or 2), where the game was clearly playtested, things work out quite well, and cracks don't start appearing until level 5 or so.



A typical level 15 monster has around 140 hit points, and deals around an expected 6 points of damage a round, RAW (by 'expected', I'm assuming the monter hits half the time, but these numbers are low enough that changing to 60% isn't going to matter much). I emphasize RAW because many GMs houserule the damage up, monsters simply don't do enough damage at this level.

A typical 15th level character has around 120 hit points (plus another 120, usually more, available through a wide and myriad array of healing effects, from healing surge, to regeneration to dwarven armor to self-healing powers to many temporary and healing effects sloshing off other players).

Expected damage from a 15th level character varies wildly. Overall expectation for hits are for 20 points, although this has a relatively huge standard deviation (20 points or so--a pacifist cleric expects to hit for 0, after all, and broken powers like Astral Seal, don't deal damage directly with a hit).

On the basis of this alone, "even" combats are supposed to last around 7 rounds. with the monsters completely incapable of even bloodying a character, unless that character actively seeks it, RAW.

A player can easily take 2.5 minutes for his turn. First, remove and/or resolve beginning of turn effects (ongoing damage, regeneration, numerous special powers) (10 seconds). A move takes 40 seconds--lots of interrupts at this level, including lots of deliberately triggered opportunity attacks. The minor action can take 30 seconds--especially if it's a leader (healing power, determine target, determine effect, change hit point totals). Then comes the standard action (60 seconds): determining the actual power, figuring out what it does, declaring the target, rolling the die, factoring in a wide variety of situational effects, determining the hit, determining the damage, putting down the special effect that nearly every power inflicts, resolving any generated special effects like healing or granting temporary hit points.

Then remove and resolve end of turn effects, including saves (10 seconds).

I emphasize, these are AVERAGES, and the standard deviation can be high. Just moving can take 5 minutes if particularly complicated, and missed attacks resolve quickly (sometimes 'rolling a 1' is a relief not to have to go through all the other calculations).

Yes, a turn can take less than 2 minutes, but it can easily take more than 5 minutes, especially if lots of opportunity attacks are involved or there's any discussion at all about what to do. At low level, you don't have NEARLY as many effects going off, speeding up combat dramatically.

Then the GM takes his turn; I try to be fast, but 2 minutes for 5 monsters is hardly out of the question.

So, 7 turns, 6 players at 2.5 minutes a turn, GM at 2 minutes a turn. 119 minutes (i.e., nearly 2 hours), and that's for a very easy fight that offers no challenge whatsoever to the players, a fight so simple that the GM should not bother even having it.

Now, if you want a challenging fight, you have to do *something*. Abyssal Maw correctly noted the game can't handle higher level monsters against lower level players, the increased hit points, combined with rising defenses, make that just a horrible idea. Most GMs add damage (1/2 level seems to be about right, although it makes all the damage 'same-y'), but more than that is necessary to have any real interesting situations come up.

Since you can't add higher level monsters, add same level monsters. Each such monster adds one more round to the combat. Two such monsters (and they're just clones of the monsters the players are already facing), you're now at a "level +2" encounter, still entirely trivial.

Now you're at a 2.5 hour combat, easy.

Want a challenging combat? Add a level +2 monster maybe. Daily powers mean such fights aren't that much longer, but, as shown above, a 2.5 hour combat is intrinsic to the design of 4e, at least at higher levels.





I assume 50%. Yes, sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, but that's good enough for dozens upon dozens of rolls.

I hope this answers your question sufficiently.

Thanks mate, those numbers don't look outrageous to me maybe there is really overlap in the PC turns and most players will be planning their move concurrently so I suspect that you could have been able to trim that down to a minute action per PC but that would still mean an 8 minute round so a 1 hour combat  but as you say this is an all but trivial combat and i can easily see how you can add 3 or 4 rounds and increase he time to act by 50% but I will do some sums.....

With thoser numbers I am very supriesed that any 4e combat would take 15 mins or less. It would take 5 mins just to set up the table and the minis.

Quote from: Doom;379193A typical level 15 monster has around 140 hit points, and deals around an expected 6 points of damage a round, RAW (by 'expected', I'm assuming the monter hits half the time, but these numbers are low enough that changing to 60% isn't going to matter much). I emphasize RAW because many GMs houserule the damage up, monsters simply don't do enough damage at this level.

This is wrong, as already noted. It would be closer to correct if you assumed that all monsters simply used basic at-will attacks with no effects. But that's a boring game.

Also: AC in plate at level 15 is 17 (base) plus 10 (plate) plus 3; AC 30. A level 15 soldier's bonus to hit AC is +22. So he's hitting 65% of the time against plate, which is a bit more often than Doom projects. My sorcerer will be sitting at 26 or 27 AC when he hits level 15, depending. The equal level soldier will hit my PC 80% of the time.

QuoteA typical 15th level character has around 120 hit points (plus another 120, usually more, available through a wide and myriad array of healing effects, from healing surge, to regeneration to dwarven armor to self-healing powers to many temporary and healing effects sloshing off other players).

My sorcerer has 83 hit points at level 13 and will have 93 at level 15. My fighter should be up to... 120 or so? But that's a Constitution-oriented character filling the defender role. "Typical" is inaccurate.

QuoteExpected damage from a 15th level character varies wildly. Overall expectation for hits are for 20 points, although this has a relatively huge standard deviation (20 points or so--a pacifist cleric expects to hit for 0, after all, and broken powers like Astral Seal, don't deal damage directly with a hit).

Interesting thought.

QuoteOn the basis of this alone, "even" combats are supposed to last around 7 rounds. with the monsters completely incapable of even bloodying a character, unless that character actively seeks it, RAW.

Note that this math assumes that nobody has any out of turn powers that cause damage to the monsters. This is very likely to be wrong, given that any defender is going to have something. Since you explicitly mentioned deliberately triggered opportunity attacks, you should be aware that these exist. It also assumes that nobody's using any encounters or dailies during the fight.

The rest of your numbers aren't awful. I note that you blithely started thinking about status effects and the like when calculating time, although you ignored them when discussing damage. Funny, that. But your basic idea of how many rounds it takes to finish a fight is so weird that it renders your overall calculations problematic.

Oh, and that's assuming you ignore the by-the-book advice about ending combats early when it's obvious which side is going to win.

So,....they won't do a public game for charity?

Oh Well.

 Some got the dice, some don't.


- Ed C.

Quote from: ggroy;379180In one game I played in, the DM used 16 minions for an encounter.  It took forever to kill them all, especially since the player party didn't have a controller.  It basically resembled "death by a thousand cuts".

I ran an encounter a couple of weeks ago with a 3rd level party vs. 16 level 3 orc minions.  The minions were all dead in 3 very quick rounds and the party took maybe 2-3 hits.  They didn't have a wizard- just a fighter who eats thru minions like they were chips.  They are totally not worth the points to use and I probably won't use them again.  Even when used in a mixed group, they don't do there intended job very well.  Cheap, low level soldiers or traps would be better blockers.  All minions say to my party is easy encounter.

Quote from: Thanlis;379222This is wrong, as already noted. It would be closer to correct if you assumed that all monsters simply used basic at-will attacks with no effects. But that's a boring game.

Um, no, as any perusal of the MM reveals. See Rakshasa Archer, Rakshasha warrior (better than 50% chance to hit, but d8 +5 really isn't that high), red slaad (ok, expected damage there is 7.5), thunderfury boar (high damage possible, but expectation is more like 6.4 due to lower chance to hit). I see no reason to go to every monster, so I'll give a little.

Ok, fine, I guess I am a little low. Instead of '6', make it '7'. Fair enough? Still, far below what would be necessary to threaten a character with 100 or more hit points, and many, many, healing powers waiting in the wings.

Yes, a very few monsters have the ability to 'spike' up to double that, once an encounter, or every few rounds...not very relevant, honest. I'm not addressing the broken solos here, perhaps that's the confusion you're having.

So much for that.

QuoteAlso: AC in plate at level 15 is 17 (base) plus 10 (plate) plus 3; AC 30. A level 15 soldier's bonus to hit AC is +22. So he's hitting 65% of the time against plate, which is a bit more often than Doom projects. My sorcerer will be sitting at 26 or 27 AC when he hits level 15, depending. The equal level soldier will hit my PC 80% of the time.

Again, no, and you're probably not trying very hard with your sorcerer (note: I bet your sorcerer has a few defensive abilities that cancel attacks or cause defenses to go way up for a turn...same thing, overall).

Anyway, let's do that math carefully for plate:

10 + level (7) + gith plate (10) + enhancement bonus (3) + shield (2). That's 32, without even trying hard (the armor could easily be +4, after all).

So much for that.

It's worth noting the bonuses for level 15 monsters go from +18 (boar) to +22(wherever you got this one). Seriously, we're talking 0.35 point a shot one way or the other, this is worth quibbling about?

So, um, yeah, so much for that, again.

QuoteMy sorcerer has 83 hit points at level 13 and will have 93 at level 15. My fighter should be up to... 120 or so? But that's a Constitution-oriented character filling the defender role. "Typical" is inaccurate.

Ok, I'm off a bit with the hit points, sorry about that. Let's see here (assuming con of 13 for heavy armor, 12 for other, level 15):

Cleric (95), fighter (112), Paladin (112), Ranger (95, depends on build, could be 110 or more), Rogue (92), Warlock (92, greatly offset by massive temp hit point gain), Warlord (95), Avenger (111), Barbarian (111)...seriously, we're talking 10-25 hit points here, and completely disregarding a huge number of possible powers and abilities and racial things that can easily move it up.

That's what you're forgetting here: almost every class, and some races, have built in things that basically mean more hit points. Whether it's the self-healing powers of the fighter, the interrupting shots of the ranger, the damage prevention of the half-giant whatevers, the regeneration of the shifters, or whatever...for all intents and purposes, characters really do have quite a bit more hit points than that number.

But, the point remains: characters have vastly more hit points than they know what to do with, at least against 'level appropriate' monsters. Using the new numbers, it now takes around 17 rounds for a monster to kill a character that just stands there, instead of 20. Whoop de doo, and irrelevant if the fights take around 7 rounds, which they're supposed to.

You want to factor in possible spike damage from the occasional monster that can do more than the spam attack? RIghto, make it 15 rounds bare minimum for a kill, again assuming only basic healing pops up (I don't think you realize just how much healing there is in this game). Note: 15 is still many more rounds than the fight should ever last.

Seeing as the maximum hit points would only be a factor in a fight where the characters had some chance of dying, this is a non-issue.

So much for that.

QuoteNote that this math assumes that nobody has any out of turn powers that cause damage to the monsters. This is very likely to be wrong, given that any defender is going to have something. Since you explicitly mentioned deliberately triggered opportunity attacks, you should be aware that these exist. It also assumes that nobody's using any encounters or dailies during the fight.

Actually, the encounter powers are part of the expected damage (very few characters have at-wills that can reasonably hit for 40+ damage--play some and you'll seel). I did assume no dailies, since the fight is so ridiculously weak that it's unreasonable to assume players would use dailies.

So much for that.

QuoteThe rest of your numbers aren't awful. I note that you blithely started thinking about status effects and the like when calculating time, although you ignored them when discussing damage. Funny, that.

By not awful, I'm sure you mean 'fairly accurate'.

"Expectation" Look it up. Please. It's also worth noting that stuff like "slow", "Immobilize", "daze", etc, don't do damage, anyway. Play the game some, and you'll see very few at-will powers, and only a bit more encounter powers, that deal ongoing damage, anyway. In the case of 'ongoing five', if you have a character, that adds a glorious +4 or so to the expected damage and that's a pretty generous thing to do, since it's already been factored. The fight still takes 7 rounds.

And done with that, too.

QuoteBut your basic idea of how many rounds it takes to finish a fight is so weird that it renders your overall calculations problematic.

And yet despite your tiny quibbles, mostly irrelevant, it's still very accurate. This is probably because the only actual error involved character hit points, not really a factor since they can't die in such a combat, and thus have no real bearing on the time it takes.

QuoteOh, and that's assuming you ignore the by-the-book advice about ending combats early when it's obvious which side is going to win.

Actually, the fight should have been ended before it began, I mentioned that several times, so no ignoring of the by-the-book advice, I was simply showing how the game is designed to take 2.5 hours at that level. I guess you only lie like this because you have nothing else?

In any event, an 'actual' fight is easily going to go over 2 hours, and I've shown quite clearly why this must be the case, with 2.5 hours a pretty good guess at the average observed empirically.

Quote from: Doom;379229Um, no, as any perusal of the MM reveals. See Rakshasa Archer, Rakshasha warrior (better than 50% chance to hit, but d8 +5 really isn't that high), red slaad (ok, expected damage there is 7.5), thunderfury boar (high damage possible, but expectation is more like 6.4 due to lower chance to hit).

Sorry; quoting a couple of exceptions doesn't make me wrong. I'm working from the damage guidelines as per the DMG. I'm right; you're wrong.

But hey, I'm a nice guy; let's look at your examples. Rakshasa Archer! Oooh, yeah, that's a weak basic attack... 1d10+5. No big deal, average damage pretty low -- hey, wait. He gets two attacks per turn. Against a 30 AC, the Archer needs a 10 or better to hit, so he'll hit 55% of the time. 1d10+5 is 10.5 average, bringing us to... call it 5.5 expected damage per arrow to make it easier, although it's really a bit higher. Two arrows. 11 expected damage. Yeah, I'd say you're a little low.

You blew it on the Boar, too. Didn't figure the extra damage while the boar's bloodied, didn't figure the extra damage on a charge, ignored the close burst 2 attack... I mean, didn't I just point out that you're ignoring single use or rechargeable abilities? Tsk.

QuoteAgain, no, and you're probably not trying very hard with your sorcerer (note: I bet your sorcerer has a few defensive abilities that cancel attacks or cause defenses to go way up for a turn...same thing, overall).

What does "not trying very hard" mean? I spent a feat on better AC -- does that count?

You're right, I forgot the shield. But you're still figuring the best AC plausible and counting that as typical. If your PCs have all gone for the best AC and spent their feats on that rather than offense... well, that explains part of your problem.

QuoteIt's worth noting the bonuses for level 15 monsters go from +18 (boar) to +22(wherever you got this one).

I got it from the DMG, dude. Page 185. Soldiers and artillery attacks vs. AC are equal to their level + 7. Brutes, at the low end, are level + 5 -- there's the +18. As is your pattern, you took the worst possible numbers and acted like those were averages.

QuoteOk, I'm off a bit with the hit points, sorry about that. Let's see here (assuming con of 13 for heavy armor, 12 for other, level 15):

Note again: you're assuming that your PCs are putting their points into Con, which is essentially defensive, as opposed to offensive stats. E.g., my sorcerer burned those spare points on Dex so that he could get a couple of key offensive feats. His primary stat is Cha, and his secondary stat is Str.

QuoteActually, the encounter powers are part of the expected damage. I did assume no dailies, since the fight is so ridiculously weak that it's unreasonable to assume players would use dailies.

If you really truly believe that the average damage per attack, counting encounters, is 20 points at level 15, you are really playing poorly. My sorcerer has a static damage bonus of +25 at level 15. He's got a +17 to hit. Average Reflex for a level 15 monster is 27, meaning he hits 55% of the time. The variable damage is 1d8, so that's (2d8+50)*.55, which is expected damage of 32 points every time he uses his at-will, if he gets an average of two monsters in the blast.

And that's at-wills. Encounters boost that and apply useful effects. Hey, let's talk about effects!

Quote"Expectation" Look it up. Please. It's also worth noting that stuff like "slow", "Immobilize", "daze", etc, don't do damage, anyway.

Uh, sure, daze has no effect on expected damage at all. Other than increasing the chance to hit by a substantial amount.

Hey, does a monster's expected damage output for any given round increase if the target is stunned? How about "redirect the attack to any creature within 10 squares, then teleport next to the attacker and make two attacks against him" as an interrupt? Would it make a difference to the monster's damage output if they had that sort of power?

Quote from: Koltar;379223So,....they won't do a public game for charity?

Oh Well.

 Some got the dice, some don't.


- Ed C.

Well, I haven't decided if I'm going to GenCon...I'm reluctant to commit when I haven't bought the tickets, and I'm a procrastinator by nature. Hopefully I'll get my E3 plane tickets soon, and this is the first year in over a decade of going I've been this far ahead of the game on that.

But, yeah, sure, if there's a serious chance of raising some money for charity, I'll be more inclined. Although, I've had bad luck with charity events, getting punched in the face in a 'pie tossing' thing (kid was, well, mentally challenged, and just got excited...cracked a tooth), and bruised my foot rather badly in the dunking booth thing I did just a few days ago.

Won't rule it out if something serious is put together. He can put up 60 level 10 melee minions in a featureless room with some hallways, and I'll make a level 2 party that will quite easily annihilate them. ;)

Quote from: Thanlis;379233Sorry; quoting a couple of exceptions doesn't make me wrong. I'm working from the damage guidelines as per the DMG. I'm right; you're wrong.

But hey, I'm a nice guy; let's look at your examples. Rakshasa Archer! Oooh, yeah, that's a weak basic attack... 1d10+5. No big deal, average damage pretty low -- hey, wait. He gets two attacks per turn. Against a 30 AC, the Archer needs a 10 or better to hit, so he'll hit 55% of the time. 1d10+5 is 10.5 average, bringing us to... call it 5.5 expected damage per arrow to make it easier, although it's really a bit higher. Two arrows. 11 expected damage. Yeah, I'd say you're a little low.

Try again. First off, already established AC30 assuming too low. You're also mysteriously assuming the players don't move...the archer won't get to use that ability all that much, and it averages out with the lower damage he'll be forced to use when he gets stuck in melee. Oopsie.

QuoteYou blew it on the Boar, too. Didn't figure the extra damage while the boar's bloodied, didn't figure the extra damage on a charge, ignored the close burst 2 attack... I mean, didn't I just point out that you're ignoring single use or rechargeable abilities? Tsk.

Really didn't want to go to every single monster and consider every single situation, just looking at averages here, not particular examples that, in some situations, will do a bit more, or a bit less. For a round, or two, or maybe even three. So, it'll take 20 rounds without such powers, and 17, worst case scenario. Too bad the fight ends on round 7. Actually I did mention this detail, but I can understand missing it.

You point at one monster that has a situational above 7, I'll point at another monster (Rakshasa Warrior) that has a uniform below damage. That's how an average works.

Will you take 8? Still takes way too many rounds to be relevant.

QuoteWhat does "not trying very hard" mean? I spent a feat on better AC -- does that count?

You're right, I forgot the shield. But you're still figuring the best AC plausible and counting that as typical. If your PCs have all gone for the best AC and spent their feats on that rather than offense... well, that explains part of your problem.

Well, I pointed out the flaws in your plate example, it WAS the example you gave, after all, sorry you chose such a bad and poorly thought out one. Nobody said anything about using the 'best possible', I assumed level 11 armor on a level 15 character. Meanwhile, you keep referencing a min/maxed sorcerer of uber l33tness. You seem to be a bit hypocritical here, I think that's your problem.

QuoteI got it from the DMG, dude. Page 185. Soldiers and artillery attacks vs. AC are equal to their level + 7. Brutes, at the low end, are level + 5 -- there's the +18. As is your pattern, you took the worst possible numbers and acted like those were averages.

So, I said +18 to +22, I'm taking these from the MM, the actual book people actually use for their monsters. The boar is on page 35, go and see for yourself it's +18. The Rakshasha warrior is +21 (page 216), the archer is +20 (p216). This is ridiculous, you're really disputing the numbers in the actual book?

I only accepted the +22 because you said it, and I was taking it on faith. Still, we're talking 0.4 of point at best, not even 3 extra points of damage (in a 7 round combat) on a character that will likely have over 100 hit points, and more like 200 once healing'/damage prevention during a fight is accounted for.

I'm taking the actual numbers in the actual book, honest, and using those numbers as they actually are.


And you're quibbling and quibbling, and quibbling over fractions of a percent...are you truly this desperate?

QuoteNote again: you're assuming that your PCs are putting their points into Con, which is essentially defensive, as opposed to offensive stats. E.g., my sorcerer burned those spare points on Dex so that he could get a couple of key offensive feats. His primary stat is Cha, and his secondary stat is Str.

*chuckles* No, I assume the character will have enough con to wear his armor, for the most part. Again, con only matters for 1-3 hit points, on a character with 100 hit points, it really makes very little difference by level 15. You truly are this desperate, aren't you?

It's queer that you keep going to this worst case example of a sorcerer that's taken no defense whatsoever. Do I really need to crack open the book and find a defensive power or two for your sorcerer?

QuoteIf you really truly believe that the average damage per attack, counting encounters, is 20 points at level 15, you are really playing poorly. My sorcerer has a static damage bonus of +25 at level 15. He's got a +17 to hit. Average Reflex for a level 15 monster is 27, meaning he hits 55% of the time. The variable damage is 1d8, so that's (2d8+50)*.55, which is expected damage of 32 points every time he uses his at-will, if he gets an average of two monsters in the blast.[

And, again, you go with this one, extreme, example. If all parties everywhere were all sorcerers, you'd be onto something. Do you have a pacifist cleric in your party? If so, you and him put together are now behind the 20 average.

This is what I was talking about with that 'standard deviation' concept that went over your head. Yes, some uber strikers will get an expected 32 points. Some less damage focused characters will expect 0, or well less than 20. So, 'average of 20, standard deviation of 20' means, well, the average is 20, but it's quite easy for a character to have an average between 0 and 40. You're only seeing the top side. Go to the character builder and make a few besides this one minmaxed character of yours. Fighters, for example, don't get double-shot at-wills and are well below an expected 20per hit...it'd bring down the overall party average, but they also get more oppportunity attacks than others, offsetting it a bit.

And you have to know this sort of thing already, I'm sensing some intellectual dishonesty here.

Heck move the average up to 23--that's the net effect of your completely damage-optimized sorcerer, along with everyone else using 'normal' characters. Again, this is how an 'average' works, you don't just take the absolute maximum of the absolute maximum, you look at the other reasonable possibilities as well--honest, not every player completely optimizes all aspects of his character for damage.

Moving the average to 23, still takes 7 rounds to kill the wimpy monsters that pose no threat to the party. Oh well.

QuoteUh, sure, daze has no effect on expected damage at all. Other than increasing the chance to hit by a substantial amount.

Yep, another 20% in that one particular case. Which of your at-wills dazes? How many of your encounter powers? How about the rest of the party? Once again, you're taking one exception and disregarding that the discussion is 'average', not 'particular special case'.

When WOTC starts printing at-wills with Daze that all classes can take, or so many encounter powers that every class can daze every round with every power, then up the damage 10% (you might think 20%, but you still only hit around half the time, so daze is only in play half the time...this is kinda why it's stupid to consider one guy having one daze power really making much difference in a long run average).

Still takes 20 rounds to kill a character if has mediocre healing capability, and, at best, optimal, situationally, you're now moving it to a 6 round fight against monsters too weak to pose any threat to the party; in a 'real' encounter worth playing, we're back to 7 or more rounds, anyway.

QuoteHey, does a monster's expected damage output for any given round increase if the target is stunned? How about "redirect the attack to any creature within 10 squares, then teleport next to the attacker and make two attacks against him" as an interrupt? Would it make a difference to the monster's damage output if they had that sort of power?

Ah, you need some rules help here. I'll answer as best I can:

1) Yes. Note that none of the monsters mentioned have a stun power, much less a power that can be used every single round.

2) Yes. Which monster has this at-will power, among the ones mentioned? Sure looks like 'none' to me. Even if there is one, it's unreasonable to assume that will be the only monster the characters ever face (that kind of sounds like a sorcerer defensive power, fwiw).

3) Depends on the chance of the power going off and chance of hitting. Moot point, since very few, if any, monsters have that power, much less as an at-will. Did you have a level 15, non-solo, non-elite, monster in mind?

Anyhow, back to the main discussion. It's quite possible to quibble a point here, a point there, and if you want to say   "2 hours, 23 minutes, 15 seconds", you certainly can. I'll say "2.5 hours", and not really concern myself with such minutae.

Heck, I'm a nice guy, too. Your 1-2% quibbles might change things to the point of "2 hours, 20 minutes for a somewhat weak encounter", giving you a full 10 minutes instead of what should only be 5 minutes. Good enough to stop splitting hairs like this?

