Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is on the way...

[Dark_Raven]

Mission Impossible!

[Joseph Bulock]

Joe, they are taking away the threat of death when it comes to adventuring. They want it to make it that the PCs simply do not die regardless the risks they take by making them basically super heroes while every foe around them are peons. I don't see the fun in that.

 

I don't think the threat of death is gone. It still sounds very easy to pose a threat to the players that is just too big for them. It does however decrease the occurance of single unlucky roles ending either really cool encounters or killing player characters. Both of those are things that, as a DM, I do not like, and as a player, I hate. If a DM wants to give the player a challenge that's a sure death, that shouldn't be too hard, but having a goblin get lucky and murder my second level character shouldn't happen unless I've already made a few mistakes. I'm all for having a mob of goblins kill off a character.

 

Also, I think a lot of the "death" concerns can't really be fully rationalized until we find out how death works, if it's at 0 hp, -10 hp, and if its the latter, if and how stabilization and healing work.

[Sand]

Lucky (or unlucky) strikes happen in combat. May it be on the table top or in real life. Take that away from the game and you take away the uncertainty factor when it comes with adventuring. Even goblins should get lucky sometimes.

[Humodour]

Lucky (or unlucky) strikes happen in combat. May it be on the table top or in real life. Take that away from the game and you take away the uncertainty factor when it comes with adventuring. Even goblins should get lucky sometimes.

 

It's true for games like Fallout because you can reload. But P&P is different.

 

But I agree "even goblins should get lucky sometime" and if they're going to try and smooth out critical hits, I think they should also smooth out the hit point gap between high and low levels; preferably in favour of lower/medium hitpoints being standard for both enemies and the player.

[Cantousent]

I personally disagree with any decision to lower the hit point pool. I don't want to increase character mortality at low levels any more than I want to decrease it at high levels. While some folks might think it's the bomb, the iron-man idea doesn't hold broad appeal. ...Or, if it does, the trends in PnP and even computer gaming seem at ods with the idea. Mid level DnD is DnD at its best. Lowering the hit point pool to the current range from 1 to 3 is going to mean a lot more death, which makes DnD more of a game of creating characters than actual playing.

 

The real clincher is this: "Lucky (or unlucky) strikes happen in combat. May it be on the table top or in real life. Take that away from the game and you take away the uncertainty factor when it comes with adventuring. Even goblins should get lucky sometimes." Of course, I agree with the statement on its face. I even agree with it as a general rule. However, it's not as important that the goblins be lucky as it is for the characters to be lucky. The goblins are a tool that the DM uses to make the game entertaining for the players. The characters are the tools the players use to play the game. So, yeah the players need to see that the goblins are lucky and the goblins should have a few breaks, but the most important thing is that the players get to play their characters and have fun. Challenge exists in a game to facilitate fun and create a sense of accomplishment. Challenge, in and of itself and for itself is of no use at all outside of the entertainment value to the players. So, make the game challenging, but don't worry about making sure the goblins are just as lucky as the characters. It's not about fair. It's about fun.

 

Since, regardless of your protestations, you appear to be more of a PnP theorist than player, Sand, I'm not surprised that you feel the way you do about these things. I have very little doubt you spend more time contemplating character builds than playing them. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my take nonetheless.

[Sand]

I have been a player and DM of Dungeons and Dragons (in its many versions) for over 25 years, Cant. Though I do contemplate character builds, especially when I am bored at work, I do play the game. I am currently in a Eberron campaign, which is going quite well and has been quite challenging. I am playing a fighter (2)/wizard (5) which I am building to craft and dual wield wands. Imagine unleashing 2 fireballs in a given round at once.

 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

 

The feat progression is:

Two Weapon Fighting (PHB)

Craft Wand (PHB)

Double Wand Wielder (CA)

Wand Mastery (ECS)

Reckless Wand Wielder (CA)

Wandstrike (CA)

Edited January 8, 2008 by Sand

[Spider]

Or, if it does, the trends in PnP and even computer gaming seem at ods with the idea.

 

I've just got to point out that trends in D&D is not the same as trends in PnP in general. Outside of D&D I find it quite rare for the players to have more hitpoints than Elephants.

 

But it all depends on your preference. I'm drawn to a different style of game, so what trends are present is a lot different to me.

 

(of course, we're currently mostly playing Exalted 1ed, where a character that truly wants it can probably be tougher than an elephant, although that means sacrificing a lot of offensive power in the process)

[Cantousent]

You know, I was going to argue with you, then I realized I hadn't really spent much time shopping PnP games lately. There are games that want to be "realistic" and provide rules that make single hit deaths against the PC are likely. That's fine, as long as you can find a group of players who like such deaths. It's easier for the DM to make a module too tough than to make it too easy and both are much harder than making it challenging and fun. Single hit deaths against first level characters are so common, if the DM applies the rules exactly as written, that any single encounter is likely to be a bloodbath. Multiply that same encounter multiple times and you're pretty much assured of several character deaths, especially with beginners.

 

As far as hit points, I don't mind a decrease from the upper levels. The characters don't need to have more hit points than elephants. What the characters need is a game where death depends more on decisions than on a single lucky die roll. Permanently giving characters the hit point equivalent of 1-3 level characters, with the other rules in place, means a lot more dying or a lot less combat.

[Joseph Bulock]

Lucky (or unlucky) strikes happen in combat. May it be on the table top or in real life. Take that away from the game and you take away the uncertainty factor when it comes with adventuring. Even goblins should get lucky sometimes.

 

Just for the record, I do think goblins should get lucky. I just don't think it should have a chance to be an instant death when they do.