Quote from: mhensley;379225I ran an encounter a couple of weeks ago with a 3rd level party vs. 16 level 3 orc minions.  The minions were all dead in 3 very quick rounds and the party took maybe 2-3 hits.  They didn't have a wizard- just a fighter who eats thru minions like they were chips.  They are totally not worth the points to use and I probably won't use them again.  Even when used in a mixed group, they don't do there intended job very well.  Cheap, low level soldiers or traps would be better blockers.  All minions say to my party is easy encounter.

In the encounter I was referring to, it was a 1st level party against sixteen level 1 kobold minions.  The players had already used up their daily powers, in a previous encounters.

What made it last too long, was partly that the players were not rolling very well and the DM was playing the kobolds to flank the players.  I think the crappy rolling on the part of the players, really prolonged it significantly.

Absolutely, at low levels, minions work pretty well.

But once you hit paragon, and characters get autodamage encounter burst powers, or 'take damage when they attack me' powers, or half a dozen other things, minions don't even come close to working properly.

Like I said, at levels where 4e was playtested (eg, 1, 2, maybe 3, a little), combat works quite well and is fairly solid fun. It's the higher levels where stuff starts to collapse, hard.

Hopefully 4.5 will fix this, and many other, design issues.

Quote from: Doom;379238Try again. First off, already established AC30 assuming too low. You're also mysteriously assuming the players don't move...the archer won't get to use that ability all that much, and it averages out with the lower damage he'll be forced to use when he gets stuck in melee. Oopsie.

Actually, no, we didn't. 30 is too low for a fighter, a paladin, or a swordmage. Someone who specializes in defense. It's too high for anyone other than a defender.

QuoteIt's queer that you keep going to this worst case example of a sorcerer that's taken no defense whatsoever. Do I really need to crack open the book and find a defensive power or two for your sorcerer?

He's got leather armor, dude, that's how his AC got as high as it is. With no defensive feats, he'd be two points lower.

QuoteAnd, again, you go with this one, extreme, example. If all parties everywhere were all sorcerers, you'd be onto something. Do you have a pacifist cleric in your party? If so, you and him put together are now behind the 20 average.

Upside of a pacifist cleric is that everyone's getting +2 to hit a fair portion of the time. But once again you've failed to consider the positives -- you're just looking at the factors that could hurt damage output. And for all your talk about averages, you've chosen the leader type that boosts party damage by the least. I imagine you know what happens if there's a tactical warlord in the party, right?

Oh, which reminds me: action points. Your hypothetical fight seems to be the one where nobody uses dailies or action points. I mean, talk about tying your party's hands behind their backs...

Look, you aren't serious about this conversation. You want to be right. If you want to have a real conversation about why your fights take two hours, we could do that, but you're not even willing to consider the possibility that when I say I cranked through a level 15 game with three fights and a skill challenge in 5.5 hours, I'm telling the truth.

And if you're happy with that, cool! There's nothing wrong with two hour fights. I've used the word "wrong" and that was dumb; it's only wrong if you aren't enjoying it.

Quote from: Thanlis;379264Actually, no, we didn't. 30 is too low for a fighter, a paladin, or a swordmage. Someone who specializes in defense. It's too high for anyone other than a defender.

Or warden, or a few other classes. You're still arguring for another 0.4 points of damage per hit, at best. Anyway, you seem to forget that those defender classes attract attacks more often than non-defender classes (it's how the game is designed, after all), and that those 'devastating' ranged attacks, that might consume almost 5% of a character's hit points, are only going to go against vulnerable characters if such characters don't do something silly, like stand behind another character.

But, again, note how hysterical this is--even the vulnerable character would need to set himself up to be vulverable, and it still would take about 20 rounds for it to kill him, provided no major healing powers are being used.

As a side note, last game, the paladin took off his plate armor and fought naked--even with AC 17, my 'double damage' monsters simply couldn't do enough to hurt him. I haven't gone into detail how excessive the healing is, because it's irrelevant, the monsters present no challenge in this fight, so the healing isn't a factor.

Similarly, the point you keep raising repeatedly about AC, even if it were accurate--which it is not--is completely irrelevant, since the sample fight given presents no danger whatsoever to the characters, so it doesn't really matter what their AC is.

QuoteUpside of a pacifist cleric is that everyone's getting +2 to hit a fair portion of the time. But once again you've failed to consider the positives -- you're just looking at the factors that could hurt damage output. And for all your talk about averages, you've chosen the leader type that boosts party damage by the least.

Yes, and another leader type would do something different, and another leader type would do something different. Do you know what I mean by the word 'average'?

I've chosen no leader type at all...simply taken an average based on direct observation of the dozen or so level 15ish characters that have sat at the table. That's how an average works, it's clear this concept isn't in your repertoire of ideas, and there's not much I can do about it.

Honest, when I say "the expected damage for a character is around 20, with a standard deviation of 20", it's an ostentatious display of ignorance to respond with "you're wrong, my double-damage striker hits for an expected 35."

But, don't take my word for it. Are you in high school? If so, go to your math teacher, it's possible he or she will have enough training to explain to you, how, in the parameters given, 35 isn't demonstrating any inaccuracy at all.

QuoteOh, which reminds me: action points. Your hypothetical fight seems to be the one where nobody uses dailies or action points. I mean, talk about tying your party's hands behind their backs...

*chuckles again* Again, this is a pointless, easy, irrelevant fight, I don't expect players to use bonus attacks when there's absolutely no need.

In any event, action points represent another standard action. At paragon level, action points trigger bonus events...it doesn't speed up the game a bit.

I just don't think you can understand that 'taking more actions in a round' might mean less rounds, but means just as much time.

For example, if all players use an action point for this pointless, irrelevant, fight that represents no danger to any party members...that's basically a whole extra round right there (ok, I guess it does shave off 2 minutes over the course of 2 hours...again, note how you're quibbling just tiny details using a ridiculous hypothetical).

Now, in a tough battle, yes, the characters will use dailies and APs....but now they're dealing with tougher monsters. This is why I don't claim fights take much over 2.5 hours (the longest I've had is 3.5 hours), players use more powerful resources for more powerful threats.

Yet again, you're quibbling 1% here, 1% there...there's just not enough in the minutia you point out, even when relevant, to make a difference.

QuoteLook, you aren't serious about this conversation. You want to be right.

I'm using words and concepts and looking at things in a way utterly beyond you. You're basically saying "if I speed things up 2%, that'll reduce the time 50%" and "if we do more things in a round, the rounds will take less time".

You're not making any sense, sorry.

It's not a question of wanting to be right. I don't want 2 + 3 = 5, and what happens in that calculation is irrelevant of my desires. In your version of mathematics, such calculations clearly resolve according to your personal desires.

I respect your position, but can you at least acknowledge there are other points of view?

QuoteIf you want to have a real conversation about why your fights take two hours, we could do that,

I've already explained in detail, the design of the game necessitates fights of any challenge whatsoever to take over 2 hours, with 2.5 being a reasonable guess at the average, and constructed a model that explains why I see fights taking this long, week in, week out.

You keep going on and on about how water doesn't have to be wet if you don't want it to be...but it's clear you don't understand how the words work.

Quotebut you're not even willing to consider the possibility that when I say I cranked through a level 15 game with three fights and a skill challenge in 5.5 hours, I'm telling the truth.

I don't believe you've said this before, and in no way do I dispute this possibility.

First, your group fights, say, two level 15 monsters. Then, they fight 4 level 14 monsters. Then, they have a 2/1 skill challenge. Then, they have a 'level' fight pretty much as described. That barely would take 4 hours, and probably less if your whole party is as hyperoptimized towards damage as you (it's curious that AM hasn't come in here to complain how bad you are for using optimization).

Anyway, I'm not disputing any such thing, and good for you!


Tell you what, though, come over to my place, and I'll run your group through actual  fights that will take some effort to beat...I bet they'll take 2.5 hours apiece.

QuoteAnd if you're happy with that, cool! There's nothing wrong with two hour fights. I've used the word "wrong" and that was dumb; it's only wrong if you aren't enjoying it.

I never said there was anything wrong with 2.5 hour fights. I simply demonstrated why this must be the case for a slightly challenging fight at this level: it's fundamental to the game design. Your best arguments put it at more like 2 hours and 20 minutes, and that's fine, my group might be a little slow, seeing as we aren't all hyperoptimized just for damage.

I'm normally a defender of dumb criticisms of 4e.  However, in this case, the critics are right.  4e combats do take too long and minions are useless.

For minions, I generally fix the problem by doubling or tripling the amount of damage they are supposed to do.

But yes, combat is slow.  I don't know if its signifcantly slower than in past editions (I remember 2e and 3e combats taking forever, too).

But in my last session, it took 1.5-2 hrs each for 2 combats (3-4 hrs total) with only 3 PCs in ea fight.

One problem is there is so much crap to keep track of, and so many options, it takes people forever to decide what to do.  And half the people never remember how their powers work.  That kind of thing bogs down every edition, though the plethora of choices in 4e doesn't help.

But the math is off, too.  HPs are way higher now.  There is a ton more healing now.  But attack damage is pretty low for most creatures and not terribly high for PCs outside of dailies.  I mean, it's not as bad as, say, Rifts, but the problem is there.

If I were designing the game, I would have kept hit points from inflating so much.  I also think PCs have too many powers.  

Oh, and WTF is with healing surges?  They should have kept them at like 1-4 per day.  At 7 or more, PCs never even come close to using them all before they have to rest.

But of course, it's really difficult to play this game much and not see these issues.

About at what level did these problems start to become overwhelming for you? What classes seem to be the worst?

Cleric has pretty extreme healing, but I've also noticed the bard is ridiculous--every monster on the board, by bardic power, grants 32 temporary hit points to the party....it's kinda tough to keep up with that with monsters damage so low.

I'd mention other design issues, but I feel like I'd be giving it away.

While I'm pretty sure it's the overall design, it'd be interesting to see if you see the same classes as problematic.

Quote from: Doom;379386But of course, it's really difficult to play this game much and not see these issues.

About at what level did these problems start to become overwhelming for you? What classes seem to be the worst?

Cleric has pretty extreme healing, but I've also noticed the bard is ridiculous--every monster on the board, by bardic power, grants 32 temporary hit points to the party....it's kinda tough to keep up with that with monsters damage so low.

I'd mention other design issues, but I feel like I'd be giving it away.

While I'm pretty sure it's the overall design, it'd be interesting to see if you see the same classes as problematic.

I wouldn't say I find the problems overwhelming - we're still having a lot of fun in the campaign - just annoying.  I do think some of these issues should have been blindingly obvious in playtesting, much like the much-criticized (and rewritten) skill challenges.

I would say the problem has gotten worse as they gain more powers.  Especially interrupts.  Every time somebody has interrupts it grinds the game to a halt.  The group is at level 7 now - I'd say it was noticably slower starting at level 5 or so.

I don't know if I could narrow down the problems to specific classes.  I will say that some of the classes seem much more powerful than others.  By my experience:
Barbarians and Sorcerers > Warlocks and Avengers
Rangers > Rogues
Clerics > Shamans and Warlords
Swordmages and Wardens > Fighters and Paladins

Now, I'm not stating that as objective fact - just what I've observed.  Maybe some are just easier to play to their full potential, I don't know.

I guess that would be my biggest criticism - the way the whole tactical mastery is designed, and with the huge numbers being thrown around, the PCs can easily win some battles without barely a scratch with a good roll or two.  On the other hand, a poor choice or two combined with a couple of bad rolls will lead to a long, slow grind.

Well, you're awfully close to my assessment.

I feel the design starts to show very fine cracks at level 5--not bad, but this is where the classes clearly merge together. By this level, every class can have an area effect (or multi-target) power, a (self) healing power, a decent inflict affect power, a defensive power...and maybe one interrupt.

Definitely, the isues aren't overwhelming at level 7, but this is where minions really collapse. Since the non-controllers have area effect powers at this level, that means you've got 5 different area effect powers going off, minimum...the first 10 minions are meaningless in such an environment, and you're not supposed to use more than 8, by the guidelines.

If you think those interrupts are bad at level 7, wait until you get to level 15, where things really get nuts. Apparently WoTC didn't realize that an "interrupt, your attack is negated" is actually much more powerful than a stunning power (cancelling an attack is very nearly a retroactive stun, after all), which only a few characters get, unlike these interrupts.

I also agree mostly with your class assessments, with only quibbles at the last lines.

I wasn't impressed at all with the swordmage (the character died at level 2 or so), and the current warden in the party hasn't been too dominating (granted, that power that gives a -7 to the next attack is just pure stupid, and it has stupid high hit points, being a half-giant, or whatever they're called for purposes of IP), but I still find fighters too much. That 'combat advantage' power is nutsy strong, totally shutting down monster movement. Also, the fighter in the party is a juggernaut...jeebus, that's strong.

I think it's funny that they give kobolds and goblins all these shifty powers...then give fighters powers that make it impossible for the goblins and kobolds to USE the powers. It's almost as though WoTC wanted to really show off how awesome fighters are in 4e, and they're still plenty awesome in paragon.

Yes, the paladin doesn't do much damage, but he still does a decent amount. 'Certain Justice' is flat out broken...I'll wait while you go and read this encounter power, which is basically 'monster is dazed and weakened until the end of the encounter'. All encounters are now built around dealing with this power, which otherwise would shut down all solo monsters or encounters with a strong monster in them (uh, gee, isn't that everything worth fighting?). That power, along with a few other uber abilities (a guaranteed attack re-direct, for example), along with more of the oh-so-excessive healing, make the pally pretty darn good.

Back to the original topic, which I take to be Greg Bilsland's twitter account and whether we can determine whether there will be rules changes in D&D Essentials from it, I believe the answer is yes:

Quote from: Greg's Twitter AccountI'm going to look into it, but probably not for a few months since I'm focused on updates appearing in Essentials.

-Frank

Quote from: jgants;379377I'm normally a defender of dumb criticisms of 4e.  However, in this case, the critics are right.  4e combats do take too long and minions are useless.

For minions, I generally fix the problem by doubling or tripling the amount of damage they are supposed to do.

But yes, combat is slow.  I don't know if its signifcantly slower than in past editions (I remember 2e and 3e combats taking forever, too).

But in my last session, it took 1.5-2 hrs each for 2 combats (3-4 hrs total) with only 3 PCs in ea fight.

One problem is there is so much crap to keep track of, and so many options, it takes people forever to decide what to do.  And half the people never remember how their powers work.  That kind of thing bogs down every edition, though the plethora of choices in 4e doesn't help.

But the math is off, too.  HPs are way higher now.  There is a ton more healing now.  But attack damage is pretty low for most creatures and not terribly high for PCs outside of dailies.  I mean, it's not as bad as, say, Rifts, but the problem is there.

If I were designing the game, I would have kept hit points from inflating so much.  I also think PCs have too many powers.  

Oh, and WTF is with healing surges?  They should have kept them at like 1-4 per day.  At 7 or more, PCs never even come close to using them all before they have to rest.

Some of my houserules to patch these issues:

I use a different formula when determining monster Hit points. The end result is that HP is a bit more than half the usual amount.

Static damage bonuses of monsters are increased by +2 at heroic tier, +4 at paragon and +8 at epic. These values are added to minion damage as well.

Monster defences are decreased by -1 during heroic tier, -2 at paragon and -4 at epic.

Players may make an opportunity attack when a monster rolls a natural 1 on a melee attack. Players that roll a -1 on a melee attack grant combat advantage until the beginning of their next turn.

Healing surges are replenished at a rate of 1 per extended rest. This value increases to 2 surges/rest at paragon level, and 3 surges/rest at epic.

Most of these take place on my side of the screen so my players are scarcely aware of the rules that don't involve them directly.

So far it's been working really well. The only problem I've seen is that monster stats only increase incrementally by RAW, so the difference between level 20 and level 21 monsters isn't that extreme. My alterations have made that chasm considerably wider.

Quote from: Doom;379294In any event, action points represent another standard action. At paragon level, action points trigger bonus events...it doesn't speed up the game a bit.

I just don't think you can understand that 'taking more actions in a round' might mean less rounds, but means just as much time.

Sure. But at varying points in a combat, one side might have an advantage over the other -- a temporary condition that makes it easier for them to hit or to do more damage. Using an action point to get another attack during the duration of that temporary condition will increase the amount of damage done per real time minute. I can give examples -- the pacifist cleric encounter power that dazes targets and gives them 10 vulnerability to all damage, for example, but I think it should be pretty obvious.

And of course it doesn't mean "just as much time." Even if it takes 60 seconds to resolve an attack, that's a bit of a distance from the 2.5 minutes you're claiming a whole turn takes. You're adding an entire round's worth of  damage without taking an extra move, an extra start and end of turn, and so on. Except you're adding more than that because you timed your AP to be used when the monster's vulnerable in some way.

QuoteI don't believe you've said this before, and in no way do I dispute this possibility.

First, your group fights, say, two level 15 monsters. Then, they fight 4 level 14 monsters. Then, they have a 2/1 skill challenge. Then, they have a 'level' fight pretty much as described. That barely would take 4 hours, and probably less if your whole party is as hyperoptimized towards damage as you (it's curious that AM hasn't come in here to complain how bad you are for using optimization).

Actually, I did say it before, but you may have missed it. The encounters in question: first, a level 16 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures). Second, a level 16 fight with 5 level 16 monsters, none elite. Third, a level 18 fight, a bit weirdly structured -- starts out with a level 16 elite and 4 minions, but they stop fighting once the elite goes bloodied and it transitions into a fight against 3 level 16 normal monsters and another level 16 minion, plus a level 16 hazard. Then we finished up with a level 17 fight: 1 level 18 elite, 2 level 16 normals, 1 level 18 normal.

Weird table, FWIW -- no leaders, but two paladins, which wound up being just enough healing to get by on.

Regarding my sorcerer: I imagine AM isn't doing that because he's seen me play the sorcerer and he knows he's not hyperoptimized. Hyperoptimized, for a sorcerer, would have been cheesing out and taking the daggermaster paragon path so that he crits on an 18-20. My sorcerer is pretty optimized, but I've taken, let's see: Fleet-footed, for +1 movement; Leather Armor Proficency; Sorcerous Blade Channeling, which I barely ever need to use these days since I go entire adventures without using at-wills; and the bard multi-class. Half of his feats have nothing to do with damage, and they could.

Of course, not too long ago, you were telling us that your players were broken:

QuoteMaybe now you'll accuse my players of all being sub-optimal? The cleric has all the broken powers (healing more than double a surge with each 'surge' power), the paladin has the broken 'Certain Justice', the Ranger combos off the broken Bard prestige path...not exactly a weak group, really. I think the lowest plus to-hit is +22, not bad for 15 and 16.

What I'm guessing is that your players fell into a pretty common trap: optimizing for defense and healing. I have another online group that did the same thing. Their fights take forever, very close to your 7 rounds, because the barbarian went heavily into warlord and so on. Of course, you won't show us your encounters or characters so I'm just guessing here -- but it looks pretty likely.

If you could step back and admit this as a possibility, I think there's a great discussion to be had about why this happens. I think it's yet another problem with the presentation of D&D. But when you're stuck on the idea that your path is the only path anyone could follow, it's going to be impossible.

Quote from: jgants;379377For minions, I generally fix the problem by doubling or tripling the amount of damage they are supposed to do.

That's what I do as well - otherwise they're rarely worth paying attention to.

Quote from: jgants;379377But yes, combat is slow.  I don't know if its signifcantly slower than in past editions (I remember 2e and 3e combats taking forever, too).

3E definitely, at least at mid-high levels.

Quote from: jgants;379377Oh, and WTF is with healing surges?  They should have kept them at like 1-4 per day.  At 7 or more, PCs never even come close to using them all before they have to rest.

I don't find that at all. The rogue in my party is almost always out of surges after one or two fights, the paladin gets close as well since he soaks up damage and spends them on lay on hands.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379433I don't find that at all. The rogue in my party is almost always out of surges after one or two fights, the paladin gets close as well since he soaks up damage and spends them on lay on hands.

It's very much in the hands of the DM -- if you get relentless about focusing fire, you'll burn through one PC's healing surges. But everyone else will tend to have a ton left. You're going to see a lot of variation between groups because of this, IMHO.

Quote from: Thanlis;379420And of course it doesn't mean "just as much time." Even if it takes 60 seconds to resolve an attack, that's a bit of a distance from the 2.5 minutes you're claiming a whole turn takes. You're adding an entire round's worth of  damage without taking an extra move, an extra start and end of turn, and so on. Except you're adding more than that because you timed your AP to be used when the monster's vulnerable in some way.

No, it means nearly as much time. I gave 2 minutes less, assuming  every character uses an AP in a pointless, irrelevant, fight that represented no risk to the players. Do you understand that most players won't spend limited resources completely pointlessly? When you pump gas, once your tank is filled, do you take the nozzle out and run it, spilling gas everywhere just to do so? This is irrational.

Anyway, at paragon level, spending an AP generates a bonus power in addition to the bonus standard action...many paragon paths do this. You DO get an extra move, or an extra attack, or generate an extra event that lengthens everyone else's turn.

How come you don't know this already?

QuoteActually, I did say it before, but you may have missed it. The encounters in question: first, a level 16 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures). Second, a level 16 fight with 5 level 16 monsters, none elite. Third, a level 18 fight, a bit weirdly structured -- starts out with a level 16 elite and 4 minions, but they stop fighting once the elite goes bloodied and it transitions into a fight against 3 level 16 normal monsters and another level 16 minion, plus a level 16 hazard. Then we finished up with a level 17 fight: 1 level 18 elite, 2 level 16 normals, 1 level 18 normal.

And there's your problem, you're running only pointlessly easy encounters of no risk to your party. Not one of those a real challenge to a level 16 party of five. Five level monsters (exactly like I said), One monster and 4 minions (hah!), or 3 monsters and 1 minion (hah!), and then 4 monsters. Wow, that's, well, very close to what I said before you told me.

In any event, none of those encounters represent any sort of challenge, much like I said. Especially with 2 paragon level paladins in the party, a pair of Certain Justices completely nukes every single one of those encounters.

QuoteWeird table, FWIW -- no leaders, but two paladins, which wound up being just enough healing to get by on.

And both the paladins hit just as hard as your sorcerer, right? Heheheh, defitely some intellectual dishonesty here...which paladin at-will hits for over 50? You've had to have seen it by now, since you say you're playing with them.

QuoteOf course, not too long ago, you were telling us that your players were broken:

I didn't say anything of the sort, it's you and AM that insist it's my players' fault, but the players aren't broken, the game is, at least in the opinion of those that think 2.5 hours a fight is a bit much.

QuoteWhat I'm guessing is that your players fell into a pretty common trap: optimizing for defense and healing.

Yeah, that TWF ranger with a bastard sword in each hand is really, really all defense, no doubt about it.

So, it's a trap to put anything at all into defense? Wow, one more nasty issue with the game.

I concede that if everyone goes all high damage, all the time, it might speed things up, but is that really all 4e and RPGs are to you? Just doing as much damage as possible as quickly as possible, with anything else being a trap? I guess that's why we aren't seeing eye to eye on this.

QuoteI have another online group that did the same thing. Their fights take forever, very close to your 7 rounds, because the barbarian went heavily into warlord and so on.

Whoa, whoa, I thought the thesis here was it's just me. We really are going back to players that do that are playing wrong?

QuoteOf course, you won't show us your encounters or characters so I'm just guessing here -- but it looks pretty likely.

Not a question of won't. You just don't get how an average works, one or two encounters demonstrates nothing. But to satisfy your curiosity, there's a 2wf ranger, a bow ranger, a paladin, a fighter, a cleric, and a warden (half-giant, hits really hard with 2h weapon), currently. My players get bored with their characters and commit suicide every few fights, so party composition changes often.

My players are doing it wrong for only having 2 strikers, right? I know that optimally from your point of view, it should be all 2wf rangers and one warlord...but my players are in the 'trap' of using the other classes.

QuoteIf you could step back and admit this as a possibility,

Hey, I admit it's possible that everyone else is doing it wrong, and you and AM have the "1 true way" of playing this game in a workable fashion. But this way you suggest, of all damage dealing and nothing else, and building the whole party about all damage dealing and nothing else...I don't think it's the only way to play, in my opinion.

In any event, outside of this degenerate situation that still will cause problems, the mathematics say otherwise, is all.

QuoteBut when you're stuck on the idea that your path is the only path anyone could follow, it's going to be impossible.

Indeed.

Back to the original topic, I do hope this 4.5 can at least fix some of the problems that folks not playing the '1 true way' of all damage and nothing else see.

Quote from: Doom;379451No, it means nearly as much time. I gave 2 minutes less, assuming  every character uses an AP in a pointless, irrelevant, fight that represented no risk to the players. Do you understand that most players won't spend limited resources completely pointlessly? When you pump gas, once your tank is filled, do you take the nozzle out and run it, spilling gas everywhere just to do so? This is irrational.

So how many encounters do you put in your day? I'm doing three fights, one skill challenge. Start the day with one AP. Pick up one milestone along the way; in two out of three fights, the PCs have an action point to spend. Since you can't spend more than one AP in a fight (excepting a couple of special cases), you are in fact spending APs more often than not.

QuoteAnyway, at paragon level, spending an AP generates a bonus power in addition to the bonus standard action...many paragon paths do this. You DO get an extra move, or an extra attack, or generate an extra event that lengthens everyone else's turn.

How come you don't know this already?

I do. That's why I said "Even if it takes 60 seconds to resolve an attack, that's a bit of a distance from the 2.5 minutes you're claiming a whole turn takes."

QuoteAnd there's your problem, you're running only pointlessly easy encounters of no risk to your party. Not one of those a real challenge to a level 16 party of five. Five level monsters (exactly like I said), One monster and 4 minions (hah!), or 3 monsters and 1 minion (hah!), and then 4 monsters. Wow, that's, well, very close to what I said before you told me.

Um, no, it's not. You said "First, your group fights, say, two level 15 monsters. Then, they fight 4 level 14 monsters. Then, they have a 2/1 skill challenge. Then, they have a 'level' fight pretty much as described."

Two level 15 monsters is 2,400 experience points. That's a level 10 encounter for 5 PCs. 4 level 14 monsters is 4,000 experience points, which is a level 13 encounter. Then a level fight is of course a level 15 encounter for level 15 PCs.

Again: level 10, level 13, and level 15. What I described was a level 16, a level 18, and a level 17 encounter in that order.

QuoteIn any event, none of those encounters represent any sort of challenge, much like I said. Especially with 2 paragon level paladins in the party, a pair of Certain Justices completely nukes every single one of those encounters.

Neither of the paladins had Certain Justice, actually.

QuoteNot a question of won't. You just don't get how an average works, one or two encounters demonstrates nothing. But to satisfy your curiosity, there's a 2wf ranger, a bow ranger, a paladin, a fighter, a cleric, and a warden (half-giant, hits really hard with 2h weapon), currently. My players get bored with their characters and commit suicide every few fights, so party composition changes often.

Classes don't tell me much. FWIW, that seems like a perfectly reasonable potential party to me. Three defenders is in fact kind of high on the defenders, but a fighter can dish out some pretty good damage.

QuoteMy players are doing it wrong for only having 2 strikers, right? I know that optimally from your point of view, it should be all 2wf rangers and one warlord...but my players are in the 'trap' of using the other classes.

*shrug* You can keep putting words in my mouth, but those aren't things I'm saying. I'm not saying all damage is the one true way. I pointed this out already, I think, but if I felt that way I'd be playing a storm sorcerer with daggermaster as my paragon path instead of a dragon sorcerer with dragonsoul heir, which if there was ever a defensive paragon path for a striker, that's it. I get 6 temp HPs when I AP, very exciting.

I think that if a player tends towards making all defensive choices, it will slow the game down. I think that if you tilt towards more offensive choices, you can wind up with a faster game. That's all I'm saying. You, on the other hand, were saying that it's impossible by the math to get encounters done in less than 2.5 hours.

By the by, in case anyone's still reading this who's interested, there's a great technique hidden above for speeding up fights a bit -- throw in a lot of ad hoc skill challenges. These ought to be opportunities for roleplaying, of course. If you've got a 1:1 balance between skill challenges and fights, then players can spend an action point every fight.

While I'm talking about general strats -- the whole thing where you save all your dailies for the "big fight" can also be a slowdown. Thing is, by the time you're in the middle of paragon, you have four encounter powers and four dailies. Let's assume the seven-round fight is standard. Let's also assume, conservatively, that using all encounters and dailies instead of at-wills speeds up that fight by two rounds.

OK. So you have eight powers to use in five rounds. Some of them will probably be out-of-turn actions, but still -- it's hard to squeeze all your dailies into one fight!

I find myself completely willing to use a daily in a "trivial" fight. Do I have a few targets? Great; let's make this sucker easier. If I see a good opportunity to use a power, I'm going to use it, because I have no guarantee at all that circumstances will line up properly again.

Sometimes this means I'll find myself staring at a difficult fight wishing I'd saved my big guns. But so what? My character emphatically does not need perfect tactics in order for me to have a good time.

To all who are still reading, what they talk about is the fucked-up brokenness of 4e under its OWN terms FROM THE DM perspective. On the players side, it´s pointless boredom interspersed with waiting.

Quote from: ThanlissI'm not saying all damage is the one true way. I think, but if I felt that way I'd be playing a storm sorcerer with daggermaster as my paragon path instead of a dragon sorcerer with dragonsoul heir, which if there was ever a defensive paragon path for a striker, that's it.

You know they errataed Daggermaster to not give the bonus except to Daggermaster and Rogue attack powers, right?

People who do lots of damage and get fights over in less than two hours are not playing the One True Way, as defined by the people who write the errata and print the books. Getting high level fights over with in a reasonable amount of time under any circumstances is a bug.

-Frank

Quote from: Settembrini;379491To all who are still reading, what they talk about is the fucked-up brokenness of 4e under its OWN terms FROM THE DM perspective. On the players side, it´s pointless boredom interspersed with waiting.

So not much different from 3.5, then?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: FrankTrollman;379493You know they errataed Daggermaster to not give the bonus except to Daggermaster and Rogue attack powers, right.

Yes, I do. Doom was pretending that I'm a minimaxer; I am pointing out that if I was a minimaxer, I'd be using that particular broken path. And I'd keep using it until June 4th when it becomes no longer legal in LFR. Instead, I'm using one of the paragon paths that minimaxers refer to as "total crap."

Quote from: Peregrin;379496So not much different from 3.5, then?  :rolleyes:

 UTTERLY different. At least from my own experience I can say that the waiting part in 3.5 is from a wholly different source: people needing time to decide and work out spell effects. So you might have waiting, but you have no boredom.

How does that work?

When I'm fighting something in 3.5 beyond, say, 7th level, and my means of damaging or doing anything to it are limited to such a degree that I'm useless 95% of the time, I'd say I'm pretty damn bored waiting for the mage or the person with the specific type of magic item/weapon to resolve things.  In fact I won't even touch 3.5 beyond the first 5 or 6 levels for this very reason, especially since a lot of creatures start to get higher resistances, necessitating the Christmas Tree Effect just to remain competitive as a martial class.

At least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away.

I just don't see what makes waiting in 3.5 any more or less boring.

Quote from: Peregrin;379511How does that work?

When I'm fighting something in 3.5 beyond, say, 7th level, and my means of damaging or doing anything to it are limited to such a degree that I'm useless 95% of the time, I'd say I'm pretty damn bored waiting for the mage or the person with the specific type of magic item/weapon to resolve things.  In fact I won't even touch 3.5 beyond the first 5 or 6 levels for this very reason, especially since a lot of creatures start to get higher resistances, necessitating the Christmas Tree Effect just to remain competitive as a martial class.

At least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away.

I just don't see what makes waiting in 3.5 any more or less boring.

At this point he's just bating you, dude.  He isn't even making an attempt at a cogent argument.

Are you guys insane or something? Do you want to really tell me a fighter has nothign to contribute in 3.5 past 7th level? Man, I played to the twenties twice as a player and 1.5 times as GM, and I must say you guys act as if 3.5 play never existed and you never read about it or never experienced it.

Well, my rant aside, the question still stands.

How does waiting for someone else to finish their turn in 3.5 differ from 4th?  What makes waiting in one game somehow more bearable?

PS: My insanity is more apt to show itself when talking about the president or how they poison milk supplies than when I'm having a conversation about RPGs.

Quote from: Peregrin;379511When I'm fighting something in 3.5 beyond, say, 7th level, and my means of damaging or doing anything to it are limited to such a degree that I'm useless 95% of the time, I'd say I'm pretty damn bored waiting for the mage or the person with the specific type of magic item/weapon to resolve things. In fact I won't even touch 3.5 beyond the first 5 or 6 levels for this very reason, especially since a lot of creatures start to get higher resistances, necessitating the Christmas Tree Effect just to remain competitive as a martial class.

Well that's a pretty lame reason, because what you're saying just sounds like word of mouth, not actual play. These are myths about 3.x that just got propagated by people who actually never even bothered to play beyond 8th or 10th level. It doesn't make any sense in practice. And yes, fighters do rely on magical items to be effective, but that's part of the deal, just like any character, any class, but for the odd weird rule or combo (Vow of Poverty, I'm looking at you), need magical items to perform their utmost in 3.x.

Sorry, but I call Bullshit on this one.

Quote from: Peregrin;379511At least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away.

I don't need the rules to tell me I can do cool things. That's the reason why I basically gave up on 3.x and beyond. The logic that somehow, you can't do anything cool because the rules don't spell it out to you just doesn't compute with me. It's like keeping the training wheels on when biking because you might not reach your top speed without them. It doesn't make any sense either.

When I talk about 3.5 or 4e, I'm talking about design within the bubble of WotC's D&D and how it's changed, not how it relates to the rest of the industry.  My feelings are similar to yours when talking about RPGs in general.

As for the spellcaster things, I've experienced it firsthand, so kudos to you if your group was able to avoid it, but my non-min-maxing group started to find hangups once you got closer to the double digits, so I'm not sure the problem is really that hard to come by.  I'm not the only one, otherwise you wouldn't have the people producing both fantasy d20 "replacements" at Paizo and Crafty either nerfing spells or forcing casters to rely on multiple attributes and giving spell saves to everyone.  And these people have put in far more hours playing and observing playtests for d20 than anyone here.

Quote from: Peregrin;379531When I talk about 3.5 or 4e, I'm talking about design within the bubble of WotC's D&D and how it's changed, not how it relates to the rest of the industry.  My feelings are similar to yours when talking about RPGs in general.

If that's directed at me (I'm not sure), I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you need the rules to tell you you can do cool things in the game with your character in a D&DWotC game, but that somehow this barrier disappears once you play other RPGs?

Your remark that "at least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away" clearly wasn't about game design. It was about actual play. That means that somehow you need the rules to spell out what cool things you can do in the game.

Quote from: Peregrin;379531As for the spellcaster things, I've experienced it firsthand, so kudos to you if your group was able to avoid it, but my non-min-maxing group started to find hangups once you got closer to the double digits, so I'm not sure the problem is really that hard to come by.

I'm not talking about min-maxing particularly either. All things being equal, a fighting-type character isn't "useless" past 7th level. This is a gross exaggeration, at the very least.

Quote from: Thanlis;379477So how many encounters do you put in your day? I'm doing three fights, one skill challenge. Start the day with one AP. Pick up one milestone along the way; in two out of three fights, the PCs have an action point to spend. Since you can't spend more than one AP in a fight (excepting a couple of special cases), you are in fact spending APs more often than not.

Varies quite a bit, usually go 3-4 rests before an extended rest. After nearly 2 years of trying, I've recently given up skill challenges, they're just too broken no matter which of the four rule sets WotC has printed, and my players hate them.

Absolutely, you're spending APs more often than not. But, I'd like to think the heroic characters are fighting actual challenges, instead of just trampling hopelessly outclassed monsters, more often than not, too.

QuoteI do. That's why I said "Even if it takes 60 seconds to resolve an attack, that's a bit of a distance from the 2.5 minutes you're claiming a whole turn takes."

Again, no, but I'm tired of repeating myself repeatedly on why assuming the use of many action points in an encounter that has absolutely positively no risk just doesn't make sense for normal people, and also tired of repeating myself repeatedly how even if the players were this stupid, it'd take a 119 minute and turn it into a 114 minute fight anyway, at theoretical best.

QuoteUm, no, it's not. You said "First, your group fights, say, two level 15 monsters. Then, they fight 4 level 14 monsters. Then, they have a 2/1 skill challenge. Then, they have a 'level' fight pretty much as described."

Heh. Bottom line, the fights you give are woefully unchallenging for a group of 5 players at your level. A same level monster and 4 minions? In a design where characters are massively front-loaded for damage? Not even close to challenging, sorry.

 

QuoteNeither of the paladins had Certain Justice, actually.

Weird.

QuoteI think that if a player tends towards making all defensive choices, it will slow the game down. I think that if you tilt towards more offensive choices, you can wind up with a faster game. That's all I'm saying. You, on the other hand, were saying that it's impossible by the math to get encounters done in less than 2.5 hours.

Now, you're putting words in my mouth. You can absoutely have pathetically irrelevant fights, such as the ones you gave as examples, in 2 hours (like I showed, in detail), less if they're even weaker than the example I gave (such as yours). You can have cakewalk fights in about 2.5 hours.

Challenging fights, fights where a character might seriously be killed because the monsters are strong, by design, will require at least that much...I could go into detail why this must be the case based on design (basically, there's so much healing and hit points that a party can always negate the first 6 or so rounds of damage completely, meaning a challenging fight will require much over 6 rounds), but I just don't see the point in doing so here.

Ironic.
The threadwar battle about the length and pointlessness of 4e combat appears to be jamming due to length and pointlessness... :)

Quote from: Doom;379541Varies quite a bit, usually go 3-4 rests before an extended rest. After nearly 2 years of trying, I've recently given up skill challenges, they're just too broken no matter which of the four rule sets WotC has printed, and my players hate them.

OK. So you're not actually playing the game as written. Be aware that one thing that will slow your games down is if your players are short on action points; if you're not using skill challenges, they're short on action points. Also, there are different approaches to using action points. Some will speed up fights, some won't. No idea how your players tend to use them.

QuoteHeh. Bottom line, the fights you give are woefully unchallenging for a group of 5 players at your level. A same level monster and 4 minions? In a design where characters are massively front-loaded for damage? Not even close to challenging, sorry.

Except that wasn't the fight. The fight was a level 16 elite and 4 minions, but they stop fighting once the elite goes bloodied and it transitions into a fight against 3 level 16 normal monsters and another level 16 minion, plus a level 16 hazard.

So I agree. A fight against a same level monster and 4 minions isn't challenging at all. But that's not the fight I described.

QuoteChallenging fights, fights where a character might seriously be killed because the monsters are strong, by design, will require at least that much...I could go into detail why this must be the case based on design (basically, there's so much healing and hit points that a party can always negate the first 6 or so rounds of damage completely, meaning a challenging fight will require much over 6 rounds), but I just don't see the point in doing so here.

Well, sure. You've been wrong on everything from average AC to average hit points. You think my sorcerer's piddling 20-25 expected DPR is ultra-optimized. You assumed the paladins must have had Certain Justice to be as effective as they were. You've been calculating the length of combats based on using nothing but at-wills, even though by your own figures a smart player would use encounters more often than at-wills. I would not particularly want to keep playing either, if I were you.

Quote from: Benoist;379533If that's directed at me (I'm not sure), I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you need the rules to tell you you can do cool things in the game with your character in a D&DWotC game, but that somehow this barrier disappears once you play other RPGs?

Your remark that "at least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away" clearly wasn't about game design. It was about actual play. That means that somehow you need the rules to spell out what cool things you can do in the game.

If those are the assumptions spelled out by the game, then yeah, I go along with the designers' assumptions.

Would you let fighters do half of the things they could through powers in 4e, and would those be as mechanically interesting as spells?

QuoteI'm not talking about min-maxing particularly either. All things being equal, a fighting-type character isn't "useless" past 7th level. This is a gross exaggeration, at the very least.

Exaggeration, maybe, but I think it's enough of an issue that nearly every company dedicated to doing something with d20, WotC or not, has decided that spellcasting as implemented in 3e is a problem when it comes to overshadowing everything else and have taken varying measures to try to curb or get rid of the problem.

It's not like it's a farfetched thing.  Spellcasters in older editions had significantly fewer slots, less (or no) spells given to them for "free" at every levels, and generally had to work harder and be lucky enough to get to higher levels.  When they boosted caster powers to make up for the "boring" low-level MU play, they half-assed the rest with feats for martial classes, which didn't significantly boost their abilities.  If anything, the balance between magic using classes and martial classes in older editions was better.

Well, anyhow. I just got back from the game I played in Frederick last night. I felt the game ran a little long, and it was my first time with this DM (who I think was really good, but we were 6, and my GF is somewhat new, along with at least one of the other players). So there was one battle that was a bit slow..

The entire game ran from just after 6PM to right at 10:30. We only did three battles, and two skill challenges. Oh, somehow 3 entire battles fit into a mere 4.5 hours. We also gathered clues, interviewed witnesses, investigated a warehouse robbery, tracked some goblins.. figured out that they were goblins, and uncovered a conspiracy involving a high-placed merchant guild-master and the Church of Torm.. a typical night of D&D.  

As a side point, we met a player from Germany in the group! His name was Alex. I asked him about dice cups, and he said "older players, maybe..". :) I'm still thinking about getting one.

Here's my character: Coppervault (http://iplay4e.appspot.com/characters/agdpcGxheTRlchQLEgtDaGFyYWN0ZXJWMhip1KsBDA), Dwarf Agent of the Drow.

And here's Annemarie's: Ilmdiira Melar (http://iplay4e.appspot.com/characters/agdpcGxheTRlchQLEgtDaGFyYWN0ZXJWMhixvasBDA), Siege Captain of House Rilyntel

We have identical armor and crossbows now!

Quote from: Peregrin;379547If those are the assumptions spelled out by the game, then yeah, I go along with the designers' assumptions.

See, that's my problem with the logic that took over D&D: I don't accept these assumptions. I think the logic that pretends that choices have to be rules to even *exist* is dumb and counterproductive, an anathema to what role playing should be, IMO. Game rules shouldn't be obstacles to imagination. They should blow they up, set them of fire! I reject games that sustain this type of attitude, and reject the play styles that surrender to it.

Quote from: Peregrin;379547Would you let fighters do half of the things they could through powers in 4e, and would those be as mechanically interesting as spells?

Options don't have to be mechanical to be interesting, or to exist. Choices don't have to be hardcoded into rules. The point of the game isn't the rules, to me. It's the make-believe. The question, the way you're asking it, is nonsensical to me.

Quote from: Peregrin;379547Exaggeration, maybe, but I think it's enough of an issue that nearly every company dedicated to doing something with d20, WotC or not, has decided that spellcasting as implemented in 3e is a problem when it comes to overshadowing everything else and have taken varying measures to try to curb or get rid of the problem.

Didn't it occur to you that game companies are fixing problems they just made up to sell their books? That they answer to players who whine, and that players who whine are generally people who would whine at a game table no matter the circumstances? The guys who are eternally unsatisfied, who bitch because the game's "not fair", or this guy as 2 more points in ability scores, therefore the game sucks? I have a few choice words for people like this:
WHINERS. BAD PLAYERS. LOSERS.

Show them the door. Don't reinvite them. Problem solved!

Sorry. Just ranting a little bit too. ;)

Quote from: Peregrin;379547It's not like it's a farfetched thing.  Spellcasters in older editions had significantly fewer slots, less (or no) spells given to them for "free" at every levels, and generally had to work harder and be lucky enough to get to higher levels.  When they boosted caster powers to make up for the "boring" low-level MU play, they half-assed the rest with feats for martial classes, which didn't significantly boost their abilities.  If anything, the balance between magic using classes and martial classes in older editions was better.

Putting aside the concept of Balance which is a rules thing, and is a concept that really pisses me off to no end, I disagree that fighting classes would be somehow left in the dust in 3.x mainly because fighting classes benefit from a lot of mechanical versatility (the fighter, in particular), can indeed combine feats with magic items in ways that are devastating on the battle field, are still the tanks and the buffers, etc etc. I think that's a tempest in a teapot, a myth that's been talked about over and over on message boards that never actually was true, since most of the people bitching about it actually didn't play games past 8th or 10th level.

Quote from: Benoist;379563Options don't have to be mechanical to be interesting, or to exist. Choices don't have to be hardcoded into rules. The point of the game isn't the rules, to me. It's the make-believe. The question, the way you're asking it, is nonsensical to me.

Then why have rules for dungeon exploration?  Or encumbrance?  I'm sure with a reasonable group you could work out all the details without having to use the rates of movement from any of the rulebooks. Why have detailed spell or monster descriptions?  Or variable weapon damage?  Or just increasing the complexity of the game beyond OD&D or Basic?  

The answer is that rules can make choices interesting.  They're not the whole of the game, but they're part of the game, and give the players and the DM a framework with which to build.  How little or how much they intersect with play, how much rubber hits the road, is just a matter of preference.

I agree that rules should enhance the make-believe, and that's why I think it's important to have mechanical options relevant to the focus of the game, whether it's dungeon-crawling, social intrigue, or tactical set-piece battles.  Choices make people's heads tick, and can give people jumping off points for further engagement with the imagined play space and inspiration for creativity.  I don't think that all choices should be explicit like they are in 4e, but that's a matter of taste, not a matter of good or bad design.

That's only my opinion, though, so that viewpoint may mean nothing to you.

God, I'm sorry Peregrin. It's not you. It's just that the logic you're mimicking here is completely retarded. It's like you've been brainwashed into thinking that one rule equals one choice, that without the rule, then you don't have choices, and more over that rules themselves, by their very nature, can't spawn different degrees of emergent complexity in the actual game as it is being played.

In other words, it's not about rules light vs. rules heavy, or how many choices the rules actually spell out. Not at all.

It's about this: "IF it's not specified by the rules, you CAN'T do it". It's about the way rules codify all the going ons at the game table, and phagocytize the game itself to then build walls around it, walls that need to be blown up for the game to be a role playing game.

Anyway. I'm not trying to convince anyone. You like 4e, that's fine.
Just don't ask me to agree with you.

Quote from: Peregrin;379564I don't think that all choices should be explicit like they are in 4e, but that's a matter of taste, not a matter of good or bad design.

When we are playing "Products of our Imagination", that the very identity of the game implies the use of one's imagination, I do believe that making ALL choices explicit constitutes ABYSMAL game design.

A Black Hole of RPG game design, as it were.

I never said that one rule has to equal one choice.  I prefer complexity derived from broad rulesets.  I prefer skill-based classless systems, and I love stunt systems that rely on player description rather than hard-coded actions.  It's not about the number of rules, it's about the way those rules influence assumptions about how the game should work.

I'm just saying I don't think that for the type of game 4e is, that the power rule-set is not necessarily a bad one.  It puts forth a set of assumptions about how players interact with the game-world and sets a precedent for the GM and the group to use.  It's not about telling people they can't do things, it's about telling people what they can do so they understand what their character is capable of regardless of how the DM thinks of the character or how fighting "should" work.

Think of it this way.  The maneuvers and other things fighters perform in 4e are more like the minutiae of martial arts rulesets in other games rather than a "These are the ONLY things you can do."  They aren't there to set limits on what's feasibly possible, they're there to guarantee that a player understands their character's capabilities at the start of play.

Personally, I don't see the power system much differently than I see the skill trees in things like Dark Heresy.  Both list things your character is trained/skilled in so that you know you can pull off certain things regardless of how the GM is feeling that day.

Quote from: Peregrin;379577Think of it this way.  The maneuvers and other things fighters perform in 4e are more like the minutiae of martial arts rulesets in other games rather than a "These are the ONLY things you can do."  They aren't there to set limits on what's feasibly possible, they're there to guarantee that a player understands their character's capabilities at the start of play.

That's a pretty awesome way to think of it. One of my big hopes for D&D Essentials is that it does a better job of explaining that you can go outside the powers -- but yeah. Exactly what you said.

Quote from: Benoist;379568It's about this: "IF it's not specified by the rules, you CAN'T do it". It's about the way rules codify all the going ons at the game table, and phagocytize the game itself to then build walls around it, walls that need to be blown up for the game to be a role playing game.

I was having a very similar discussion with a friend of mine just the other day. If you believe the above to be true about 4E (or 3E), then that's your problem, not the system's. I can see where some people can come to think that way, that if it's not on the power card, you can't do it. But that's just not true, and if a player is playing that way, he's limiting himself greatly.

Or alternately, if the DM doesn't allow players to do things not on their power cards, then he's limiting the game greatly. But that would be a DM problem, not a system problem.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379582I was having a very similar discussion with a friend of mine just the other day. If you believe the above to be true about 4E (or 3E), then that's your problem, not the system's. I can see where some people can come to think that way, that if it's not on the power card, you can't do it. But that's just not true, and if a player is playing that way, he's limiting himself greatly.

Or alternately, if the DM doesn't allow players to do things not on their power cards, then he's limiting the game greatly. But that would be a DM problem, not a system problem.