[Sand]

Well, given that a typical goblin does about 12 points of damage with a crit when using a morningstar or 8 points of damage when using a javelin, with a 1 and 20 chance of having a critical threat, then needing to hit the AC with their low BAB I don't see how it would be instant death for most PCs. Even a Wizard or Sorcerer with no Constitution bonus would not be instantly killed by a critical from a goblin.

[Reinoc]

Your first level wizard has more than 12 HP? Or do you mean that he would not be instantly killed since the goblin has to roll the confirmation?

[Sand]

Instantly killed.

 

Using my wizard as an example, he has a 14 Constitution and thusly 6 hit points at 1st level. Even with the goblin critical hitting and doing max damage my wizard would only be at -6, thusly still alive. Next round I would use an action point to automatically stabilize, and no doubt the fighter of our group would smack the goblin dead.

[Tigranes]

Or maybe the fighter misses the roll and the goblin smacks you dead immediately after.

 

Or the goblin has already gotten one normal hit on you, and now it's a crit.

 

I can think of many 'dead in two/three hits' scenarios for D&D.

 

edit: I'm not really arguing against your POV though Sand - to be honest I think its just up to the DM. The DM can roll out nerfed goblins or fudged dice rolls early game, or, if 4th Ed becomes too easy, the DM can set some house rules and step it up a bit. Otherwise we would never be able to satisfy both you and the total casual beginner who doesn't want to spend his first session rolling up five new characters.

[Joseph Bulock]

Instantly killed.

 

Using my wizard as an example, he has a 14 Constitution and thusly 6 hit points at 1st level. Even with the goblin critical hitting and doing max damage my wizard would only be at -6, thusly still alive. Next round I would use an action point to automatically stabilize, and no doubt the fighter of our group would smack the goblin dead.

 

Give the goblin an axe and you're back to square one.

 

Even your example has you out of the battle, which doesn't really add any fun to the situation.

 

I'm not going to pretend that I'll convince you of anything. I understand that the threat of death is really important to you. My point is that I'd rather only have my players threatened when I want them threatened, and have encounters that can only go horribly wrong over a few turns, not on a single action. That's just my deal.

[Sand]

This sort of thing is one of the many reasons why I am not going to get 4e and why I am sticking to 3.5e. I just think that the chaotic nature of combat should be unpredictable and make allowances for lucky strikes that can bring about an unforeseen character death. Such is the dangers of being an adventurer. Overcoming such dangers, even by the skin of the teeth, is what makes the game fun for me. WotC is taking that fun away with 4e.

[Humodour]

This sort of thing is one of the many reasons why I am not going to get 4e and why I am sticking to 3.5e.

 

Yep, nobody's taking that option away from you - so don't take the option of 4e away from others.

[Sand]

You don't need a new edition to make characters uber powerful. Just play a monty haul campaign and go against enemies 5 CR levels behind. There's your 4e.

[Humodour]

You don't need a new edition to make characters uber powerful. Just play a monty haul campaign and go against enemies 5 CR levels behind. There's your 4e.

 

It's nothing to do with making characters more powerful.

[Sand]

Yes it is.

 

Magic Missile, at will, unlimited times a day. When you go up in levels that becomes Fireball, at will, unlimited times a day. Whoa, when you become really high level... Wish, at will, unlimited times per day. Yeah, that isn't making characters more powerful. REALLY!

 

Oh, don't forget your wand +6!

Edited January 9, 2008 by Sand

[Humodour]

I enjoy whinging about change.

 

Just because 4e isn't like the editions before it does not suddenly make it about being "super powerful".

 

Stop looking at 4e from a 3e framework. It isn't 3e - understand? If you want 3e, go play 3e. This is not 3e, because 3e already exists. Don't buy 4e expecting 3e, because 4e is 4e, not 3e. Don't complain about 4e not being 3e, because 4e is not 3e.

[Gfted1]

Er, thats exactly what he said 7 posts ago. You know, the one you quoted.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Gfted1

[Sand]

Krezy, what I am saying is that 4e is not needed. There is no good reason to reinvent the wheel. There is an old saying that needs to applied here. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Dungeons and Dragons 3.5e is not broken. It works and it gets the job done very very very well. There is no need for a DnD 4e. Its been only a few short years since the last edition release of 3.5e. 4e is nothing but a money grab for WotC. They cannot think of anything new so they are trying to rehash what's there, add in a few worthless bells and whistles, make characters more uber, and throw it out for the public.

 

No real innovation.

Nothing new or improved.

Just the same old crap in a different form.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Sand

[Joseph Bulock]

Krezy, what I am saying is that 4e is not needed. There is no good reason to reinvent the wheel. There is an old saying that needs to applied here. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Dungeons and Dragons 3.5e is not broken. It works and it gets the job done very very very well. There is no need for a DnD 4e. Its been only a few short years since the last edition release of 3.5e. 4e is nothing but a money grab for WotC. They cannot think of anything new so they are trying to rehash what's there, add in a few worthless bells and whistles, make characters more uber, and throw it out for the public.

 

No real innovation.

Nothing new or improved.

Just the same old crap in a different form.

 

This is a really oblivious post. You don't have to like it, but to say that they aren't making significatn changes is silly. On whether or not 3.5 is broken, I'm not gonig to start on that one, mainly becuase I don't have a thick enough fire proof suit for that one. All I'll say is that 4th edition seems very much due to me, and I can't wait to give it a shot.

[Sand]

Oh, they are making significant changes but they are making changes for the sake of making changes and not really improving the game.

[Joseph Bulock]