It's a common enough misconception so that I'm willing to put some of the blame for it on WotC -- I mean, they did write the books. Page 42 should have been in the PHB, big time.

Quote from: Thanlis;379546OK. So you're not actually playing the game as written. Be aware that one thing that will slow your games down is if your players are short on action points; if you're not using skill challenges, they're short on action points. Also, there are different approaches to using action points. Some will speed up fights, some won't. No idea how your players tend to use them.

So now we're moving on to something completely different. Fair enough, although at this point it should be taken that, finally you've ceded the legitimacy of the model showing why fights in 4e will take more than 2 hours, at least if they offer any challenge whatsoever. Well, it should be, but you're pretty resistant to input.

I was unaware you got APs for skill challenges. You sure about that?

As usual for your issues, it doesn't matter. Let's suppose you give an AP for a skill challenge, and players always use APs whether they need to or not. I give 4 encounters before a rest, you give 3 encounters and a challenge.

You use 3 encounters and a skill challenge. They start with 1 AP, get an AP after an encounter/challenge, and finish the day with an AP they can't use.

Net result: 2 used APs.

My way, they start with an AP, get an AP after two encounters, and finish the day with an AP they can't use.

Net result: 2 used APs.

Seriously, you should think a bit.

Even if your subjective mathematics allows for 2 to not equal 2, it still doesn't matter. I stopped using challenges right before the last session, so have no influence on anything regarding APs, even if they could have influenced anything.

Even if they could have, they still would have no influence on the sample combat given, since the sample combat given was so easy, so trival, that players would have no need to use an AP. I keep reminding you of this, but you keep forgetting.

So, basically, you're wrong on top of irrelevant on top of irrelevant. This is quite an achievement, and I applaud you for that. But do get back to me on challenges give APs...maybe that'll give my players incentive not to hate them, rather than the relatively easy EP they grant.

You might recall, however, that if the use of APs weren't completely irrelevant, it was already shown that if every single player used an AP, it would turn that trivial 119 minute fight into a 114 minute fight. Even being as generous as possible and assuming no AP generates any extra effects at Paragon level, we're at a 110 minute fight. Admittedly, this is something of an improvement, but it requires every player to burn a limited resource on a very easy fight that offers no risk to any character. I don't believe you're advocating incredibly stupid play, so why are you still harping on this?

QuoteExcept that wasn't the fight. The fight was a level 16 elite and 4 minions, but they stop fighting once the elite goes bloodied and it transitions into a fight against 3 level 16 normal monsters and another level 16 minion, plus a level 16 hazard.

So I agree. A fight against a same level monster and 4 minions isn't challenging at all. But that's not the fight I described.

Well, again, the point is the fight you described is woefully unchallenging, that really is the point here, not the particular details of a particular fight. I keep reminding you of this, but you keep forgetting. If this particular thing your sole fixation, well if you don't understand how fighting one monster, then four monsters later, isn't dramatically easier than fighting 5 monsters, well, not much I can do.

But for those following at home, picture 5 guys kicking the crap out of another guy...then fighting four guys later. Sound like the same kind of fight as 5 on 5?

QuoteWell, sure. You've been wrong on everything from average AC to average hit points. You think my sorcerer's piddling 20-25 expected DPR is ultra-optimized.

Well, I've shown you wrong about the AC thing, and the HP thing was really a moot point (and I was only off a small amount).

I remind you, yet again, the fight is a pointless combat, it doesn't matter what the player's AC and HP are, they're 100% guaranteed to win anyway, since it's a fight only slightly harder than the fights you describe. Do you have like a goldfish memory or something, because it really seems like I remind you of this every single post, and you keep forgetting.

Uh, your expected DPR has dropped quite a bit from when you calculated it the first time. I guess now you're also agreeing about the average of 20 points. I'm sure you've forgotten, but you used to claim:

QuoteIf you really truly believe that the average damage per attack, counting encounters, is 20 points at level 15, you are really playing poorly. My sorcerer has a static damage bonus of +25 at level 15. He's got a +17 to hit. Average Reflex for a level 15 monster is 27, meaning he hits 55% of the time. The variable damage is 1d8, so that's (2d8+50)*.55, which is expected damage of 32 points every time he uses his at-will, if he gets an average of two monsters in the blast.

You're pretty much agreeing with me in all details now, except for irrelevant parts, where you're mostly wrong.

QuoteYou assumed the paladins must have had Certain Justice to be as effective

Nope, I never said that at all, lying again. You're advocating a certain level of optimization is necessary for extremely easy fights to be do-able in under 2 hours. Certain Justice is the most effective, in my opinion, and considering the
 play style you advocate, that would be the choice. Get a grip, dude.

Quoteas they were. You've been calculating the length of combats based on using nothing but at-wills, even though by your own figures a smart player would use encounters more often than at-wills. I would not particularly want to keep playing either, if I were you.

*chuckles, yet again* No, I haven't, I'm using concepts so foreign to you that I'll stop trying to explain, even if you could remember anything. On the other hand, you seem to be scraping harder, and harder, and harder, and harder here. Having dispensed with APs and Dailies, you're now trying this angle. But, by your own admission, above, your sorcerer is now doing only 20-25 DPR...assuming you know your own character, the numbers line up, as demonstrated, repeatedly, and as you've now agreed.

Quote from: Doom;379586Ok, so you've ceded the points on fights taking 2.5 hours, and now we're moving on to something completely different. Fair enough.

You know perfectly well I haven't done that. Do you have anything to say about my observations on how action points are force multipliers, enabling players to get maximum benefit out of temporary advantages? Any questions about what I meant there? I could go into more detail.

QuoteI was unaware you got APs for skill challenges. You sure about that?

Yep. You can look it up; page 259 of the PHB. "You gain certain benefits when you reach a milestone -- when you complete two encounters without stopping for an extended rest." Also page 123 of the DMG. Also every single LFR adventure ever published, which are reviewed by WotC.

You've been wrong on a number of rules-related topics. You were wrong on this, you were wrong about average damage for level 15 monsters, you were wrong about average AC for PCs, and you were wrong about average hit points for PCs. Nonetheless, you're very confident that you aren't making other mistakes.

QuoteWell, again, the point is the fight you described is woefully unchallenging, that really is the point here, not the particular details of a particular fight. If this particular thing your sole fixation, well if you don't understand how fighting one monster, then four monsters later, isn't dramatically easier than fighting 5 monsters, well, not much I can do.

OK. Remove the one monster. Now it's a level 17 encounter, and our three encounters are level 17, level 17, and level 16. The encounters you pretended I was running were level 15, level 14, and level 10.

Are you going to say "yeah, your fights were tougher than I said they were," or are you going to avoid that point some more?

QuoteWell, I've shown you wrong about the AC thing, and the HP thing was really a moot point. Heck, both points were irrelevant but you're so determined to be right that you just don't care.

No, you showed that a character in plate could be AC 32. You did not show that the average AC for a level 15 PC is 32, because it isn't.

Anyway, lemme get this straight. You did a lot of calculations based on how hard it is for monsters to hit PCs, and how much punishment PCs could take, but you feel it's irrelevant that you were off on the two numbers that determine those factors?

Quote*chuckles, yet again* No, I haven't, I'm using foreign concepts for you that I'll stop trying to explain. On the other hand, you seem to be scraping harder, and harder, and harder, and harder here. By your own admission, above, your sorcerer is now doing only 20-25 DPR...assuming you know your own character, the numbers line up, as demonstrated, repeatedly, and as you've now agreed.

No, you're right; I dropped my sorc's DPR, and that was a mistake. I shoulda referred back to my previous calculations instead of letting myself get weary and quote your 20, which is still pretty bogus. Tell you what. You calculate his DPR based on these numbers:

1. +16 to hit non-AC defenses. (+6 stat, +6 half level, +3 magic implement, +1 expertise feat.)
2. +24 static damage modifier. (+6 stat, +3 magic implement, +3 off-hand magic implement, +2 for Weapon Focus, +1 Siberys Shard of the Mage, +6 draconic sorcerer Str bonus, +3 Radiant Dagger.)
3. 1d8 base damage.
4. Two targets for each attack.

Then we'll have a nice number we can both agree on. That's the current numbers; both to hit and damage will go up a bit at level 15, but whatever. The extra +3 for the Radiant Dagger is cause I use the dagger's at-will to make all damage radiant, which lets me double-dip. A bit of cheese there. I could do the same thing with a Staff of Ruin, though, so I don't feel too bad about it. I prefer using the dagger for roleplay reasons.

Come to think of it, this might be fun: show me the same numbers I just gave you for your PCs, and I'll calculate their average expected damage for a round. I'll show my work and all, it'll be good times.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379582I can see where some people can come to think that way, that if it's not on the power card, you can't do it. But that's just not true, and if a player is playing that way, he's limiting himself greatly.

Fifth - Just quoting here as an example, not meaning to pick on you in particular.
Isn't that problem with powers not what's written on your power card, but what's written on everyone else's cards? If the Ranger gets two-weapon fighting as their 'power', there's some grounds for them to be annoyed when the rogue fighting the mummy wants to try to hit it with the torch in their offhand. Same way, if Exorcism of Steel is a L17 fighter power, the rules seem to indicate you shouldn't be trying to grab the evil wizard's staff before slamming him back to disrupt the ritual.
(Much as I hate 4e, this can't be a specific criticism of it, either. I'm often annoyed in 3.5 by how often trying to do something cinematic will trigger 3 attacks of opportunity, need 4 feats I don't have, and require cross-references of pages 57, 68 and 132).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379544Ironic.
The threadwar battle about the length and pointlessness of 4e combat appears to be jamming due to length and pointlessness... :)

Well, it wouldn't be so long if I didn't have to remind the guy every single post about the same things repeatedly. ;)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379589Fifth - Just quoting here as an example, not meaning to pick on you in particular.
Isn't that problem with powers not what's written on your power card, but what's written on everyone else's cards? If the Ranger gets two-weapon fighting as their 'power', there's some grounds for them to be annoyed when the rogue fighting the mummy wants to try to hit it with the torch in their offhand. Same way, if Exorcism of Steel is a L17 fighter power, the rules seem to indicate you shouldn't be trying to grab the evil wizard's staff before slamming him back to disrupt the ritual.
(Much as I hate 4e, this can't be a specific criticism of it, either. I'm often annoyed in 3.5 by how often trying to do something cinematic will trigger 3 attacks of opportunity, need 4 feats I don't have, and require cross-references of pages 57, 68 and 132).

I don't see it being anymore annoying than a wizard in an old edition trying to hit things with a longsword at a penalty.

As for grabbing the staff, I'd probably have the player make a check/attack against the wizard's dex save, or maybe use the grapple rules.  Grabbing/wresting the staff and then slamming him back would probably constitute two full actions, regardless of edition, so I'd just have the actions take place on different turns.

Quote from: Doom;379590Well, it wouldn't be so long if I didn't have to remind the guy every single post about the same things repeatedly. ;)

Eh. I mean, we've figured out the useful stuff -- you have slow combats because your players tend towards making defensive choices rather than offensive choices. Nothing wrong with that; I've done it myself. Again, Dragonsoul Heir. If you want faster combats, it's a good idea to balance that out some, but if you don't care, why change anything?

Quote from: Thanlis;379588Yep. You can look it up; page 259 of the PHB. "You gain certain benefits when you reach a milestone -- when you complete two encounters without stopping for an extended rest." Also page 123 of the DMG. Also every single LFR adventure ever published, which are reviewed by WotC.

I've looked on those pages, none of the references given say you get APs for completing skill challenges.

They say encounters, and the chapter on 'building encounters' has nothing on skill challenges in it.

I had to look around to see that skill challenges are 'noncombat encounters', so I guess you're finally right about something. Probably.

Of course, it's irrelevant. Please see previous posts for reminders.

QuoteYou've been wrong on a number of rules-related topics.

No, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteYou were wrong on this, you were wrong about average damage for level 15 monsters,

You're lying again, and damage is highly debateable, and not relevant. Please read reminders, previous post.

 

Quoteyou were wrong about average AC for PCs,

You're wrong again, for too many reasons to list here. Also, irrelevant, please read reminders, previous post.

Quoteand you were wrong about average hit points for PCs. Nonetheless, you're very confident that you aren't making other mistakes.

Got one, by a slight margin. Irrelevant, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteOK. Remove the one monster. Now it's a level 17 encounter, and our three encounters are level 17, level 17, and level 16. The encounters you pretended I was running were level 15, level 14, and level 10.

Addressed repeatedly, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteNo, you showed that a character in plate could be AC 32. You did not show that the average AC for a level 15 PC is 32, because it isn't.

You're wrong and misleading here, but not worth explaining, again. Also, irrelevant, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteAnyway, lemme get this straight. You did a lot of calculations based on how hard it is for monsters to hit PCs, and how much punishment PCs could take, but you feel it's irrelevant that you were off on the two numbers that determine those factors?

You're wrong here, too, and lying, again. As explained repeatedly, no matter how you twist the numbers, monsters have no chance of killing the players in the very simple battle, which demonstrated clearly why fights are designed to take as long as they do. Please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteNo, you're right;...4. Two targets for each attack.

Already explained that you need to learn what is meant by 'standard deviation' before this discussion wouldn't be a waste of time. For good measure: please read reminders, previous post.

Quote from: Thanlis;379593Eh. I mean, we've figured out the useful stuff -- you have slow combats because your players tend towards making defensive choices rather than offensive choices. Nothing wrong with that; I've done it myself.

Actually, we figured out that you have fast combats because your heroes don't fight anything challenging. Nothing wrong with that, I've seen anti-paladins burn down orphanages plenty of times.

Quote from: Doom;379595Actually, we figured out that you have fast combats because your heroes don't fight anything challenging. Nothing wrong with that, I've seen anti-paladins burn down orphanages plenty of times.

OK. Define a challenging fight for me, in terms of encounter level vs. party level. What's the necessary delta?

A fight that takes more than 2.5 hours, as explained previously.

Quote from: Doom;379601A fight that takes more than 2.5 hours, as explained previously.

So.. just to be clear. That's your definition?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379602So.. just to be clear. That's your definition?

Not, not my definition at all. As explained briefly earlier, it's a natural consequence of the game design, low monster damage combined with high healing means it'll take quite some time before monsters can have at least a minimal chance to endanger a character, RAW.

It's not linear, at least, as characters will unleash their more powerful attacks when faced with powerful foes, but roughly a half hour more than the established minimum for a very minimal fight, although I've had challenging fights take over 3 hours on a few occasions (note: this is paragon, at lower levels a challenging fight can take less than 2 hours).

(I emphasise 'RAW', as it's quite possible to house-rule a monster that deals, say 150 damage a hit, at level 5, and that would be quite challenging. I add this to, hopefully, reduce irrelevant niggling)

I realize 'average' is meaningless to a few here, but just consider the specific case of the sorcerer in a party wtih 2 paladins, and no leader. Put the sorcerer in front, with no attempt to defend him by himself or the rest of the party, against the worst same-level monster we could find, and assume worst case scenario of expected 11 damage per monster, with 5 monsters.

Just using 'lay on hands' and Second Wind, even if the monsters all focus fire (assume a dungeon without doors or walls, or the player never moving from a central location allowing the focus fire), and the rest of the party does nothing, it STILL takes 9-13 rounds (depending on how badly players exploit the 'heal from 0' rule) before that sorcerer can die (and this is assuming both paladins made it to level 15 without taking a single healing, defend other player, or temporary hit point power, and the other two characters in the party likewise have nothing of the sort...and that they never attack and/or kill any monsters in those 9-13 rounds, and that they never even stand in front of the sorcerer).

But, back to the OP, hopefully 4.5 can clean this up, as well as other issues.

Quote from: Peregrin;379592I don't see it being anymore annoying than a wizard in an old edition trying to hit things with a longsword at a penalty.
As for grabbing the staff, I'd probably have the player make a check/attack against the wizard's dex save, or maybe use the grapple rules.  Grabbing/wresting the staff and then slamming him back would probably constitute two full actions, regardless of edition, so I'd just have the actions take place on different turns.

OK - cool. 'Requires two turns' is probably a decent attempt as far as a patch for balancing that goes -in all likelihood, this means you're charging a PC an action point to do something from another classes' power framework.

Edit Note: Oops! Added quote for clarity. Which will screw up context of next 2 posts, sorry.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379604OK - cool. 'Requires two turns' is probably a decent attempt as far as a patch for balancing that goes -in all likelihood, this means you're charging a PC an action point to do something from another classes' power framework.

Wrong thread, perhaps?

Quote from: Doom;379605Wrong thread, perhaps?

No; he's replying to Peregrin's last post, on the previous page.

Yes that. Pardon me, have edited.
Please carry on...

Quote from: Peregrin;379592I don't see it being anymore annoying than a wizard in an old edition trying to hit things with a longsword at a penalty.

In what way?  

It wasn't just a penalty, it was a significant penalty.  It was -5 to hit.  In addition, the damage was likely to be extremely low, and the odds of the Magic-User getting skewered for their troubles was extremely high.  Taking all that into consideration, there is no way a Magic-User flailing around with a longsword can even be remotely considered to be infringing on the Fighter's niche.  But you could still attempt it.

Conversely, 4e Rangers have an at-will power named Twin Strike.  One of the requirements is to be wielding two melee weapons.  If you allow another class to make an attack with their off-hand weapon in the same round as their main weapon, you have not only infringed on the Ranger's power, you have effectively negated it as a power.  Allowing one attack from each in successive rounds makes it pointless to have an off-hand weapon; it's all penalty with no offset.

So, either everyone can do it, and the Ranger class loses a power, or no one can (would) do it, and it is nothing like a Magic-User with a longsword in older editions.

QuoteAs for grabbing the staff, I'd probably have the player make a check/attack against the wizard's dex save, or maybe use the grapple rules.  Grabbing/wresting the staff and then slamming him back would probably constitute two full actions, regardless of edition, so I'd just have the actions take place on different turns.

Regardless, you have negated a power that Fighters possess as a class.  If anyone can grapple a weapon away after dealing damage, there is no point in allowing or requiring Fighters to have a power that does specifically that.  Similarly, Spinning Sweep is negated if anyone can trip an opponent, as is Beat them to the Ground.  Sand in the Eyes is no longer a 'power' if anyone can throw dirt in an opponent's face.  Arcing Smite mimics the Ranger's Twin Strike(except AS marks), and is similarly negated.

In a very real, rules specific way, powers are compartments that detail what actions a character/class is permitted.  Earlier editions provided structure for what a character/class was particularly good at, but denied almost no attempts at any physical actions.  Spells, of course, are a separate issue, as are Thief skills, and certain other specialized abilities, like the Monk's open handed damage.  Those are all in place for niche protection.

Quote from: Thanlis;379585It's a common enough misconception so that I'm willing to put some of the blame for it on WotC -- I mean, they did write the books. Page 42 should have been in the PHB, big time.

That's probably fair - presentation does make a difference sometimes.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379589Isn't that problem with powers not what's written on your power card, but what's written on everyone else's cards? If the Ranger gets two-weapon fighting as their 'power', there's some grounds for them to be annoyed when the rogue fighting the mummy wants to try to hit it with the torch in their offhand.

You do need to bear in mind the structure of the rules when adjudicating things not specifically covered by them, to be sure. The rules do establish player expectations of how their characters interact in the world, so going too far beyond them is not a good idea. But this is true of any edition, as you point out.

If the rogue wants to attack the mummy with his torch, great! Call it a standard action, maybe Dex versus Reflex and refer to DMG page 42 for an appropriate damage amount. Or maybe knock the damage down some but add ongoing 5 fire (save ends) for flavour. There's no reason why the rogue should expect to get his normal attack and the torch in the same round.

Quote from: StormBringer;379630So, either everyone can do it, and the Ranger class loses a power, or no one can (would) do it, and it is nothing like a Magic-User with a longsword in older editions.

Considering that attack rolls have always been abstractions (at least, according to the books), it shouldn't be much of a problem. There's nothing that says one swing = one roll. There's no reason not to allow a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon, just apply an ad hoc penalty to both attack rolls. Or rule that both attacks will have to be basic attacks, thereby losing any additional effects you get from an at-will. There's many ways to do it without violating other characters' niches.

Quote from: StormBringer;379630Similarly, Spinning Sweep is negated if anyone can trip an opponent, as is Beat them to the Ground.  Sand in the Eyes is no longer a 'power' if anyone can throw dirt in an opponent's face.

One thing you're missing is that powers allow characters to do it whenever they want to, whereas an improvised action is subject to DM fiat. Another thing you're missing is that powers tend to be DAMAGE + EFFECT. If you allow an improvised trip, say, without allowing any damage on it, that does nothing to invalidate any powers.

So yes, obviously you have to consider the rules when adjudicating actions not specifically covered by the rules. That seems self-evident to me.

Quote from: StormBringer;379630Those are all in place for niche protection.

So, even if you are correct in your assertion (and I don't think that you are), could you not say that such things are in place for niche protection as well? Earlier editions protected niches, so why can 4E not do the same? If two-weapon fighting is the ranger's niche (bad example, of course, because there are two-weapon fighter powers as well), why not protect it?

Quote from: Fifth Element;379647One thing you're missing is that powers allow characters to do it whenever they want to, whereas an improvised action is subject to DM fiat. Another thing you're missing is that powers tend to be DAMAGE + EFFECT. If you allow an improvised trip, say, without allowing any damage on it, that does nothing to invalidate any powers.

That isn't the point, though, is it?  If you simply pick up a handful of sand, it isn't unreasonable to argue that your character can make their attack and throw the sand in the same round.  It's not exactly rocket surgery, as throwing sand would be what, a minor action perhaps?  Surely something you don't need seven levels of Rogue training to accomplish?  So powers are inherently defining what you are allowed to do.

Make throwing the sand a separate attack roll, say Dex Vs Reflexes?  Fine, but that does nothing to address the situation.  Why would a Rogue waste a power selection on something they would have a reasonable chance of accomplishing without it?  Why would a Rogue waste a power selection on something that anyone has a reasonable chance of accomplishing regardless of class?

QuoteSo yes, obviously you have to consider the rules when adjudicating actions not specifically covered by the rules. That seems self-evident to me.

The rules are not adjudicating actions, they are defining and limiting them to precisely what is in the book, and nothing more.  And only in very exacting situations for very specific classes.  In other words, your statement here is ingenuous at best, and likely intentionally misleading.

QuoteSo, even if you are correct in your assertion (and I don't think that you are), could you not say that such things are in place for niche protection as well? Earlier editions protected niches, so why can 4E not do the same? If two-weapon fighting is the ranger's niche (bad example, of course, because there are two-weapon fighter powers as well), why not protect it?

Now we get to the heart of it.  Is throwing sand a niche for Rogues?  Does that define what a Rogue does specifically?  Does a magical bolt that performs essentially like a crossbow bolt or regular arrow define the Wizard to the exclusion of other classes?  Is the Paladin's niche best protected by One Heart, One Mind?

In other words, if that is what passes for niche protection, it sucks.  I'm not going to make a list, but there are several several powers in each class description that would be most accurately described as 'mundane', and several others that are pretty randomly inserted that seem to step on another class' bailywick.  Shouldn't the Warlord have the One Heart, One Mind power?  Who is supposed to be the unifying leader, the Paladin or the Warlord?

Then again, this discussion isn't about niche protection.  It's about some fairly routine physical actions that could reasonably be performed by just about anyone, and designing them as 'powers' that can only be used once per encounter or per day by certain classes.  Powers that are negated if anyone else is allowed to attempt them in a mundane fashion, with or without a penalty.  A first edition Magic User is no threat to anyone but themself if they pick up a longsword, and even if they decided to, there is no way that could be considered impinging on the Fighter's niche.  It certainly doesn't negate the Fighter's choice of a longsword proficiency.

As niche protection, they are random and overarching.  As definitional guides for character classes, they border on downright silly.  But in no way are they anything like a Magic-User wielding a longsword at a penalty.

Sincere question: why would throwing sand be a minor action? Sounds like a standard to me. You're taking an object which you hold in your hand, and you're trying to hit a relatively small target. Every other time you throw an object from your hand in a hostile manner, it's a standard action. What's different about sand?

Quote from: Thanlis;379703Sincere question: why would throwing sand be a minor action? Sounds like a standard to me. You're taking an object which you hold in your hand, and you're trying to hit a relatively small target. Every other time you throw an object from your hand in a hostile manner, it's a standard action. What's different about sand?

It's a standard action, except when it isn't, of course. There are numerous minor action powers that hit for damage, you can even find a few monsters that have such attack (cf Human Gladiator).

On the other hand, throwing sand, presumably, isn't even hitting for damage. Since no damage is involved, it might be less than a standard action.

In 4e, throwing sand might well be just as magical as firing a crossbow bolt or firing off a Magic Missile in general. Or might not.

I would probably rule sand-throwing as a standard action, make it bluff or acrobatics vs insight, leaves the victim dazed (presenting combat advantage, but not negating the possibility of an enraged charge from the victim) until end of the sand-throwers next round.

This allows the sand thrower the chance for a follow-up attack, or he could run.  

And of course, not just the rogue could do this. Anyone could attempt it. Hey thanks for the great example of improvisation in 4e!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379705I would probably rule sand-throwing as a standard action, make it bluff or acrobatics vs insight, leaves the victim dazed (presenting combat advantage, but not negating the possibility of an enraged charge from the victim) until end of the sand-throwers next round.

This allows the sand thrower the chance for a follow-up attack, or he could run.  

And of course, not just the rogue could do this. Anyone could attempt it. Hey thanks for the great example of improvisation in 4e!

Indeed, now I know what to do with minions, or any monster I want for that matter.

Quote from: Thanlis;379703Sincere question: why would throwing sand be a minor action? Sounds like a standard to me. You're taking an object which you hold in your hand, and you're trying to hit a relatively small target. Every other time you throw an object from your hand in a hostile manner, it's a standard action. What's different about sand?

Quote from: Doom;379704It's a standard action, except when it isn't, of course. There are numerous minor action powers that hit for damage, you can even find a few monsters that have such attack (cf Human Gladiator).

On the other hand, throwing sand, presumably, isn't even hitting for damage. Since no damage is involved, it might be less than a standard action.

In 4e, throwing sand might well be just as magical as firing a crossbow bolt or firing off a Magic Missile in general. Or might not.

Pretty much what Doom is saying.  It's not damaging, although it is contributing to combat.  No particular reason for it to be minor, but if you assume it is a standard action, that is somewhat adding to the strength of a power, allowing two standard actions for the price of one.  Granted, it is a very specific action, but what do you do when the players start taking advantage of that?  "Well, it's not sand, it's a flask of oil, but that should blind them too, right?  I mean, the effect is just blinding, it doesn't matter what I throw, does it?"  Likely to come up?  Probably not.  But if you consider something like throwing sand to be a standard action, it does open the possibility, where calling it a minor action would keep it firmly in the players' minds that you are throwing sand, and anything else would constitute an actual attack, hence, a standard action.

And while you may not even intend to address this part of the discussion, I am still curious as to your opinion:  would you consider throwing sand a niche of the Rogue (at seventh level) that needs to be protected somehow?  No intent to draw you into this part if you don't want, just honestly curious what your thoughts are.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379705And of course, not just the rogue could do this. Anyone could attempt it. Hey thanks for the great example of improvisation in 4e!

Except this 'improvisation' negates a listed power of the Rogue, a mid-level(ish) one at that.

Hey, thanks for the great example of internally inconsistent contradictions in 4e!

Quote from: StormBringer;379710And while you may not even intend to address this part of the discussion, I am still curious as to your opinion:  would you consider throwing sand a niche of the Rogue (at seventh level) that needs to be protected somehow?  No intent to draw you into this part if you don't want, just honestly curious what your thoughts are.

While you're pretty much correct, if a class can do it, it *can't* be something everyone else can do as well, the level 7 power is a damaging attack, unlike the non-damaging power I was imagining.

It does, however, set the precedent, so if anyone can do it (much like a wizard picking up a long sword), it needs to be under conditions so desperate and restrictions so limited that nobody in their right mind would do so. You can't even make it a minor action, since then it could theoretically be better than the Rogue special power (two attacks with a minor, even at a penalty, can easily be better than the one standard).

So, using what we know as a precedent for what throwing sand does, here's about the best you can do:

Something along the lines of

Chuckin' Some Sand (Any Class, Attack 1):

Standard Action

Attack: Dexterity - 8 versus Reflex,
Hit: Dexterity modifier damage, target is blinded (save ends, save at +4), and effect ends at the beginning of your next turn.

I'm using 'wizard with a longsword' as inspiration, since, by comparison, a low level wizard (of D&D) might be able to use a sword to outfight a goblin, maybe, if he got lucky, but a high level wizard would have no real chance to use a sword against a similarly levelled monster.

Similarly, this 'anyone can do it' version for 4e is iffy against low level monsters, and sheer desperation to try against anything past that. I don't feel rogues of 4e would feel 'cheated' by everyone having this ability, any more than fighters of D&D feeling cheated by wizards theoretically picking up swords.

Of course, compare what we need to do here to accomplish this simple thing, as compared to in D&D (wizards get a -5 to hit. Done.).

But, to answer your question briefly: yeah, it needs to be protected.

Quote from: StormBringer;379710And while you may not even intend to address this part of the discussion, I am still curious as to your opinion:  would you consider throwing sand a niche of the Rogue (at seventh level) that needs to be protected somehow?  No intent to draw you into this part if you don't want, just honestly curious what your thoughts are.

Oh, no, that's cool. I would not consider throwing sand a niche; I would consider doing damage and placing an effect on a target simultaneous to be more than one could reasonably accomplish with a stunt. So it's more of a general principle than a specific thing in my book.

Quote from: Thanlis;379716Oh, no, that's cool. I would not consider throwing sand a niche; I would consider doing damage and placing an effect on a target simultaneous to be more than one could reasonably accomplish with a stunt. So it's more of a general principle than a specific thing in my book.

Ok, so it's the combination of damage and effect that makes it a power.  I can grok that.  At your table, then, attacking one round and throwing sand the next is enough of a separation to keep it from infringing on the Rogue's power, or at least puts it outside the realm of 'stunt'.  I dig it.

Quote from: Doom;379715While you're pretty much correct, if a class can do it, it *can't* be something everyone else can do as well, the level 7 power is a damaging attack, unlike the non-damaging power I was imagining.

It's your opinion then, that powers are delimiters to what a character or class can do?

QuoteIt does, however, set the precedent, so if anyone can do it (much like a wizard picking up a long sword), it needs to be under conditions so desperate and restrictions so limited that nobody in their right mind would do so. You can't even make it a minor action, since then it could theoretically be better than the Rogue special power (two attacks with a minor, even at a penalty, can easily be better than the one standard).

I think we are in agreement here.  Although I don't see it as being significantly similar to a Magic-User with a longsword.  C'est la vie, I don't think that aspect is important enough to spend a lot of time debating.

QuoteSo, using what we know as a precedent for what throwing sand does, here's about the best you can do:

Something along the lines of

Chuckin' Some Sand (Any Class, Attack 1):

Standard Action

Attack: Dexterity - 8 versus Reflex,
Hit: Dexterity modifier damage, target is blinded (save ends, save at +4), and effect ends at the beginning of your next turn.

Now this I find fascinating.  Why aren't all the 'stunts' like throwing sand or tripping in a general, non-class specific powers list?    Maybe Fighters get two or three initial choices and another every three or four levels or something, while everyone else gets one, with another every five levels?  Then you don't have the silliness of waiting six levels to throw sand in someone's eyes.  Keep the effects pretty mild, like your example, and give them a little boost each level.  Say, apply the half-level modifier to the attack (but only to cancel the penalty, no bonus), so at 16th level, you are doing straight Dex vs Ref.  I might end the effect at the end of the player's next turn instead of the beginning, but otherwise, a minor effect that can come in handy, and fits nicely within the rules framework.

QuoteI'm using 'wizard with a longsword' as inspiration, since, by comparison, a low level wizard (of D&D) might be able to use a sword to outfight a goblin, maybe, if he got lucky, but a high level wizard would have no real chance to use a sword against a similarly levelled monster.

That was what I was getting at before: it's probably the most boneheaded move you can think of, even if you are out of spells, but it is possible.

QuoteSimilarly, this 'anyone can do it' version for 4e is iffy against low level monsters, and sheer desperation to try against anything past that. I don't feel rogues of 4e would feel 'cheated' by everyone having this ability, any more than fighters of D&D feeling cheated by wizards theoretically picking up swords.

But a Magic-User picking up a sword, as I mentioned earlier, isn't doing something that only the Fighter can do.  It's doing something the Fighter does far, far better because of the significant penalty, and the other factors, like exceptionally low hit points and often higher than average AC.  Mathematically, unless the Magic-User is stripped of every other weapon they have, a ballpark guess of the damage output would seem to indicate that they would be better off using a staff or even a dagger they are proficient with instead.  The damage is lower, of course, but the odds of hitting are a good deal higher (at least 25%!), so overall output would be, at worst, the same.

QuoteOf course, compare what we need to do here to accomplish this simple thing, as compared to in D&D (wizards get a -5 to hit. Done.).

Exactly.  And people still claim AD&D is sloppy and ad hoc.  :)

QuoteBut, to answer your question briefly: yeah, it needs to be protected.

I think we agree that the niche needs to be protected, but does throwing sand need to be protected?  In other words, do you think that throwing sand (even with simultaneous damage) is something so central to the definition of a Rogue that it should be protected under the rubric of a power?

Quote from: StormBringer;379721Ok, so it's the combination of damage and effect that makes it a power.  I can grok that.  At your table, then, attacking one round and throwing sand the next is enough of a separation to keep it from infringing on the Rogue's power, or at least puts it outside the realm of 'stunt'.  I dig it.

Yeah. I will say that I think this is a tricky line to walk. In practice, this kind of restriction often means that stunts are less useful than powers, and if you're playing the game as a wargame, people won't use them. If you're playing the kind of game where people embrace suboptimal tactical play, they're much better.

Quote from: Thanlis;379734Yeah. I will say that I think this is a tricky line to walk. In practice, this kind of restriction often means that stunts are less useful than powers, and if you're playing the game as a wargame, people won't use them. If you're playing the kind of game where people embrace suboptimal tactical play, they're much better.

No disagreement there.  I can see that definition being very hair-splitty and in need of constant re-visting on a case-by-case basis.

Quote from: StormBringer;379733I think we agree that the niche needs to be protected, but does throwing sand need to be protected?  In other words, do you think that throwing sand (even with simultaneous damage) is something so central to the definition of a Rogue that it should be protected under the rubric of a power?

Ah, the classic confusion that 4e causes time and again: words have no meaning in 4e.  More than one player in my campaign has gotten screwed up trying to attach actual meanings to the 4e words, it's really quite easy to do.


The problem we have here is, 'throwing sand' and Sand in the Eyes (the level 7 rogue power), are two very different things, that, coincidentally, sound kind of the same. There's lots of that in 4e, such as Magic Missile, Sleep, Fireball, Disintegrate, and others...the names, and the flavor text, are completely meaningless gibberish that sometimes sound familiar, and the game plays better if you treat those words in that fashion.

Sand in the Eyes is a level 7 attack power that rogues have, and it blinds and does damage. You can use it on traps, you can use it on animated statues, you can use it on incorporeal ghosts, you can use it on any 'creature' you like. It sort of sounds like, from the flavor text, that you're throwing sand, but that's just gibberish. Your rogue can use this power in a swimming pool, with no sand for miles around, and he can even do it while restrained, or in the stomach of a purple worm, or inside a gelatinous cube, for that matter.

'throwing sand', on the other hand, as a house-ruled power I made up, and thus I would follow up with a house rule that it would only work where it would make some sort of sense. I can't do that with character powers: all powers are supposed to always work at all times...it's an important design consideration in 4e, although the designers sometimes get a little confused.

So, no, 'throwing sand' doesn't need to be protected, but you can't give all characters a power that's just as good as a 'special' power that one class gets, other than the approved method.

The 'approved method', of course, is to give all classes very similar powers.

For example:

Crushing Smash (strength versus AC, target pushed one), a fighter power.

Arcanic Shove (int versus AC, target pushed one), a wizard power.

Dextrous Trip (dex versus AC, target pushed one), a rogue power.

Wise Tomfoolery (wisdome versus AC, target pushed one), a cleric power.

Etc, etc. I didn't bother statting these legitmate powers out or writing flavor text, such as "Your brute strength pushes your opponent back" and "You agilely entangle your opponent's legs, causing him to withdraw.", but I'm sure you could get the trend well enough.

That's just flavor text, however, and should not be taken to be meaningful in any real sense (eg, Dextrous Trip would work on a creature with no legs, despite the text).

So, "Sand in the Eyes" needs protection (but you can certainly find comparable powers in the other classes that are similar), but actually throwing actual sand? Not so much.

Quote from: Doom;379747The 'approved method', of course, is to give all classes very similar powers.

Yep. Try to maintain flavor, of course. There are a lot of level 1 at-wills that push people; there's a distinct difference between the wizard's close burst that pushes Wis modifier squares and the fighter's melee attack that pushes one monster one square and allows you to shift into the vacated square, let alone the avenger's melee/ranged attack that allows you to hit one enemy and push a different enemy 2 squares.

Difference: the fighter needs to stay next to his opponent, so his power enables that. The wizard is all about AoEs, so he can affect a lot of monsters at once. The avenger is themed for isolating enemies, so his power allows him to help keep one enemy close while other enemies are at a distance.

They broke that principle for the "I hit you, then move back a square and pull you with me" power, which exists in identical form for at least three classes, but c'est la vie.

Quote from: Doom;379747Ah, the classic confusion that 4e causes time and again: words have no meaning in 4e.  More than one player in my campaign has gotten screwed up trying to attach actual meanings to the 4e words, it's really quite easy to do.

I was ignoring that for the moment.  ;)

QuoteSo, "Sand in the Eyes" needs protection (but you can certainly find comparable powers in the other classes that are similar), but actually throwing actual sand? Not so much.

I see what you are saying, then, Sand in the Eyes is different than a stunt to throw sand in someone's eyes, because the latter would actually involve throwing sand in someone's eyes.

Quote from: StormBringer;379753I see what you are saying, then, Sand in the Eyes is different than a stunt to throw sand in someone's eyes, because the latter would actually involve throwing sand in someone's eyes.

Heh, yes.

If I were playing a rogue, and I took that power, and I wanted it to be something other than throwing sand... I'd probably rename it, which is encouraged.

Quote from: Thanlis;379754Heh, yes.

If I were playing a rogue, and I took that power, and I wanted it to be something other than throwing sand... I'd probably rename it, which is encouraged.

"Tricksy Hobbitses" if you are playing a halfling, perhaps?  :)

Quote from: Doom;379747Ah, the classic confusion that 4e causes time and again: words have no meaning in 4e.  More than one player in my campaign has gotten screwed up trying to attach actual meanings to the 4e words, it's really quite easy to do.

*blink blink*

See... I'll never be able to accept that kind of premise. It's really like talking different languages. The logic of 4e is so completely far out there to me, it's unbelievable.

Quote from: StormBringer;379712Except this 'improvisation' negates a listed power of the Rogue, a mid-level(ish) one at that.

Hey, thanks for the great example of internally inconsistent contradictions in 4e!

But it's not. My version (the improvised ruling) isn't as powerful as any attack-- it's merely an improvised skill use in combat, takes up an entire standard action.. and all it does is allow someone a chance to escape. There's no damage. Plus there has to be some sand. Kind of a cool getaway tactic if you get really pressed.

To Doom: have you tried using minions to "Aid Other" in combat?

I meant to run through some 15th level combats using a bunch of PCs from the link AM provided and some monsters.

The plan was to run through on a round by round basis determining average damage (so with 2 strikes doing d10+4 damage at 11 to hit then average damage is 9.5 per round etc etc ). To maximise damage you trigger encounter powers on round 1 then use at wills or standard hits.

Real life intervened and I have been given the job of finding a new au-pair instead (its tricky as you can't just pick the hottest one, you need to find a hot one that is good with kids and isn't so obviously hot that your wife looks at the photo and gives you that look that says "in your dreams")

So I started looking at it again tonight but having caught up on the post I am pretty sure it would make no difference and since it would like as not take at least 23 hours of my life ....

I will make some initial observations.

If we take an average damage per hit of 25 and a 50% chance to hit but give 2 PCs 2 strikes a round then our average damage per round is 87.5 (7 chances at 50% = 3.5 x 25). If you have 5 creatures with 140 hp which from the numbers seems about right then very simply it will take 8 rounds to kill them ( (140x5)/87.5= 8 ).
A fight that lasts 8 rounds would seem to take a minimum of 48 minutes (1 min per PC and 1 min for the DM = 6x8) but 2 hours is far from exceptional (2.5 mins for a DM to act with 5 creatures is only 30 seconds per creature, and 2.5 mins for a PC to make an optimal choice from a slew of powers is also far from outrageous expecially if we consider careful movement and questions about the environment this would give a 15 minute round for a 2 hour combat.)
I think to act in the really rapid method would be a return to the you roll I roll you roll I roll we used to see in  1e when the players were bored or the DM was shit. So I have to assume that the "truth" lies in between someplace.

Now the monster stuff is different as the monsters deal less damage say 15 (looking at AMs examples  15 damage each per round is the average, 2d10+4=15, 2d8+6=15). Average damage a round would be just 37.5 (15x5x50%)
The PCs only have average of 100hp but they do get healing surges so really we can say easily 125 (and you could easily say 2 surges per combat or add second wnd or whatever).
It would take 17 rounds  ((125x5)/37.5 = 16.6 rounds) for the Monsters to kill the PCs without using special powers. To me the specials on the monsters don't look like they would do much beyond increasing the change to hit/damage we could generous and fudge this to say a 50% damage increase. I actually suspect the PCs powers would in effect cancel the monsters powers and the effect would just be more rounds...
Just from these numbers it does appear that the PCs are not going to be heavily challenged by a 'level' encounter unless the DM uses complex tactics which adds time.
I know this is all irrelevant now and the discussion have moved on/degenerated into childing name calling or whatever :D

Reading AMs actual play example it does strike me that AM is surely playing in a game where killing the monsters is not required. He has noted that his groups use other victory conditions like the elite fleeing after it is bloodied or even handwaving the dregs once the big bad has gone down.

Now to my untrained eye it is this more creative use of the rules that keeps his games moving whereas Doom's adherence to playing combats out, and possibly trying to increase the challenge level which he percieves as weak through tactics, is the real difference between a 4.5 hour game having three combats and a singel combat lasting 2.5 hours.

I suspect that Thanlis's and Doom's discussion over minutia would as Doom suggests end up with a very marginal difference in average damage dealt and therefore to the number of rounds. So its th eplay style and the unwritten rules that are makign the difference.

Sorry to dredge this back up but I said I would look at it and I accept this is a flawed and simplified model but I think the underlying logic is sound. The ideal solution would be to plug it all into a programme and run a 1000 battles to get some genuine numbers. However, I do have to find that au pair .....

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379797To Doom: have you tried using minions to "Aid Other" in combat?

Sure; actually I use them more to trigger saving throws, that's often bigger than a +2 to hit. Alas, many powers are 'screwed until the end of player's turn', totally screwing up the whole point of the new save mechanic.

It isn't that minions are useless (just double damage and triple their numbers...still weak, but minions, after all)...but every class has so many AOE or multitarget powers that you need dozens of minions to have any meaningful number alive after two rounds. That fight with 80 minions (16 streaming in at a time from four different directions), really demonstrated just how messed up the design is.

Seriously, if minions are perfect, why did DMG2 change the rules for them? 6 per level instead of 4, is rather big change after all. If there was any doubt about their limitations, WoTC would have gone a smaller increment (eg, 5).

Sooner or later, wotc will realize "3 + char level*tier" is closer to how many are necessary to be comparable to an actual monster, in usefulness, threat, or durability.

Quote from: jibbajibba;379835If we take an average damage per hit of 25 and a 50% chance to hit but give 2 PCs 2 strikes a round then our average damage per round is 87.5 (7 chances at 50% = 3.5 x 25). If you have 5 creatures with 140 hp which from the numbers seems about right then very simply it will take 8 rounds to kill them ( (140x5)/87.5= 8 ).

Level 15 PCs are hitting level 15 monsters at a 65% clip, FWIW. So 7 chances at 65% is 4.55 * 25, or 113.75. And it's down from 8 rounds to 6 rounds -- time dropped by 25% due to a 15% increase in hit chance. This is why all those little differences are important.

Equal level encounters aren't terribly challenging in isolation. +2, +3 level can get more interesting. Depends on how you build it and how you run it.

Very minor comment: lots of minions will tend to produce flanking and hence combat advantage (+2) so will skew up enemy to hit rolls. I doubt this will meaningfully affect damage output (60% hit/50% hit = 1.2x as much damage)

Had a look at this controversial sand-chucking power as well :)

Sand in the Eyes Rogue Attack 7
You scoop up a handful of sand or dirt or pebbles, strike your foe, and throw the grit in his face to blind him.
Encounter * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and the target is blinded until the end of your next turn.

The funniest thing here is that 'you must be wielding a light blade' to throw sand in someone's eyes.
The whole 'just ignore the fluff text' comment sheds some light on this, but yeah. Its like someone once said about World of Synnibarr; 'Its written in a language which is indistinguishable from English but which is not English'. i.e. 'Words mean what we want them to mean, no more and no less'.

One of many, many, things some folks miss despite being reminded repeatedly is it isn't just bonus vs AC, or a certain amount of damage per hit for one particular character.

There are so many factors that one can always point at one certain thing and say there's a 2% discrepancy...there are too many calculations, making it best to think things through all the way without squinting so hard at the moss on one side of one tree.

You want to move the expected damage up? You can, but there are diminishing returns. Hitting for 100 points of damage, when the monster only have 5 left, doesn't matter so much, and that wasted effort becomes more of an issue as the damage goes up, reducing the effect. You can do this with darn near everything.

That said, a universal 65% chance to hit is high, even for optimized characters...why would weapon expertise give a +2 at level 15 if characters already hit at 55% at level 15 without it, eh? Or is the implication here that WotC was totally wrong about the math being off a bit, and Weapon Expertise is a feat that was totally unnecessary?

But, even being off by that much is still mostly irrelevant.

So in the end, make lots of estimations, realize with so many estimates that errors tend to cancel out, and acknowledge that, in the end, you'll probably be off 5% one way or the other.

One guy says 8 rounds, another guy says 6, both are probably missing details...once again, split the difference, and hey, we're back at 7 rounds, kinda wonder who said that first. Keep in mind, WotC designed this game under the assumption that monsters would only live long enough for 5 attacks on average...go and see for yourself that if a monster dies on rounds 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the average lifespan of a monster is....wait for it...wait for it....five rounds.

That said, I concede I'm probably playing by the rules too much (as are lots of folks, apparently), and probably should adopt AM's technique of having the fights ending once the outcome is certain. Of course, in nearly all fights, the outcome is certain before the first die is rolled, but something along those lines to make it closer to 2 hours of grinding instead of 2.5 hours.

Quote from: StormBringer;379733Now this I find fascinating.  Why aren't all the 'stunts' like throwing sand or tripping in a general, non-class specific powers list?

Taking your question literally...because that would require all stunts to be codified as rules, which I don't think is a realistic or desirable goal. Really you're just suggesting adding more and more powers, which still leaves the matter of adjudicating actions that are not specifically covered by the rules. It decreases the numbers of actions not covered by the rules, but the issue still remains.

Quote from: Benoist;379772See... I'll never be able to accept that kind of premise. It's really like talking different languages. The logic of 4e is so completely far out there to me, it's unbelievable.

Talk about an overstatement. The names of powers don't have a 1:1 correspondence to the normal use of language, which is one reason you capitalize them: they're proper names. Spell names in D&D have always been this way: you can't tell what many of them do just from their names. There are more of them now, but it's the same deal.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379797To Doom: have you tried using minions to "Aid Other" in combat?

That's one use for them, but it's a boring use.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379880Talk about an overstatement. The names of powers don't have a 1:1 correspondence to the normal use of language, which is one reason you capitalize them: they're proper names. Spell names in D&D have always been this way: you can't tell what many of them do just from their names. There are more of them now, but it's the same deal.

I'd say his (Benoist's) call is just.
Its not just the power name; the fluff text is usually out as well (most of the powers have fluff that vastly overrates what they do, somewhat like "you rip off his arms and legs and laugh as he bleeds to death", but then do 1W damage).
Just offhand, we have plenty of other game terms that don't work e.g. 'healing surges' don't actually heal you, since hit points aren't physical damage. These are however modified by Constitution, the attribute which secondarily determines your crossbow and warhammer damage. Charisma essentially determines your ability to hit people with swords if you're a paladin (compare the dictionary definition), saving throws don't 'save' you so much as affect duration, the Weakened condition doesn't affect your actual Strength, Two Weapon Fighting gives characters +1 to damage with one weapon. And action points probably slow down the game :)

Stormbringer --

The best I can do is explain it like a proficiency.

A given class' powers denote what abilities/maneuvers they're proficient in.  Other classes may attempt similar actions (within reason -- a wizard isn't going to suddenly know how to knock two arrows and fire them simultaneously in the middle of a fight), but will not have the benefit of being trained/familiar with such actions.  The bonuses you get from class powers to your roll is so significant that another class attempting the same action without the bonus isn't going to be a threat to any sort of niche covered.

We're talking having a difference of +4/5 or more to your roll at first level and not having to split up actions because they're trained maneuvers.

Like my previous example, powers for martial classes are like the bits and pieces of martial arts rules in other games.  Yeah, someone else can try to do a spinning kick, or throw another person, but that doesn't mean they can do it as efficiently or as well.

Quote from: Peregrin;379896Stormbringer --

The best I can do is explain it like a proficiency.

A given class' powers denote what abilities/maneuvers they're proficient in.  Other classes may attempt similar actions (within reason -- a wizard isn't going to suddenly know how to knock two arrows and fire them simultaneously in the middle of a fight), but will not have the benefit of being trained/familiar with such actions.  The bonuses you get from class powers to your roll is so significant that another class attempting the same action without the bonus isn't going to be a threat to any sort of niche covered.

We're talking having a difference of +4/5 or more to your roll at first level and not having to split up actions because they're trained maneuvers.

Like my previous example, powers for martial classes are like the bits and pieces of martial arts rules in other games.  Yeah, someone else can try to do a spinning kick, or throw another person, but that doesn't mean they can do it as efficiently or as well.

Or, in fact, at all.  According to most people here, there seems to be a very high resistance to allowing anyone to throw sand in an opponent's eyes and do damage.  I get that, I don't really have a problem with it.  But you are comparing a Magic-User picking up a sword with a substantial penalty and virtually guaranteeing their defeat in combat with no one else except a Rogue being able to do damage and blind someone in a single round.

4e powers are, by design, exclusionary.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379880Taking your question literally...because that would require all stunts to be codified as rules, which I don't think is a realistic or desirable goal. Really you're just suggesting adding more and more powers, which still leaves the matter of adjudicating actions that are not specifically covered by the rules. It decreases the numbers of actions not covered by the rules, but the issue still remains.

No, in fact, it would not require all stunts to be codified as rules.  Just the most common ones.

surely it woudl be better to return to a 2e world where there were numerous combat options but no powers/feats. Then you coudl have a neat little rule for stunts that covered everything from throwing sand to using a torch to set light to the drapes to tripping an opponet. Maybe the system could take account for your class and level ... maybe using some sort to to hit bonus you might already have.
Yes it would mean that non spell casters didn;t have a load of powers to make them seem more like spellcasters  but it woudl mean you get away from the total crap that is throwing sand where there is no sand, using your winning smile to increase your chance to hit and tripping a grey ooze.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;379912surely it woudl be better to return to a 2e world where there were numerous combat options but no powers/feats. Then you coudl have a neat little rule for stunts that covered everything from throwing sand to using a torch to set light to the drapes to tripping an opponet. Maybe the system could take account for your class and level ... maybe using some sort to to hit bonus you might already have.
Yes it would mean that non spell casters didn;t have a load of powers to make them seem more like spellcasters  but it woudl mean you get away from the total crap that is throwing sand where there is no sand, using your winning smile to increase your chance to hit and tripping a grey ooze.....

So you're talking about FtA!; basically.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;380292So you're talking about FtA!; basically.

RPGPundit

That kind of thing, though 2e and a stunt system that takes about a paragraph to write out does the job i reckon :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;380368That kind of thing, though 2e and a stunt system that takes about a paragraph to write out does the job i reckon :)

A stunt system that fits into a paragraph will end up being always used or never used, and either way that's boring. The reasons to do it and reasons to not do it will, if they are properly backed up with game mechanics - take up at least two paragraphs.

You don't have to get word processor diarrhea like White Wolf authors and expand a five paragraph essay about how you can set a world of darkness game on the road like early seasons of Supernatural into a 90k word, 128 page tirade that ironically goes nowhere - but textual reductionism has limits too.

-Frank

Quote from: jibbajibba;380368That kind of thing, though 2e and a stunt system that takes about a paragraph to write out does the job i reckon :)

Alright, I'm curious.  You going to write this/these paragraphs here?  Maybe a new thread?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;380509A stunt system that fits into a paragraph will end up being always used or never used, and either way that's boring. The reasons to do it and reasons to not do it will, if they are properly backed up with game mechanics - take up at least two paragraphs.

You don't have to get word processor diarrhea like White Wolf authors and expand a five paragraph essay about how you can set a world of darkness game on the road like early seasons of Supernatural into a 90k word, 128 page tirade that ironically goes nowhere - but textual reductionism has limits too.

-Frank

Why would a stunt system that was always used be boring?

Provided you can use it to swing from a chandalier, trip an opponent, throw real sand in someone's eyes (not 4e meta-sand), or push them back x squares then it shoudl work and always appear different so ...

Personally I would rule it so that stunts do not do damage per se but rather do damage as dependent on environment/effect, so pushing someone over a cliff does damage... as does setting fire to them. Thereofre it will normally not be used over and above an attack for the majority of the time and you need a robust set of combat options that includes fighting defensively, disarms, and all teh standards (all open to everyone of course)

In answer to WB ... yeah i will have a go tonight and post it here. It will be for 2e D&D (so will use THACO as its driver) but If I have a chance I will write it out again in 4e speak (although it strikes me they have a perfectly good stunt system they just gimped it so that they could run a powers system in parallel to it)

Quote from: FrankTrollman;380509A stunt system that fits into a paragraph will end up being always used or never used, and either way that's boring. The reasons to do it and reasons to not do it will, if they are properly backed up with game mechanics - take up at least two paragraphs.

You don't have to get word processor diarrhea like White Wolf authors and expand a five paragraph essay about how you can set a world of darkness game on the road like early seasons of Supernatural into a 90k word, 128 page tirade that ironically goes nowhere - but textual reductionism has limits too.

-Frank

The particular limits will depend on users. Some games will break down at some tables because of too much/not enough information and minutiae, while others will thrive. It comes down, as a designer, to knowing what audience your game is aimed that, first and foremost.

Seems to me like you're conflating your own tastes with objective design principles.

Quote from: jibbajibba;380560Why would a stunt system that was always used be boring?

If you do it all the time, it's no longer a stunt. ;)

My friends and family are quite bored with my juggling, but I can still use it to impress people that don't know me...inasmuch as juggling is impressive, anyway.

Quote from: Doom;380612If you do it all the time, it's no longer a stunt. ;)

My friends and family are quite bored with my juggling, but I can still use it to impress people that don't know me...inasmuch as juggling is impressive, anyway.

I guess you are aafriad that if a stunt proves very sucessful they will repeat it ad nauseam?
Might be a risk but realistically its spot on. Plenty of fighters have a favoured move and if they are fighting a new opponent it's their go to move. Benny the Jet's spinning round kick is a case in point. Now if you fight the same guy all the time they will know that trick/stunt and can avoid or counter it but in D&D how often do you fight the same opponent?

Plenty of guys have one chat up line they always use...

just realisted its 12:20am and I haven't started that paragraph better get to it :0

Quote from: winkingbishop;380520Alright, I'm curious.  You going to write this/these paragraphs here?  Maybe a new thread?

I second the motion that Jibba-Jibba start a new thread.
This would double the flamewar opportunities :)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;380626I second the motion that Jibba-Jibba start a new thread.
This would double the flamewar opportunities :)

I'm all for some game design.  Someone point me to the new thread when it gets posted.

Quote from: Benoist;379533Your remark that "at least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away" clearly wasn't about game design. It was about actual play. That means that somehow you need the rules to spell out what cool things you can do in the game.

Quote from: Peregrin;379547Would you let fighters do half of the things they could through powers in 4e, and would those be as mechanically interesting as spells?

Quote from: Benoist;379563Options don't have to be mechanical to be interesting, or to exist. Choices don't have to be hardcoded into rules. The point of the game isn't the rules, to me. It's the make-believe. The question, the way you're asking it, is nonsensical to me.

What he's asking is this:

In 4E, say you have a Fighter exploit that allows you to parry an attack made against an adjacent comrade as an interrupt action.

Or you have an exploit that allows you cleave through three opponents with a single attack.

Or you have an attack that allows you to swat an enemy back 15ft.

How do you rule these things in a system that doesn't have guidelines for them?

Are these even options in Basic or AD&D?

I'm curious to read your answer on this as well.

Quote from: Shazbot79;380671What he's asking is this:

In 4E, say you have a Fighter exploit that allows you to parry an attack made against an adjacent comrade as an interrupt action.

Or you have an exploit that allows you cleave through three opponents with a single attack.

Or you have an attack that allows you to swat an enemy back 15ft.

How do you rule these things in a system that doesn't have guidelines for them?

Are these even options in Basic or AD&D?

I'm curious to read your answer on this as well.

You can run all these things in any D&D version with DM flexibility and skill. I seem to remember a little example paragraph could have been in the AD&D DMG could have been in Holmes, it describes how you can use a to hit to cover anything so the PCs need to catch a scroll case as it speeds past in a river and the DM makes them make a roll to hit AC4.

So basically since the whole system is based on hitting a target number of a d20 you can express any action was a target number on a d20.

We made a parry system years ago that you needed to hit a higher ac than your opponent to parry their blow (this would be easier with today's rules with an attack bonus +a d20. ) So you could parry a blow aimed at an adjacent opponent by misisng an attack and rolling 5 ACs higher than the sucessful roll to hit (or 5 more than their adjusted roll to hit in a 4e sense).

You can make a cleave attack by making a called shot -4 to hit. Then any damage in excess of your first targets remaining hit points passes onto the next target provided that your adjusted to hit roll allowed you to hit them (so you can't hit through the goblin to do damage to the gold dragon if your total to hit wouldn't be high enough to do damage in the first place. )

To push an ememy back you call the action forgoing 1/2 damage (as you are pushing you opponent back you are not transfering all of the energy in your blow to penetrative damage as they absorb some by moving backwards) you roll to hit. The ammount you exceed the roll to hit by acts as effect number pushing your opponent back that many feet (you could apply a multiplier for target size or if you wanted to get technical introduce a safe versus pertification with the effect number as a modifier).

With a good DM the players trust all this stuff is in the system from the outset.

I will be posting a stunt system which I started writing last night and will have up tonight which works on the same basic principles as these examples.

Quote from: Shazbot79;380671What he's asking is this:

In 4E, say you have a Fighter exploit that allows you to parry an attack made against an adjacent comrade as an interrupt action.

Or you have an exploit that allows you cleave through three opponents with a single attack.

Or you have an attack that allows you to swat an enemy back 15ft.

How do you rule these things in a system that doesn't have guidelines for them?

Are these even options in Basic or AD&D?

I'm curious to read your answer on this as well.

Yes, a few of these options exist in AD&D, in the form of pummeling and these sort of combat maneuvers. Instances of such actions on a character's part may be resolved by on-the-spot adjudication, according to circumstances, common sense, etc.

If, as a DM, you find these instances repeat themselves regularly, and thus, that this area of combat is lacking in terms of rules, you expand on what exists and create new alternate combat maneuvers (see Rob Conley's shield uses in the Majestic Wilderlands as an example). See jibba's examples for variants (good post, by the way, JJ).

My point is that the default assumption of a game system, to me, shouldn't be to describe all the options in all cases right off the bat, and that the make-believe, the actual game itself, trumps its mechanical elements. It's not because you don't have a rule for it that you can't do it. Rules are guidelines, a springboard. What matters is the logic underlying the rules and the ability of a Good GM to extrapolate on this basis.

Describing all options all the time turns a game system into a "nuh-huh!" manual. Don't have the Cleave feat? "Nuh-huh" answers the rule book. You can't cleave then. It's just an instance of a game system imagining for you, putting training wheels on your ability to come up with inventive solutions to problems, taking the gist of the game away from the imaginative, immersive part of the game to make it rest squarely on the act of gaming the mechanics for various advantages in the game. Not that the latter can't be fun too, but it's not role playing, to me - it's solving metagame mechanical puzzles that actually have nothing to do with what's going on in the game world.

Quote from: Shazbot79;378879Yeah...hate to break this to you...but D&D Essentials isn't edition 4.5.

This has already been well proven by now I'm sure.

But straight from Bill Slavisek's Ampersand (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2010February) column:

"These 10 products won't be added to or taken away from. They're designed to be the starting point and baseline for all Dungeons & Dragons games moving forward."

If this were a reboot of the game, like 3.5 was, then they would continue to support it rather than limiting the line to a mere 10 products.

Well, this is an interesting turn of events.

I was going to post this very same point on another board, but when I checked the link I had posted, the verbiage had been changed.

What I quoted was copy-pasted directly from the text of the column but now all mention of the D&D Essentials line never being added to has been removed.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Alas, that llink doesn't seem to show what you're trying to say.

At least I have reason for optimism that they're telling the truth about something, since we now have two opposing possibilities asserted.

Quote from: Doom;384238Alas, that llink doesn't seem to show what you're trying to say.

At least I have reason for optimism that they're telling the truth about something, since we now have two opposing possibilities asserted.

I don't think I'd mind a 4.5, actually.

4E is getting a little bloated and if they decide to include bards, barbarians and shamans in the Essentials line I just might switch over completely.

Quote from: Shazbot79;384236Well, this is an interesting turn of events.

I was going to post this very same point on another board, but when I checked the link I had posted, the verbiage had been changed.

What I quoted was copy-pasted directly from the text of the column but now all mention of the D&D Essentials line never being added to has been removed.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Interesting.  WotC rewriting their own history.

They removed the "10 products" line?

Perhaps this partially explains the Deluxe DM screen, scheduled for release in Feb 2011.

http://www.amazon.com/Deluxe-Dungeon-Masters-Screen-Accessory/dp/0786957433

I don't know if anything can explain that...if they intended to still make 4e stuff, it seems like DMG3 would a primary goal (they promised it would have advice for Epic campaigns, my players might well be there by Feb).

And if they don't intend any more 4e stuff, seems like "The Essentials DM Screen" would make more sense to produce.

I certainly don't have a problem with 4.5...4e has problems, fix 'em already!

Another title scheduled for release also in Feb 2011, is the Nentir Vale Gazetteer.

http://www.amazon.com/Gazeteer-Nentir-Vale-4th-Supplement/dp/0786957662

At first it seems like an odd choice for an official release.

Indeed. I'm inclined to believe this is all residue before a retcon.

September releases are debateable as to what they imply, but February of next year? I can't even speculate, there's a solid probability it's a zombieback.

Quote from: Shazbot79;3842414E is getting a little bloated and if they decide to include bards, barbarians and shamans in the Essentials line I just might switch over completely.

These classes would be prime content for a third or fourth "Player's Essentials" book.

WOTC should just release a new edition. We know it's all about profits anyway so why keep pretending? An edition now have a 2 year lifespan. Unless WOTC switch to a different model like settings and adventures to support the rules instead of producing more rules, the 2 year lifespan holds.

Quote from: areola;384289WOTC should just release a new edition. We know it's all about profits anyway so why keep pretending? An edition now have a 2 year lifespan. Unless WOTC switch to a different model like settings and adventures to support the rules instead of producing more rules, the 2 year lifespan holds.

Isn't Mutants & Masterminds on it's 3rd edition in less than 10 years?

Just saying.

Quote from: Shazbot79;384236What I quoted was copy-pasted directly from the text of the column but now all mention of the D&D Essentials line never being added to has been removed.

You know, that always seemed like a really unrealistic promise -- if the line sold well, of course they were going to want to add to it. And now is about the time they'd be starting to see initial bookstore/box store orders, I think. Plus the reorg may have included changes in publishing plans.

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the decision to retroactively edit posts like that. Which is a polite way of saying I think it's a really lame move.

Quote from: Thanlis;384302You know, that always seemed like a really unrealistic promise -- if the line sold well, of course they were going to want to add to it. And now is about the time they'd be starting to see initial bookstore/box store orders, I think. Plus the reorg may have included changes in publishing plans.

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the decision to retroactively edit posts like that. Which is a polite way of saying I think it's a really lame move.

Me too.

Especially seeing how it completely invalidates my previous argument : (

Quote from: Shazbot79;384298Isn't Mutants & Masterminds on it's 3rd edition in less than 10 years?

Even back in the day, some rpg games went through editions really quickly.  One example I can think of offhand is Runequest.

1st ed RQ - 1978  (Chaosium)
2nd ed RQ - 1980  (Chaosium)
3rd ed RQ - 1984  (Avalon Hill)

http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm

More recently, the Mongoose version of Runequest.

1st ed MRQ - 2006
2nd ed MRQ - 2010

Then again, it still says "The Essentials line consists of 10 key products that will always be in stock and will form the core of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game experience moving forward."

You know what? I'm falling prey to the temptation to intricately parse text that wasn't written to be bulletproof. That's goofy of me. I'm gonna stop doing that.

It's still there for me, and I cleared my cache and it's still there. Are you logged in to D&D Insider?

(http://the-never.net/art/essentials.jpg)

The Deluxe Dm's screen and the nentir Vale Gazeteer aren't Essentials.

Am I just misunderstanding the question, here?

Oh, FFS. Yeah, it's still there for me as well. Well, I still think it's a goofy thing to say, I still won't hold it against WotC if they change their mind, and you'd think I'd have learned my lesson about double-checking by now. (No offense meant to Shaz, I don't think this was an intentional mistake.)

Apologies for the giant picture. If people are seeing something different, please post a comparison.

But yet again, this is why I understand the (hugely controversial, emotion-provoking lol) Essentials line as an introductory type thing meant for starting new players out. New players don't need a deluxe DM's screen.

Quote from: areola;384289WOTC should just release a new edition. We know it's all about profits anyway so why keep pretending? An edition now have a 2 year lifespan.

Good question.  Wonder if this "dancing around" on the new edition issue, was due to the anger and fallout produced by 3.5 D&D.  (Despite this anger, some people still continued buying 3.5 splatbooks like clockwork).  Most likely this "dancing around" is an attempt to minimize anger this time around.  They'll use the "plausible deniability" defense that Essentials is not 4.5E.

Anybody remember if there was a similar fallout when TSR re-released the 2E AD&D core books in 1995 (with the black covers)?

Going back further in history, one kinda wonders why separate 1E AD&D and D&D product lines were produced simultaneously in the first place.  A few semi-plausible reasons (whether speculative and/or based partly on fact) could be related to the basic D&D box sets selling like hotcakes back then.  Less certain are speculations that the D&D product line was kept around due to undisclosed lawsuit settlements between Gygax/TSR and Arneson.

Quote from: areola;384289Unless WOTC switch to a different model like settings and adventures to support the rules instead of producing more rules, the 2 year lifespan holds.

Most likely they'll be reluctant to repeat something like this, judging from the past TSR experiences during the 1990's.

Quote from: ggroy;384324Good question.  Wonder if this "dancing around" on the new edition issue, was due to the anger and fallout produced by 3.5 D&D.  (Despite this anger, some people still continued buying 3.5 splatbooks like clockwork).  Most likely this "dancing around" is an attempt to minimize anger this time around.  They'll use the "plausible deniability" defense that Essentials is not 4.5E.

Anybody remember if there was a similar fallout when TSR re-released the 2E AD&D core books in 1995 (with the black covers)?

Going back further in history, one kinda wonders why separate 1E AD&D and D&D product lines were produced simultaneously in the first place.  A few semi-plausible reasons (whether speculative and/or based partly on fact) could be related to the basic D&D box sets selling like hotcakes back then.  Less certain are speculations that the D&D product line was kept around due to undisclosed lawsuit settlements between Gygax/TSR and Arneson.



Most likely they'll be reluctant to repeat something like this, judging from the past TSR experiences during the 1990's.

It gets a lot clearer once you realize that Essentials is not D&D4.5...never was, and anyone who thinks so is an idiot.  At that point, everything will suddenly become clear to you.

Basic D&D (often thought of "kiddy" D&D at the time) was sold into the 1990s alongside AD&D2e as well. Princess Ark even shared article space in Dragon Magazine.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384326It gets a lot clearer once you realize that Essentials is not D&D4.5...never was, and anyone who thinks so is an idiot.  At that point, everything will suddenly become clear to you.

At least this time around, WotC's marketing people were smart enough to never use the words "4.5E".  Back in 2003, the words "3.5E" were explicitly used and printed on the front covers of the "3.5E D&D" core books.

Without ever using the words "4.5E", WotC can always say that Essentials is not "4.5E D&D".

Going back into history, I had never heard the term "1.5E AD&D" used to describe Unearthed Arcana back in the mid-1980's.  I've only ever heard the term "1.5E" used retroactively by posters on various grognard forums and blogs, in recent years.

Quote from: ggroy;384327At least this time around, WotC's marketing people were smart enough to never use the words "4.5E".  Back in 2003, the words "3.5E" were explicitly used and printed on the front covers of the "3.5E D&D" core books.

Without ever using the words "4.5E", WotC can always say that Essentials is not "4.5E D&D".

And because they will still be selling 4th Edition books and they'll still all be the same game, it won't even be 4.5. Observers, spectators, and other assorted outsiders (the assembled legions of the blind, crippled, and crazy) will certainly get to claim it is, because that's what they do, but they don't know. They never know. They just shake their fists from the sidelines as the parade passes, and then hug it out over the conspiracy theories.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384330And because they will still be selling 4th Edition books and they'll still all be the same game, it won't even be 4.5. Observers, spectators, and other assorted outsiders (the assembled legions of the blind, crippled, and crazy) will certainly get to claim it is, because that's what they do, but they don't know. They never know. They just shake their fists from the sidelines as the parade passes, and then hug it out over the conspiracy theories.

Also none of us know whether the ten Essentials titles will be the only ten Essentials titles released.  (Unless one is an insider in WotC's D&D division).

At this point, it is largely speculation until the actual books are produced and show up on the shelves of game stores and bookstores.

Quote from: ggroy;384331Also none of us know whether the ten Essentials titles will be the only ten Essentials titles released.  (Unless one is an insider in WotC's D&D division).

At this point, it is largely speculation until the actual books are produced and show up on the shelves of game stores and bookstores.

We only know what they said. If they change their minds later, that's something I guess we'll all have to deal with... somehow. (Struggling forward, our hearts heavy, our eyes cast downward, and the sounds of tragic saxophones playing in the distance...)

Then again, I simply don't understand the concept of assuming anytime anyone says anything, that the opposite will come true. That seems like a tough way to live.

Quote from: ggroy;384324Going back further in history, one kinda wonders why separate 1E AD&D and D&D product lines were produced simultaneously in the first place.  A few semi-plausible reasons (whether speculative and/or based partly on fact) could be related to the basic D&D box sets selling like hotcakes back then.  Less certain are speculations that the D&D product line was kept around due to undisclosed lawsuit settlements between Gygax/TSR and Arneson.

I asked Gary about this at some point during an interview I did with him once upon a time (2002ish?) anyway, the answer was that they both sold incredibly well, they served two audiences and they brought bucketloads of cash in to TSR.  They didn't "compete" against one another in any visible way, so why kill off Basic?

I've also heard the Basic sets were part of the Arneson/TSR lawsuit - I think that's pretty plausible, too, with the sellin'-like-hotcakes a nice side effect.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384333Then again, I simply don't understand the concept of assuming anytime anyone says anything, that the opposite will come true. That seems like a tough way to live.

This is what was done in practice in eastern bloc countries during the cold war.

The easiest way to determine the truth was to assume the opposite of what the government was saying.  If that doesn't work, the truth can be determined in a roundabout way by examining what the government is not saying.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;384335I asked Gary about this at some point during an interview I did with him once upon a time (2002ish?) anyway, the answer was that they both sold incredibly well, they served two audiences and they brought bucketloads of cash in to TSR.  They didn't "compete" against one another in any visible way, so why kill off Basic?

This sounds like a very diplomatic response to the question.  :)

I suspect Gary Gygax would have still been under NDA about the various legal settlements.  There probably isn't much he could say anyways.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384330And because they will still be selling 4th Edition books and they'll still all be the same game, it won't even be 4.5.

I think you risk confusing cause with effect. If a .5 edition was simply a reason for online nerdrage, WotC couldn't care less. But that nerdrage (a propos 3.5) actually did express a wider customer backlash, translating into sales numbers, that WotC have no interest in re-experiencing.

If you recall, the moment 3.5 was on the horizon, their sales for the transitional products (like MM II) suffered and certainly their 3.5 hardcover sales never, ever reached 3.0 levels again. If you take that realization as a starting point, you'd be tempted to conclude that WotC won't be selling (and marketing) a 4.5 because that .5 has really harmed their sales. And that's the only reason why we don't see a .5 on their products in 2010, and why they vehemently say "this won't be 4.5". It's a simple marketing statement, and we all (you included) are fully aware of it.

For one, it explains why we don't see transitional products for the current 4E during the Essentials line. Transitional products (in the current scenario, that'd be: 4E hardcovers not part of the Essentials line but co-temporaneously released with/during Essentials) are hard to sell, so WotC don't do them. They easily have the man power to produce such 4E hardcovers during essentials, they are just not confident enough to sell them. I think WotC are right in this assessment, and I respect them for that.

Quote from: Thanlis;384320Oh, FFS. Yeah, it's still there for me as well. Well, I still think it's a goofy thing to say, I still won't hold it against WotC if they change their mind, and you'd think I'd have learned my lesson about double-checking by now. (No offense meant to Shaz, I don't think this was an intentional mistake.)

Nope. That snippet stood out on the first read and I just missed it on the second read through.

Dur.

Quote from: Windjammer;384452I think you risk confusing cause with effect. If a .5 edition was simply a reason for online nerdrage, WotC couldn't care less. But that nerdrage (a propos 3.5) actually did express a wider customer backlash, translating into sales numbers, that WotC have no interest in re-experiencing.

If you recall, the moment 3.5 was on the horizon, their sales for the transitional products (like MM II) suffered and certainly their 3.5 hardcover sales never, ever reached 3.0 levels again. If you take that realization as a starting point, you'd be tempted to conclude that WotC won't be selling (and marketing) a 4.5 because that .5 has really harmed their sales. And that's the only reason why we don't see a .5 on their products in 2010, and why they vehemently say "this won't be 4.5". It's a simple marketing statement, and we all (you included) are fully aware of it.

For one, it explains why we don't see transitional products for the current 4E during the Essentials line. Transitional products (in the current scenario, that'd be: 4E hardcovers not part of the Essentials line but co-temporaneously released with/during Essentials) are hard to sell, so WotC don't do them. They easily have the man power to produce such 4E hardcovers during essentials, they are just not confident enough to sell them. I think WotC are right in this assessment, and I respect them for that.

The earliest official announcement of 3.5E was in January 2003.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/iw20030112a

During that time period, there were no D&D splatbooks released in November and December 2002.  (The d20 Modern core rulebook was released in Nov 2002).  Additionally, there was also no D&D splatbooks released in January 2003.

New D&D splatbooks started to be released in February 2003.  Here's the release schedule for 2003 and 2004.


January 2003 - (nothing)

February 2003 - Savage Species

March 2003 - Arms and Equipment Guide, Races of Faerun

April 2003 - Fiend Folio

May 2003 - Unapproachable East

June 2003 - Ghostwalk

July 2003 - (3.5E core books)

August 2003 - Dragonlance Campaign Setting

September 2003 - (nothing)

October 2003 - Book of Exalted Deeds, Underdark, Miniatures Handbook

November 2003 - Draconomicon, Complete Warrior

December 2003 - (nothing)

January 2004 - (nothing)

February 2004 - Unearthed Arcana

March 2004 - Player's Guide to Faerun

April 2004 - Expanded Psionics Handbook, Map Folio One

May 2004 - Complete Divine

June 2004 - Eberron Campaign Setting

July 2004 - Planar Handbook, Serpent Kingdoms, Shadows of the Last War (Eberron module)

August 2004 - Races of Stone, Map Folio Two

September 2004 - Frostburn, Monster Manual 3, Whispers of the Vampire's Blade (Eberron module)

October 2004 - Libris Mortis, Shining South

November 2004 - Complete Arcane, Sharn: City of Towers (Eberron)

December 2004 - Races of Destiny


Most of the D&D splatbooks released during 2003, appeared to be rather marginal.  2004 also started off with rather marginal splatbooks too.

Wonder why there were so many empty months during 2002, 2003 and 2004 where no D&D splatbooks were released.

For context, here's the WotC D&D release schedule for y2k, 2001 and 2002.


August 2000 - 3E Player's Handbook, Sunless Citadel (module)

September 2000 - 3E DMG

October 2000 - 3E Monster Manual 1, Into the Dragon's Lair (FR module)

November 2000 - Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, The Forge of Fury (module)

December 2000 - Hero Builder's Guidebook

January 2001 - "Sword and Fist:  A Guidebook to Monks and Fighters", Speaker in Dreams (module)

February 2001 - "Monsters of Faerun" (FR)

March 2001 - Psionics Handbook

April 2001 - The Standing Stone (module)

May 2001 - "Defenders of the Faith:  A Guidebook to Clerics and Paladins"

June 2001 - Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (module)

July 2001 - "Tome and Blood:  A Guidebook to Wizards and Sorcerers"

August 2001 - Magic of Faerun (FR), Heart of Nightfang Spire (module)

September 2001 - Manual of the Planes

October 2001 - Enemies and Allies, Oriental Adventures

November 2001 - Lords of Darkness (FR), Deep Horizon (module)

December 2001 - "Song and Silence:  A Guidebook to Bards and Rogues"

January 2002 - Lord of the Iron Fortress (module)

February 2002 - "Masters of the Wild:  A Guidebook to Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers"

March 2002 - Bastion of Broken Souls (module)

April 2002 - Deities and Demigods

May 2002 - Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, Faiths and Pantheons (FR)

June 2002 - Book of Challenges

July 2002 - Epic Level Handbook, Silver Marches (FR)

August 2002 - (nothing)

September 2002 - Monster Manual 2, City of the Spider Queen (FR module)

October 2002 - Book of Vile Darkness

November 2002 - (nothing)

December 2002 - (nothing)


Sometime in the middle of 2002, the splatbooks appear to become more and more of the marginal variety.  They were hardly releasing modules anymore, after early 2002.

Examining the WotC D&D release schedules for 2000 -> 2004, the viable two year market lifespan for an rpg game appears to have been possibly true back then for 3E D&D.

By the time it is the two year mark for 3E D&D in mid 2002, many of D&D splatbook releases appear to be marginal titles like "The Book of Vile Darkness", Epic Level Handbook, etc ...  Over a six month period from August 2002 to January 2003, only three WotC D&D splatbooks are released.  One can guess that over this these six months, they were using that time to put together the 3.5E core books.

After 3.5E was announced officially in January 2003, some of the "transition" splatbooks (using Windjammer's terminology) released over the first half of 2003 appear to also be marginal titles (ie. Ghostwalk, Savage Species, etc ...).  Wonder how well these "transition" splatbooks sold.

At times I wonder whether these "transition" splatbooks from the first half of 2003, were actually titles which were put on the backburner over that six month period of August 2002 to January 2003, when the D&D group's efforts were possibly put into putting together the 3.5E core books.  If 3.5E had never been made at the time (or at all), most likely these "transition" splatbooks (ie. Arms and Equipment Guide, Savage Species, Fiend Folio, Ghostwalk, Races of Faerun, Unapproachable East) would have been completed earlier and released back in mid-late 2002.

Even after the 3.5E core books were formally released in July 2003, several of the subsequent "post-transition" splatbook releases appear to be marginal too (ie. Book of Exalted Deeds, Miniatures Handbook, Draconomicon, etc ...).

As with the "transition" splatbooks, one wonders whether the "post-transition" splatbooks were also titles which were put on the backburner when the 3.5E core books were being worked on.  (ie.  Book of Exalted Deeds, Draconomicon, Miniatures Handbook, Underdark, Unearthed Arcana).

I suppose the moment when they were truly able to "hit the reset button" for 3.5E D&D, started with the Complete Warrior splatbook in November 2003.  It took them another five months afterward to release the next "hit the reset button" splatbooks:  Expanded Psionics Handbook (April 2004) and Complete Divine (May 2004).

Perhaps this time around for the 4E Essentials product line, WotC sees no point in releasing any further marginal 4E D&D "transition" splatbooks (as Windjammer asserted) or possibly even "post transition" splatbooks too.  They want to be able to truly "hit the reset button" right away, instead of waiting 4 or 5 months.

From past conversations with local game store owners/managers, I remember they mentioned that the first 3.5E D&D splatblooks which actually sold half decently were the "Complete" books during 2004 (ie. Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Complete Arcane).

Quote from: ggroy;384338This sounds like a very diplomatic response to the question.  :)

I suspect Gary Gygax would have still been under NDA about the various legal settlements.  There probably isn't much he could say anyways.

Whatever.  I'm just trying to provide some information; if all you think it was was a pat on my head from Gary, then I guess the matter is settled for you.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;384527Whatever.  I'm just trying to provide some information; if all you think it was was a pat on my head from Gary, then I guess the matter is settled for you.

I didn't mean it that way.  The matter may very well be largely unknown, until any legal documents are finally disclosed publicly.  If the out of court settlements were never written down or the documents were lost, then we'll probably never know.

In the past I've had to deal with things like settling lawsuits out of court, where one of the conditions was that the agreement terms were not to be made public.  Same thing with NDAs and/or classified information as a part of a job.

This is even more stringent for a licensed attorney, where attorney client privilege is sacred.  They can be disbarred from the legal profession for saying stuff which breaks the attorney client privilege.

It's always awkward being asked about information which cannot be disclosed without violating legal non-disclosure type agreements of some sort.  Usually I try to be diplomatic about it, instead of telling the other person "it's none of their fucking business".  ;)

Examining the 3E D&D splatbooks from 2000 to 2003, the format of the early splatbooks were somewhat different from 3.5E D&D splatbooks.

During 2000 to 2002, many of the early splatbooks were softcovers with pagecounts of under 100 pages.  The softcover splatbooks which had more than 100 pages (excluding modules) were:

- Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (192 pages)
- Magic of Faerun (192 pages)
- Lords of Darkness (192 pages)
- Stronghold Builder's Guidebook (128 pages)
- Book of Challenges (128 pages)
- Silver Marches (160 pages)

The hardcover 3E splatbooks over 2000 to 2002 were:

- Psionics Handbook (160 pages)
- Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (320 pages)
- Manual of the Planes (224 pages)
- Oriental Adventures (256 pages)
- Deities and Demigods (224 pages)
- Epic Level Handbook (320 pages)
- Monster Manual 2 (224 pages)
- Book of Vile Darkness (160 pages)

By the time it is 2003, just about every new D&D splatbook released for 3E/3.5E was hardcover (excluding modules).

Wonder why WotC decided to drop the softcover splatbook format after two years.

One possible explanation perhaps was due to the onslaught of crunch heavy player's options type splatbooks being produced by d20 3PP companies during 2002 like Mongoose, Fantasy Flight, Fast Forward, Green Ronin, etc ....  One easy way to differentiate their own products from the competition, is to produce them as higher quality hardcover books with glossy pages in full color, which WotC had the resources to pull off easily.

Yes I noticed the softcover to hardcover as well. Seems the reverse for 4e Essentials though.

Quote from: areola;384610Yes I noticed the softcover to hardcover as well. Seems the reverse for 4e Essentials though.

With the 4E 3pp market being somewhat moribund and/or stuck in the "pdf-only ghetto" on drivethrurpg/rpgnow, WotC perhaps may be able to get away with doing 4E Essentials as softcover books without having much competition.  Paperback rulebooks can lower the buy-in price, especially if WotC is attempting to tap into the "lapsed gamer" audience of players who have not played in over 10 or 20 years.  They're probably betting on the lower price point, in luring such "lapsed gamers".

Speaking of the 4E 3pp market, it seems like the 3pp crowd has been moving towards Pathfinder over the last year or so.  At this point I wonder what Paizo will do when Pathfinder hits the two year mark sometime next year, predicted to have a slump in sales (like clockwork).

That would be interesting to find out. By that time, Paizo would have 9 crunch corebooks (3 books a year), with APG, Bestiary II and Gamemastery Guide coming out this year.

Quote from: areola;384626That would be interesting to find out. By that time, Paizo would have 9 crunch corebooks (3 books a year), with APG, Bestiary II and Gamemastery Guide coming out this year.

They're also releasing a revised version of the Golarion Campaign Setting hardcover book later this year.  How much new crunch they will introduce, is unknown at this point.

For next year 2011, one could guess they will release a Bestiary 3 and maybe a second Advanced Player's Guide.  Most likely there will be a psionics splatbook published.  The question is whether the book will be released by Paizo or Dreamscarred (or Paizo agreeing to publish Dreamscarred's effort).

A possible parallel to look at for some insight, would be comparing Paizo's 2009->2011 release schedule to that of 3E D&D over 2000 to 2002.  From my earlier post, the hardcover 3E splatbooks released over 2000 to 2002 are:

- 3E core books:  PHB, DMG, MM1
- Psionics Handbook (160 pages)
- Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (320 pages)
- Manual of the Planes (224 pages)
- Oriental Adventures (256 pages)
- Deities and Demigods (224 pages)
- Epic Level Handbook (320 pages)
- Monster Manual 2 (224 pages)
- Book of Vile Darkness (160 pages)

A rough correspondence could be:

3E PHB -> Pathfinder core rulebook
3E DMG -> Gamemastery Guide
3E Monster Manual 1 -> Pathfinder Bestiary 1
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting -> Revised Golarion Campaign Setting
Monster Manual 2 -> Pathfinder Bestiary 2
Oriental Adventures -> a book covering Tian Xia in Golarion?

Complete ? -> Advanced Player's Guide 1
Complete ? -> Advanced Player's Guide 2
Monster Manual 3 -> Pathfinder Bestiary 3

Deities and Demigods -> covered in God & Magic (Chronicles)
Manual of the Planes -> covered in The Great Beyond (Chronicles)
Psionics Handbook -> Dreamscarred psionics ?
Epic Level Handbook -> Gamemastery Guide 2 ?
Book of Vile Darkness -> ?

If WotC 3E D&D was slumping in sales two years later in 2002, most likely Paizo will have the same problem too with Pathfinder in 2011.  After this year, it may very well be the case that subsequent Pathfinder splatbooks will be more and more of the marginal variety too, similar to what happened with the D&D splatbooks in mid-2002 -> 2003.

Looking at the 3E/3.5E D&D splatbook list further, there's several titles which would probably be on the "not likely to be done by Paizo" list.

- Book of Vile Darkness
- Book of Exalted Deeds
- Ghostwalk
- Miniatures Handbook
- Magic of Incarnum
- Champions of Ruin (FR)
- Champions of Valor (FR)
- Tome of Magic: Pact, Shadow, and Truename Magic
- Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords
- Dragon Magic
- Power of Faerun (FR)
- Drow of the Underdark
- Exemplars of Evil
- Elder Evils

At most, some similar content could end up in a 32 or 64 page companion or chronicles supplement book.  Some of the monster stuff could end up in future Bestiary type books.  Some of the DM specific stuff could end up in future Gamemastery Guide books, such as epic level guidelines.

It's probably superfluous and a waste of resources for Paizo to be producing full hardcover books (over 160 pages) covering these topics.  WotC probably had more than enough resources to produce such marginal hardcover splatbooks back in 2003 -> 2007.  Paizo probably doesn't have that same luxury.

Ghostwalk was a setting. A weird, experimental setting by SKR - a man who I will remind you now works for Paizo. While you would be correct that Paizo will not try to get SKR to write Ghostwalk again with the serial numbers filed off, I think you're high if you think SKR won't spend some of his time at Paizo launching some kind of experimental alternate setting or another.

As for the Book of Vile Darkness, Paizo's best selling material leading up to Pathfinder itself was their work on various demon lords and arch devils. I think you are on rather thin ice predicting that Paizo won't do a "Things What Is Evil" book of some kind.

As for experimental mechanics books, I think we've already started to see them with weird crap like the Alchemist and the Inquisitor. They won't make exactly a Magic of Incarnum, because that experiment was a costly failure. But of course Paizo intends to sell their testing to the audience, they already did that with the Pathfinder Beta sales. So yes, they will come up with some out of the box ideas that are only vaguely tested and likely not mathematically sound and sell them to the populace as optional rules so that they can gather feedback from the internet. Which is what Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Battle all were.

Then of course, I think it highly likely that Paizo will release compilations of villains and flavor text for sale (like Elder Evils), because that's pretty much what they are known for as a company.

And I can pretty much guaranty that they will print books focusing on some D&D critter or race or whatever. Whether it will specifically be Drow and Dragons or not I couldn't say. But it will be something, because that's an easy book to write.

So on that whole list of things you don't think they will write, I could maybe give you the Miniatures Handbook. Because Paizo doesn't have a vast miniatures line to try to launch a battle game with. But I think it highly likely that they'll end up doing a book like Heroes of Battle, which is pretty much the same thing even as that.

-Frank

Quote from: ggroy;384722Looking at the 3E/3.5E D&D splatbook list further, there's several titles which would probably be on the "not likely to be done by Paizo" list.

- Book of Vile Darkness
- Book of Exalted Deeds

I bet we'll see something like this from them.

Quote from: ggroy;384722- Tome of Magic: Pact, Shadow, and Truename Magic

Alternate magic seems like something that would be lucrative. I bet we'll see something like it.

Quote from: ggroy;384722- Dragon Magic

Didn't they already put out a dragon book? I don't know if it contained anything about magic, but...

Quote from: ggroy;384722- Drow of the Underdark

Wait. You don't think this is likely? Because it seems highly likely to me. Unless there aren't any Drow in Golarion.

Quote from: ggroy;384722It's probably superfluous and a waste of resources for Paizo to be producing full hardcover books (over 160 pages) covering these topics.  

Ah. Full hard cover books. You're right - I'm sure many of those won't be hardcovers.

Seanchai

Let's examine the less marginal 3E/3.5E splatbooks, and speculate whether Paizo would try doing something similar.


Manual of the Planes, Planar Handbook -> Some planar stuff covered in "The Great Beyond" chronicles.  Wouldn't be surprised to see another chronicles book on planar stuff.

Enemies and Allies -> "NPC Guide" chronicles.

Oriental Adventures -> A Golarion setting book based on Tian Xia.

Stronghold Builder's Guide -> Most likely a chronicles book or content in a future Gamemastery Guide book.

Deities and Demigods -> "Gods & Magic" chronicles.  Wouldn't be surprised to see another chronicles book on this.

Book of Challenges, Epic Level Handbook -> Mostly likely content for the first or future Gamemastery Guides.  (Relatively generic information).

Savage Species -> Most likely some companion books (if they bother).

Arms and Equipment Guide, Weapons of Legacy -> "Adventurer's Armory" companion.  Wouldn't be surprised to see another companion book or two on this.

Draconomicon -> "Dragons Revisited" chronicles.  Wouldn't be surprised to see another chronicles book on dragons.

Underdark (FR) -> "Into the Darklands" chronicles.

Complete * -> Several "Advanced Player's Guides".

Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of the Wild -> Partially done in the Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Orcs, Halflings, etc ... of Golarion companion books.

Races of Dragon -> Most likely a companion book.

Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack -> Relevant crunch stuff most likely content in a future Gamemastery Guide.  (Relatively generic information).

Heroes of Battles, Heroes of Horror -> Relevant crunch stuff most likely in a future chronicles book, or content in a future Gamemastery Guide.  (Relatively generic information for mass combat).

Libris Mortis -> Most likely a future chronicles book covering undead.  Some stuff may already be covered in "Classic Horrors Revisited" chronicles.

Fiendish Codex I + II -> "Book of the Damned" volume 1 + 2 chronicles.  Wouldn't be surprised to see a third or fourth book on this.


Once they covered these generic topics in various chronicles, companion, and gamemastery guide books, further stuff will probably become more and more of the marginal variety.

Quote from: Seanchai;384727Wait. You don't think this is likely? Because it seems highly likely to me. Unless there aren't any Drow in Golarion.

Not an entire 160+ page hardcover book on drows.  Perhaps can see it being done as a chronicles or companion book in 64 pages.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384725Then of course, I think it highly likely that Paizo will release compilations of villains and flavor text for sale (like Elder Evils), because that's pretty much what they are known for as a company.

Most likely as several of those "... Revisited" chronicles books, instead of several 160+ page hardcover books.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384725And I can pretty much guaranty that they will print books focusing on some D&D critter or race or whatever. Whether it will specifically be Drow and Dragons or not I couldn't say. But it will be something, because that's an easy book to write.

Most likely as some companion titles for player races, or some  " ... Revisited" chronicles books for critters.  I doubt they will do several hardcover books on these, unless they're compiling a bunch of these companion or chronicles books into one huge hardcover book.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384725So on that whole list of things you don't think they will write, I could maybe give you the Miniatures Handbook.

I did mention at the end of the post, that some of the stuff could end up in some companion or chronicles books of 32 or 64 pages.

I didn't think they would spend entire 160+ hardcover books on such topics individually.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384725As for experimental mechanics books, I think we've already started to see them with weird crap like the Alchemist and the Inquisitor. They won't make exactly a Magic of Incarnum, because that experiment was a costly failure. But of course Paizo intends to sell their testing to the audience, they already did that with the Pathfinder Beta sales. So yes, they will come up with some out of the box ideas that are only vaguely tested and likely not mathematically sound and sell them to the populace as optional rules so that they can gather feedback from the internet. Which is what Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Battle all were.

Most likely this sort of experimental stuff will end up in whatever future open playtests they do for future "Advanced Player's Guide" splatbooks.  Who knows how much of the really crappy stuff will end up in the printed APG books.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384725As for the Book of Vile Darkness, Paizo's best selling material leading up to Pathfinder itself was their work on various demon lords and arch devils. I think you are on rather thin ice predicting that Paizo won't do a "Things What Is Evil" book of some kind.

The relevant content I suspect may very well end up in present and future "Book of the Damned" chronicles books.

More generally, Paizo's strategy over the last few years seems to be publishing stuff in smaller snippets in 32, 64, or 96 page books.  Several years down the road when they've published several individual books on a particular niche topic, I wouldn't be surprised if the page counts of these individual books will end up being similar to (or even surpassing) the page counts of WotC's equivalent books from the 3E/3.5E era.  Instead of publishing one huge 160+ page hardcover book on a particular niche topic, they're spreading out the content over several smaller books over a longer period of time.

IIRC the cover price of these 64 page Pathfinder Chronicles books are around $20.  The cover price of a typical 160 page WotC 4E D&D splatbook is around $30 ($35+ for more than 200 pages).  For the first two Paizo "Book of the Damned" chronicles books, that's already 40 bucks for 128 pages.  For the upcoming 4E D&D Demonomicon book, it's 30 bucks for 160 pages.

Paizo's strategy of releasing snippets of niche stuff in 32, 64, or 96 page books over a longer period of time, sounds similar to drug dealer selling dope.  The regular customer keeps on coming back for another hit later.  :)

In the end, the Paizo "supplement treadmill" may very well be more expensive than the WotC 4E treadmill.

I love Ghostwalk. It's a really cool concept. The rules are a bit shaky at times, but nothing a remotely decent gaming group can't fix IMO. The sandbox included in this book is interesting too. Some cool tidbits to pick and choose for a campaign of your own. I have done so for my Arcana Evolved campaign, and it worked admirably well. Good time was had.

Looking at the stuff already released and future scheduled titles for Pathfinder, the vast majority of the Pathfinder books is stuff for DMs and/or people who like to read DM type books.  It seems like Pathfinder's revenue stream is highly dependent on DM types staying on board and buying new stuff every month from them.  Otherwise sales of Pathfinder titles would slump when DM types stop buying.

With that being said, only a few books like the Pathfinder core book, Advanced Player's Guide, adventurer's armory, and maybe some of the other companion titles (ie. elves, dwarves, etc ... of Golarion), appear to be oriented to players.  At several local gaming stores, the owners/managers mentioned the only Pathfinder book which sold well was the core book.  Every other Pathfinder title didn't really sell that well.  (Even the companion titles didn't sell very well).  Typically it was the same few regular customers every month who picked up the new Pathfinder titles (other than the core book).

Perhaps this year, Paizo is hoping the Advanced Player's Guide will be their big payday this year at Gencon.  If it sells well, it would be like a cash infusion shot once a year.  If this ends up happening, I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo ends up releasing a new Advanced Player's Guide every year, largely as a way of attempting to get a cash infusion shot every year.  Though how well this will work in subsequent years, is hard to say.

The company will have problems, if both the DM types stop buying their monthly titles and the player types stop buying Advanced Player's Guide type books.  Being highly dependent on hardcore Golarion fans buying new Pathfinder AP and chronicle titles every month, isn't the best position to be in.  Perhaps this would be similar to a (hypothetical) scenario of WotC being heavily dependent on hardcore Forgotten Realms and/or Eberron fans, buying every new FR and/or Eberron splatbook being released every month or so during the 3.5E era.  (I don't know if things actually happened this way).

Quote from: ggroy;384731Not an entire 160+ page hardcover book on drows.  Perhaps can see it being done as a chronicles or companion book in 64 pages.

I got ya. Between hardcover and softcover, I'd guess that most of Paizo's stuff will be softcover. However, I'd also guess that they're going to pump out tons of shit.

Seanchai

Back to the OP topic.

From an enworld post,

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5198046-post60.html

the unconfirmed 4E titles scheduled for release in March and April 2011 are:

March - "Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow" (6" x 9" trade paperback)

April - "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium" (alleged to be a hardcover book, but unconfirmed).

So if this information is reliable, then WotC's 2011 winter quarter 4E release schedule will be:

January 2011 - Caverns of Icewind Dale (tile set)

February 2011 - Nentir Vale Gazetteer (6" x 9" trade paperback), Deluxe DM Screen

March 2011 - "Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow" (6" x 9" trade paperback)

April 2011 - Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium


From the looks of it, it appears to be a rather lackluster yawn-inducing release schedule for the first four months of 2011.

The alleged mock up covers for these February -> April 2011 4E titles have a similar style as the older 4E D&D hardcover titles, and not the cover style of the 4E Essentials titles.  (In principle the cover design can be changed at the last minute before the books are printed).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5198579-post67.html

I suspect WotC is taking a wait and see approach, to observe whether the 4E Essentials titles sell any better than the older 4E D&D hardcover titles.  If the 4E Essentials titles sell half decently (or like hotcakes), it wouldn't be surprising to see them changing the cover style format to that of the 4E Essentials titles.

So all books after Essentials are small paperbacks? And Player's Option? Is that the way they introduce the Shadow power source?

Quote from: ggroy;384982The alleged mock up covers for these February -> April 2011 4E titles have a similar style as the older 4E D&D hardcover titles, and not the cover style of the 4E Essentials titles.  (In principle the cover design can be changed at the last minute before the books are printed).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5198579-post67.html

I suspect WotC is taking a wait and see approach, to observe whether the 4E Essentials titles sell any better than the older 4E D&D hardcover titles.  If the 4E Essentials titles sell half decently (or like hotcakes), it wouldn't be surprising to see them changing the cover style format to that of the 4E Essentials titles.

So..what would the difference between that and "exactly how they said they would do it" be?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384999So..what would the difference between that and "exactly how they said they would do it" be?

Not a whole lot.  Primarily cosmetic.

Quote from: areola;384998So all books after Essentials are small paperbacks?

Hard to say for sure, until more of the 2011 schedule is revealed (after April 2011).

Quote from: areola;384998And Player's Option? Is that the way they introduce the Shadow power source?

This is highly suggestive to be the case.

The Heroes of the Fallen Lands cover reads "Iconic Races and Classes for All Players." Iconic? Uggh. This is pure forum geek speak making its way into the shop window.

Quote from: The_Shadow;385028The Heroes of the Fallen Lands cover reads "Iconic Races and Classes for All Players." Iconic? Uggh. This is pure forum geek speak making its way into the shop window.

Wonder if the two "Player Essentials:  Heroes of ..." books, are actually a compilation "stealth" release of Martial Power 3, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 for the more popular classes, as well as "Player's Handbook Races" 32 page books on Dwarves, Eladrin, Elves, Halflings, Humans, Drow, Half-elves, Half-orcs.

One introduces tieflings and dragonborn into the essentials line from what ive read on the wizards site.

Quote from: Broken-Serenity;385043One introduces tieflings and dragonborn into the essentials line from what ive read on the wizards site.

Yes.  Wonder how well that "Player's Handbook Races:  Dragonborn" 32 page book sold.

The last time I was at several local gaming stores, the owners mentioned that 32 page dragonborn book didn't sell very well.  One place still has 12-15 copies of it sitting on the shelves.

Was any of the material exclusive to the book?  

I can't see buying a 32 page pamphlet mixed with fluff and mechanics when it's just as easy to get the content online, since you're not talking about a substantial amount of information that needs to be organized or anything.

Quote from: Peregrin;385045Was any of the material exclusive to the book?  

I can't see buying a 32 page pamphlet mixed with fluff and mechanics when it's just as easy to get the content online, since you're not talking about a substantial amount of information that needs to be organized or anything.

I don't know offhand.  I don't have a DDI subscription.

Offhand I don't really see "Player's Handbook Races" 32 page books on elves, dwarves, halflings, etc .. being that compelling of a purchase to begin with.

It doesn't even pass my own "impulse buy" test.  Even crappy modules are a better "impulse buy".

Hmm.  Next time I'm at the shop, I'll have to compare.

I agree, though.  Most of those small booklet purchases really aren't substantial enough to warrant buying.  I could see them maybe moving at a con or an organized event where people are pepped up from playing, but you'd have to really sell the things.

In a twisted way, a "Player Essentials:  Heroes of ..." book would be a better dumpster for such content, than several 32 page "Player's Handbook Races" books which will probably end up sitting on the shelves collecting dust for a long time.

These days there's hardly any worthwhile "impulse buys" anymore whenever I visit a gaming store.  In recent months, the only "impulse buys" I picked up were some Pathfinder modules and maybe some older 1E/2E AD&D stuff in the used bins they occasionally get.

At several nearby gaming stores, the owners/managers mentioned the Martial Power 2 book was somewhat of a stinker in sales.  If this is the case more generally and widespread, perhaps there may not be much appetite at WotC to release more "Power" books like Martial Power 3, Arcane Power 2, etc ...

The "Player Essentials:  Heroes of ..." books may very well be an easier place to release such new content, instead of a Martial Power 3, Arcane Power 2, etc ... for people who are still interested in buying paper D&D books.

The shadow power classes may possibly be released as a "Player's Options:  Heroes of Shadow" book in 6" x 9" trade paperback format, instead of a "4E Player's Handbook 4" hardcover book.  If this turns out to be the case, one wonders how well the 4E PHB3 sold.  At several nearby gaming stores, the managers/owners mentioned the PHB3 sales weren't the greatest, but not a complete stinker either.  (ie.  They didn't have to put PHB3 on backorder yet).

The smaller sized 4E Essentials (and later) books have a size of 6 x 9, while the older 4E D&D hardcovers book have a size of 8.5 x 11.  These correspond to page surface areas of 54 square inches and 93.5 square inches respectively.  The ratio of these areas is 93.5/54 = 1.73148.

The official page count of the Nentir Vale Gazetteer is 192 pages in a 6 x 9 trade paperback size.  Assuming the size of the text and most pictures/art is approximately the same, an equivalent 8.5 x 11 sized book with the same content would have about 192/1.73 = 111 pages.  In practice, it means this would probably be a 8.5 x 11 sized softcover book with a page count of 96, 112, or 128 pages.

The official page count of the 4E Essentials "Player Essentials:  Heroes of ..." books are 352 pages per book in a 6 x 9 trade paperback size.  Assuming the size of the text and most pictures/art is approximately the same, an equivalent 8.5 x 11 sized hardcover book with the same content would have about 352/1.73 = 203 pages.  In practice, it means this would probably be a 8.5 x 11 sized hardcover book with a page count of 192, 208, or 224 pages.  (For comparison, the 4E PHB2 and PHB3 have page counts of 224 pages).

The first "Player Essentials:  Heroes of the Fallen Lands" book is covering the cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, and wizard classes, along with the dwarves, eladrin, elves, halflings, and humans races.

http://wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/247520000

The second "Player Essentials:  Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms" book is covering the cleric, the druid, the paladin, the ranger, and the warlock, along with the dragonborn, drow, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings races.

http://wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/247510000

No idea why they're covering the cleric and ranger in both books.  (One really cynical ploy could be if WotC is trying to convince players who like to play clerics and rangers, to buy both books).

If the last few 4E Power books were not particular hot sellers, then packaging new builds for the more popular classes into these two "Player Essentials" books, would be better than releasing a Martial Power 3, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, or Primal Power 2.  (No point in releasing new books, which they suspect may not sell very well).

I wouldn't be surprised if the races sections of these two "Player Essentials:  Heroes of ..." books, covers content which in principle could have been published as individual "Player's Handbook Races" 32 page books (ie. new crunch, etc ...).  Personally, I don't see individual 32 page "Player's Handbook Races" books on elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, half-orcs, etc ... to be that compelling of an "impulse buy".

Overall, it wouldn't be surprising if these two "Player Essentials:  Heroes of ..." books, are very much like two 4E Power books with some "Player's Handbook Races" content tacked on.  WotC's marketing people probably figured out it may very well be easier to sell such books, with new crunch for the more popular classes and races.

Thanks for the info. I am curious to see the new builds for the classes. But then again, I didn't really care about the new builds from MP2 or Dragon mags. The 2 builds for each class in the PHB was simple enough.

With the Nentir Vale being fleshed out, they might as well make it a campaign setting.

Wonder how the hardcore 4e fans feel with their collection going small paperbacks.

Quote from: areola;385196With the Nentir Vale being fleshed out, they might as well make it a campaign setting.

Could be.  Though for such a world beyond Nentir Vale, wonder what they're going to flesh out beyond the present known map of it.

At the present time, I don't know if WotC would have the appetite to create an entire huge new setting, which isn't that drastically different from older generic settings like Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, etc ...

Quote from: ggroy;385198Could be.  Though for such a world beyond Nentir Vale, wonder what they're going to flesh out beyond the present known map of it.

At the present time, I don't know if WotC would have the appetite to create an entire huge new setting, which isn't that drastically different from older generic settings like Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, etc ...

In a way, this setting already exists. Keep on the Shadowfell, Vor Rukuth, Thunderspire Labyrinth and Hammerfast are part of the same world as Nentir Vale (and references to Bael Turath, Arkhosia, etc).

That world just doesn't seem to have ever been named.

Quote from: ggroy;384974Back to the OP topic.

From an enworld post,

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5198046-post60.html

the unconfirmed 4E titles scheduled for release in March and April 2011 are:

March - "Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow" (6" x 9" trade paperback)

April - "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium" (alleged to be a hardcover book, but unconfirmed).

I read your post, thought "hmm, "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium" sounds interesting, I think I will google that and see what I can find out".

Which led me...back to your post.

Curses my failed googlefu!

The only other post, anywhere, on that topic, said "4. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium is a hardback coming out in April that looks like it's going to be Adventure's Vault 3."

Quote from: areola;384998So all books after Essentials are small paperbacks? And Player's Option? Is that the way they introduce the Shadow power source?

No.  Magnificent Emporium is supposed to be hardback.

Quote from: Mistwell;385214I read your post, though "hmm, "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium" sounds interesting, I think I will google that and see what I can find out".

Which led me...back to your post.

Curses my failed googlefu!

The only other post, anywhere, on that topic, said "4. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium is a hardback coming out in April that looks like it's going to be Adventure's Vault 3."

I too would like to see this printed WotC Winter/Spring 2011 catalog, to confirm or deny these two titles' existence.  I was relying on that enworld post, that provided the unconfirmed info.

Usually WotC's printed catalogs end up on this web page:

http://www.randomhouse.biz/international/downloads

I wish WotC didn't have the right to use Mordenkainen. That makes me cringe. Every time.

Quote from: Benoist;385218I wish WotC didn't have the right to use Mordenkainen. That makes me cringe. Every time.

So is Mordenkainen in Nentir Vale? No mention of Greyhawk as far as I know in 4e.

Heh, I cringe every time someone uses the words Magic Missile (sic) in a 4e game.

Quote from: Benoist;385218I wish WotC didn't have the right to use Mordenkainen. That makes me cringe. Every time.

I too wish they'd leave Gary's "home campaign" stuff alone.

The Mordenkainen-as-Sean Reynolds was annoying enough.

The spell-naming-thing was from Vance.  Gygax borrowed it from him.  He didn't keep it his "home game", he gave Mordenkainen to TSR, hence to WOTC.

WOTC publishes 4e, and 4e is the current version of D&D.  So, why WOULDN'T they use those names?  It would be like cringing every time you hear Ford Mustang to refer to the modern Mustang, because you drive a 67 Mustang....

Quote from: Mistwell;385541The spell-naming-thing was from Vance.  Gygax borrowed it from him.  

WOTC publishes 4e, and 4e is the current version of D&D.  So, why WOULDN'T they use those names?  It would be like cringing every time you hear Ford Mustang to refer to the modern Mustang, because you drive a 67 Mustang....

Nobody's discussing the fact they have legal ownership of these names.
My objection is moral. It's got nothing to do with the legality of it.

And 4e is D&DINO.

Quote from: Mistwell;385541The spell-naming-thing was from Vance.  Gygax borrowed it from him.  He didn't keep it his "home game", he gave Mordenkainen to TSR, hence to WOTC.

Wonder if they're introducing the name Mordenkainen in 4E now, largely as a way of keeping the trademark active on the name "Mordenkainen".

Quote from: Mistwell;385541The spell-naming-thing was from Vance.  Gygax borrowed it from him.  He didn't keep it his "home game", he gave Mordenkainen to TSR, hence to WOTC.

WOTC publishes 4e, and 4e is the current version of D&D.  So, why WOULDN'T they use those names?  It would be like cringing every time you hear Ford Mustang to refer to the modern Mustang, because you drive a 67 Mustang....

To be more accurate, it would be fair to cringe if the 2010 Mustang was officially called "The '67 Mustang"

I'm playing in a 4E Greyhawk game. Hahaha, suck it. :)

The essentials line will be my first taste of D&D4e, my brother has asked me to run a game of it for him and his friends later this year and i figured why bother buying the current rulebooks when that stuff is actually gonna work out cheaper to get than trying to catch up on all the options currently available.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385585I'm playing in a 4E Greyhawk game. Hahaha, suck it. :)

LOL Because you think I care what you play? Since when are you WotC*?
Oh, the irony! :D

* Besides of which, my remark was about Mordenkainen specifically, extended to what TDD called "Gary's home campaign". WotC wants to wreck Greyhawk as a whole? Whatever. I don't care: it's been wrecked already.

Quote from: Benoist;385633WotC wants to wreck Greyhawk as a whole? Whatever. I don't care: it's been wrecked already.

I just think it's crazy that people are so hateful.  The idea that it's been "wrecked" at all is ludicrous.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385634I just think it's crazy that people are so hateful.  The idea that it's been "wrecked" at all is ludicrous.

It's your problem to always shoot for extremes and think that people talking about an idea that has been wrecked automatically are on the "HATE!!" end of the spectrum.

You need to get out more.

Quote from: Benoist;385635It's your problem to always shoot for extremes and think that people talking about an idea that has been wrecked automatically are on the "HATE!!" end of the spectrum.

You need to get out more.

Dude, are you sure it isn't you who needs to get out more? I find it hard to imagine anyone being as hateful and obsessed as you are, and you don't even play the game.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385637Dude, are you sure it isn't you who needs to get out more? I find it hard to imagine anyone being as hateful and obsessed as you are, and you don't even play the game.

Yes, I'm sure.

You know what hate is? Hate is beating up your wife and children because you hate yourself. Hate is to hurt yourself and build up anger to such a degree that you end up grabbing your shotgun to unload on your neighbours. Hate is about raping people because of whatever trauma you suffered in your past, and acting on it through violence, by inflicting pain and suffering onto others.

When we're discussing something on a forum like this, we might as well be around a bunch of pints in a pub. When people say "The Transformer movie SUCKED!!" it's not "hate". When people say "WotC wrecked Greyhawk", it's not "hate" either. Here's a shocker: people have opinions, and might express them vocally. Deal with it.

The fact that you're even conflating the two tells me you definitely need to get out more, Pete.

As for being obsessed, I'm not the one who talks about 4e ONLY on this board, and hasn't posted anything remotely constructive in weeks, if not months. You're no one to talk, mister.

Quote from: Benoist;385638When we're discussing something on a forum like this, we might as well be around a bunch of pints in a pub. When they say "The Transformer movie SUCKED!!" it's not "hate". When people say "WotC wrecked Greyhawk", it's not "hate" either. Here's a shocker: people have opinions, and might express them

Well opinions are one thing. For example, I don't like Shadowrun, and I think GURPS kinda sucks. Basic Roleplay-- Is it even a game? See, that's an opinion. It's not that involved, it's not something you have to dwell on very much. I don't even have to defend it. If someone says it's great or Koltar or whatever says Gurps is wonderful, I can kinda shrug and move on.

This has been going on a couple of years now.
Are you sure it isn't that you just hate yourself?

LOL As I said, the fact that you're conflating these things and consider them equal tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote from: Benoist;385638As for being obsessed, I'm not the one who talks about 4e ONLY on this board, and hasn't posted anything remotely constructive in weeks, if not months. You're no one to talk, mister.

I only talk about 4e..because that's really the only game that matters to me at this point. Plus, I feel like I have an obligation to correct the stupid (for example, that Essentials is really D&D 4.5-- that's just retarded).

Quote from: areola;385221No mention of Greyhawk as far as I know in 4e.

There's been plenty of mention of Greyhawk in 4E though in the guise that's been familiar in WotC core products since DMG 3.0 - basically, they reference iconic locales and adventure sites that people associate with Greyhawk (like, the Temple of Elemental Evil) and don't really care for the wider world these were/are part of. In a way, it's better now since nothing's changed except for WotC not pretending to cater to Greyhawk as a default campaign world and instead mentions iconic Greyhawk lore in its own right. A thing like Tenser's floating disc never made much sense in settings like Eberron or FR, but no one bats an eye these days if that sort of stuff is lifted out of its original context (i.e. original game world).

That aside, there's been a single 4E Greyhawk module, which is a revisit of T1 Village of Hommlet. I'd also argue that there is TONS of 4E Greyhawk content in "Open Grave". As is usually the case with 4E, they put a modern vision of what D&D ought to be and ought to accomplish first even when treading old grounds, so don't expect much faithful Greyhawk lore in anything these days. Like so much else, it's simply lifting names out of context to slam new content onto it. And that attitude towards Greyhawk, too, has nothing to do with 4E in specific but has been customary ever since the days of 3.0 and earlier (http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/erik-mona/1942-monas-musings-who-hell-erik-mona.html):

Quote from: Erik Mona's blog on EnworldBack then [in 1999 or earlier], Wizards had an internal message board system that allowed its hundreds of employees to discuss matters of company policy, upcoming special events, who was out sick for the day, and other administrivia. One of these folders was for discussing the drafts of the Third Edition rules currently floating around for office playtests. I had just acquired such a draft copy, and I was certain I had a suggestion that would save everyone some grief. I sat down to compose a message with my suggestion, knowing that it would be my first real introduction to the D&D design staff and indeed many of the employees of Wizards of the Coast.

The message went something like this:

"Hi! My name is Erik Mona. I’ve just been hired by the RPGA to edit Polyhedron and develop a new Living campaign for the World of Greyhawk. I was looking over the draft of the Player’s Handbook, and I noticed that in the cleric section St. Cuthbert is listed as the God of Retribution. In fact, Trithereon is Greyhawk’s god of retribution. St. Cuthbert is more known for honesty, wisdom, and zeal. Also, the chart lists Heironeous’s favored weapon as a longsword, but in fact it should be a battleaxe. I have an extensive collection of Greyhawk materials here at my desk and I’m more than happy to help out if anyone has any questions about this material as it applies to the core game."

That was it, in a nutshell. Simple. Helpful. Informative. My first formal contribution to the design of Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons. It didn’t take long for the message to make its way through the design department. Within minutes I heard Jonathan Tweet’s strained, angry voice roll over the cubicle wall:

“WHO THE HELL IS ERIK MONA?” he said, his tone dripping with disdain.

It turns out that the whole “use the Greyhawk pantheon” thing had been a huge internal fight tangentially related to the cancellation of Second Edition settings and somewhat forced on the game by management. The design team wanted to be able to change Greyhawk elements to better fit the concept of the game they were creating. You expect a paladin to use a longsword, so it doesn’t make sense to make his main weapon a non-intuitive choice like a battle axe. They only wanted so many gods. They needed a god of retribution and Trithereon was not invited to the party.

(bolded emphasis mine)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385644I only talk about 4e..because that's really the only game that matters to me at this point. Plus, I feel like I have an obligation to correct the stupid (for example, that Essentials is really D&D 4.5-- that's just retarded).

By using your own logic, I could tell you something to extent of: "you've been talking about 4e and hating on the haters for two years now. What's with the obsession exactly? Do you hate yourself?"

I mean. If you're not seeing how extreme that is, I don't know what to say. ;)

Quote from: Windjammer;385646As is usually the case with 4E, they put a modern vision of what D&D ought to be and ought to accomplish first even when treading old grounds, so don't expect much faithful Greyhawk lore in anything these days. Like so much else, it's simply lifting names out of context to slam new content onto it. And that attitude towards Greyhawk, too, has nothing to do with 4E in specific but has been customary ever since the days of 3.0 and earlier (http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/erik-mona/1942-monas-musings-who-hell-erik-mona.html).

Oh. Absolutely. It's not 4e specific, far from it.

Quote from: Benoist;385648By using your own logic, I could tell you something to extent of: "you've been talking about 4e and hating on the haters for two years now. What's with the obsession exactly? Do you hate yourself?"

I mean. If you're not seeing how extreme that is, I don't know what to say. ;)

Well, I do hate the haters. I think guys like you obsess on every single move that goes on in the industry to the point that the industry is your hobby. Believe me, I'd be happy to talk about my campaign based on a riverboat casino (http://nixie-queen.wikidot.com), or the all-drow group (http://house-of-exile.wikidot.com), or the new setting I'm about to start (http://terrible-and-true.tumblr.com). But I know it's futile to do that here. I do that elsewhere.

Here, people obsess about the wording in the catalog for companies they hate, advertising games they don't play, imagining scenarios that haven't happened. It's not by policy, it's by default.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385634The idea that it's been "wrecked" at all is ludicrous.

Reminds me of a friend. She and I went to see Shrek. After the movie, she said, "That was terrible!"

I asked, "Really? Was it really 'terrible'?"

She said, "Well, it wasn't good."

"You're right, it wasn't good. But there are really only two positions on the scale, good and terrible?"

And that's how she is. Things really either are good or terrible. There's no middle ground. No shades of gray. No continuum. Either it conforms to her expectations or it's terrible.

That's what some of the folks here remind me of - either it conforms to their expectations of D&D or Greyhawk or whatever or it's terrible.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;385633* Besides of which, my remark was about Mordenkainen specifically, extended to what TDD called "Gary's home campaign". WotC wants to wreck Greyhawk as a whole? Whatever. I don't care: it's been wrecked already.

Several of my Greyhawk grognard friends thought the Greyhawk Wars back in the early 1990's, was a complete desecration of the Greyhawk setting.  For these particular grognards, they do not consider the Greyhawk wars to be legitimate Greyhawk canon.  They also consider most of the Greyhawk modules released around the transition from 1E to 2E, to be a complete joke too.

In practice, the only Greyhawk stuff they really consider to be legitimate Greyhawk canon, is mainly stuff which was done with the direct oversight of Gary Gygax.  This roughly corresponds to pre-1984 TSR.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385651Well, I do hate the haters. I think guys like you obsess on every single move that goes on in the industry to the point that the industry is your hobby. Believe me, I'd be happy to talk about my campaign based on a riverboat casino (http://nixie-queen.wikidot.com), or the all-drow group (http://house-of-exile.wikidot.com), or the new setting I'm about to start (http://terrible-and-true.tumblr.com). But I know it's futile to do that here. I do that elsewhere.

Here, people obsess about the wording in the catalog for companies they hate, advertising games they don't play, imagining scenarios that haven't happened. It's not by policy, it's by default.

Right! :D

That's not like I'm reviewing stuff (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17320), talking about setting ideas (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17292), talking (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17399) about (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17206) other (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17351) games (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17252), or about (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17319) miniatures (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17403), or talk (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17429) so much (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17363) more (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17368) about (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17384) actual (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17317) gaming (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17316) around here.

Right now you're doing one thing, and one thing only on this forum: throw one-liners on people you perceive as "haters" and defend The Game Which Can Do No Wrong (i.e. the current edition of D&D, whatever that is). That's *it*.

Stop projecting. Focus on the beam in your eye first. You'll be happier for it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385651Here, people obsess about the wording in the catalog for companies they hate, advertising games they don't play, imagining scenarios that haven't happened. It's not by policy, it's by default.

This is human nature, and not just restricted to rpg games.

People will find any tidbits of information to justify whatever they want to believe, and discount information which is contrary.  This is better known as the "confirmation bias".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias