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

[Monte Carlo]

When 2nd Edition went to 3rd Edition there was, IIRC, completely free conversion material available if that was your thing. The sky didn't fall in.

 

Anyway, D&D has always been for collector / obsessive multi-classers. That's how WoTC and TSR before them made a buck.

 

I've not got the spare time for pen & paper gaming anymore, but when I was we all played home-brewed house rule variants that looked very little like the core rules anyway. I suspect I'm far from alone there. Last game I played was part 3E with a percentile-based combat system like RuneQuest. We used the sourcebooks for ideas rather than rules. Again, I suspect I'm far from alone there, either.

 

Just out of interest, what does this mean for the OGL? Is 4E identifiably D20 enough for the old rules to apply or will all the D20 / OGL RPGs have to go 4E too? Will OGL material now be licenced for 'puter games?

 

Cheers,

 

MC

[Monte Carlo]

^ By the way, as I hit enter I remembered the farrago that was running 1st Edition AD&D in tandem with the "New" Basic / Expert boxed sets and modules. What was that all about? Those had races as classes (I'm a third level elf) and only three alignments (neutral, chaotic and lawful) etc.

 

If there had been the internet back then we'd have been having exactly the same argument again, except in the early to mid eighties!

 

Cheers

MC

[Gromnir]

star wars/saga combat is better than d&d 3e... or 3.5 or wherever we is at now. the thing is that most of the things that is really busted with d&d for Gromnir will inevitably remain... alignment, prestige classes, growing number o' playable ecl races, excessive spells lists, etc.

 

Oh, Gromnir's already there... they are changing spells AFAIK. From what I get theere will be less spells and they'll workf per encounter. I may be wrong tho.

 

am not a fan of the warlock as a class in 3e, but the notion o' having a relative small number o' possible invocations that can be improved or customized as one levels seems like a good idea. the huge catalog o' spells is one thing that makes mages so powerful... is just no possible way to balance all possible spells and combinations o' spells and metamagic enhancements. with each new d&d supplement we gets new spells, which only seems to exacerbate the balance issues.

 

if d&d 4th moves away from huge spell lists we will be pleased, but just as d&d 3e only started with a tiny number of prestige classes, it seems inevitable that the numbers will explode... 'less they revamp and does more similar to warlock.

 

ultimately we would likes to see divine v. arcane split done away with... and abolish classes altogether, but that will have to wait for 10e we s'pose.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Avin]

Just out of interest, what does this mean for the OGL? Is 4E identifiably D20 enough for the old rules to apply or will all the D20 / OGL RPGs have to go 4E too? Will OGL material now be licenced for 'puter games?

 

"Regarding the OGL and the d20 System - both will continue to be actively supported. There WILL be a 4th Edition SRD; some publishers will get access to it early, just like with the 3 rollout." www.enworld.org

[Kaftan Barlast]

Phh, real men write their own rulesets. That way, when a player starts bitchign about some obscure rule you forgot about, you can simply instigate a new rule on the fly:

 

-He dodges behind the taxi and..

-Wait a minute, I shot him in the thigh for 12 HP didnt I? According to the movement penalty rule addition #48, there no way he could have done that.

-Really?

-Yeah, look on page 113

-Well, according to addition #49 he can.

-There is no addition #49

-Not in K.A.F.T.A.N 1.05 no.. but since last minute we have been playing 1.06 in which rule #49 exists

-You cant do that!

-International Copyright Law says I can, and unless you want to infringe on my copyright, youd better accept #49

[Sammael]

Long, long time ago, I wrote an article on changes I'd like to see in a potential 4th edition of D&D. If I recall correctly, these were some of my main points:

• Replace the 3-18 ability score range with the current ability modifier values (e.g. Str +1, Dex +2, Con -1, Int 0, Wis +1, Cha -1). Get rid of rolling for stats and make the non-weighed point buy the default rule (with -1 being the default value).
  
• Make races more meaningful and diverse.
  
• Make classes better at what they do; allow them to focus on their core abilities from level 1 (e.g. druid wild shape).
  
• Make each class unique (with as little overlapping as possible).
  
• Kill the paladin class.
  
• Make sure the cleric can do fun stuff rather than just buff/heal.
  
• Make sure a 1st level wizard doesn't have to rest after a single encounter.
  
• Streamline the skills (merge similar skills, etc).
  
• Streamline the feats (no more boring +2/+2 feats, etc).
  
• Make each weapon and armor unique, with special advantages/disadvantages.
  
• Armor as DR.
  
• Get rid of the ridiculous number of named (and unnamed) bonuses and penalties.
  
• While we're at it, get rid of the ridiculous number of buffs, and make all buffs last only for the duration of an encounter.
  
• Change the turn undead rule.
  
• Reduce the number of spells and make them "modifiable" (as per 3.5 psionics).
  
• Change metamagic rules (to go along with the previous point).
  
• Change grapple.
  
• Make characters less dependent on loot and magic items.
  
• Make magic items more meaningful.
  
• CUT DOWN ON FREAKING DM PREP TIME ALREADY.
  

I think that pretty much covers it. From what we've heard of the 4E so far, it seems that many of my wishes may be granted by the rule changes. Then again, they may screw something else up, so it's hard to say if the overall game will be better or not. We shall see.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Sammael

[Sand]

A lot of those points you make are rather meaningless.

 

First off, there is nothing wrong with the stat system as is. Sometimes having a low stat is just as role play worthy as having a high ability score. Making -1 the lowest you can go is downright stupid.

 

Also the races are very diverse and in how they are role played, and in the various campaign settings the diversity is expanded upon a great deal. Again, I don't see any need for changes there.

 

Also, when a character is at level 1 they are at the beginning of their career. It seems to me that you want 1st level characters to have the power of a 5th or 6th level character, making them even more uber than they already are. The rules system is already way to "cinematic" as it is. If there is no struggle, no chance of death, no consequence for the risks of adventuring where is the freaking challenge, the fun? As for 1st level wizards needing to rest after a single encounter, that is a load of bull. Wizards tend to be my default class I play and I can often go with 3 to 4 encounters, as a first level wizard, without resting. Its called playing smart.

[Sammael]

A lot of those points you make are rather meaningless.

Most of those points are based on my

 

1) long-term FR campaign (which is currently at session #164)

2) time spent introducing new players (ages 9-35) to the game at my FLGS

3) discussions with numerous other DMs

 

You, of course, are free to disagree.

 

First off, there is nothing wrong with the stat system as is.

Really? This is very interesting. I've introduced several dozen people of various ages to the game over the past two-three years, and, INVARIABLY, the one thing none of them could get to begin with is the difference between ability scores and ability modifiers. Because, you see, it's meaningless. Why have an arbitrary number just so you can derive another number from it?

 

Sometimes having a low stat is just as role play worthy as having a high ability score. Making -1 the lowest you can go is downright stupid.

Why is -1 more stupid than -4 (the current limitation)? Why not -5? Or -10? Care to elaborate? I can tell you that I chose -1 because I have never seen a player character with an ability score lower than 8 in any ability other than Charisma.

 

Also, when a character is at level 1 they are at the beginning of their career. It seems to me that you want 1st level characters to have the power of a 5th or 6th level character, making them even more uber than they already are. The rules system is already way to "cinematic" as it is. If there is no struggle, no chance of death, no consequence for the risks of adventuring where is the freaking challenge, the fun? As for 1st level wizards needing to rest after a single encounter, that is a load of bull. Wizards tend to be my default class I play and I can often go with 3 to 4 encounters, as a first level wizard, without resting. Its called playing smart.

Visceris, you have at least 10 (if not 15? 20?) years of experience with the game. I can tell you with 100% certainty that new players (with 2 years of experience or less), unless they are MENSA-level geniuses, get REALLY confused with the fact that their wizard can kill two kobolds and is then pretty much useless for the rest of the day, while the party fighter can drink a potion or get healing from the party cleric and just keep going... maybe you are advocating a restriction that only experienced players should be able to make wizard PCs?

 

IMO, warlock was a step in the right direction, even if its execution (and certainly its flavor) were flawed. So were the Reserve feats from Complete Mage (if slightly overpowered).

[Sand]

Most of those points are based on my

 

1) long-term FR campaign (which is currently at session #164)

2) time spent introducing new players (ages 9-35) to the game at my FLGS

3) discussions with numerous other DMs

 

You, of course, are free to disagree.

Why, thank you for giving me permission.

 

Really? This is very interesting. I've introduced several dozen people of various ages to the game over the past two-three years, and, INVARIABLY, the one thing none of them could get to begin with is the difference between ability scores and ability modifiers. Because, you see, it's meaningless. Why have an arbitrary number just so you can derive another number from it?

 

Because that is its roots. Tradition.

 

Why is -1 more stupid than -4 (the current limitation)? Why not -5? Or -10? Care to elaborate? I can tell you that I chose -1 because I have never seen a player character with an ability score lower than 8 in any ability other than Charisma.

 

That isn't how it is in my group. One of the player is playing with a Ranger/Warlock with a 6 Strength and is role playing the character quite well. Other Characters have also low ability scores such as the Bard with a low Wisdom. A true role player, not a number cruncher, can role playa low stat just as interesting and fun as a high stat.

 

Visceris, you have at least 10 (if not 15? 20?) years of experience with the game. I can tell you with 100% certainty that new players (with 2 years of experience or less), unless they are MENSA-level geniuses, get REALLY confused with the fact that their wizard can kill two kobolds and is then pretty much useless for the rest of the day, while the party fighter can drink a potion or get healing from the party cleric and just keep going... maybe you are advocating a restriction that only experienced players should be able to make wizard PCs?

 

I have 23 years experience but that is rather irrelevant. There is this little feat the wizard starts out with and it is called Scribe Scroll. After one basic encounter the wizard and with the starting money the izard has the ability to start scribing attack spells in scrolls while memorizing long lasting defense spells, such as Mage Armor which has a duration of 1 hour per level. Also at that level a wizard, with a good Dexterity, can be a mean shot with a crossbow. Hell, my 1st level Wizard in our group's Ebberron campaign has taken down 3 Warforges (1 being a 1st level barbarian, 1 being a 1st level rogue, and the last a 1st level fighter), one being in melee combat (the rogue).

 

P{layed right, Wizards are not weak and it doesn't take years of experience nor MENSA geniuses to figure that out.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Sand

[J.E. Sawyer]

Because that is its roots. Tradition.

Sweet let's go back to elves as a class, percentile strength, and only "warrior" classes gaining HP benefits from con over 16.

 

The only real argument I can accept for keeping the current spread of points is one of granularity. But I don't think having finer granularity is all that important. If there were three levels of ability score bonuses from magic, items, etc. -- 1, 2, 3 -- don't think that would be a bad thing.

 

However, I also don't see anything bad with starting characters at -3 in all stats (-4 or -2 for racially-modified ability scores) and allowing them to buy up from there to a cap of +4 (+3/+5). Alternately, everyone could start at 0, with the ability to buy up or down to those limits.

[TravisPennington]

I haven't played tabletop AD&D for a long time now (the last being 2nd Edition about 6 years ago), but I'm pretty excited about a 4'th Edition. I picked up the 3'rd Edition Players Handbook a while back and read through it, but was ultimately disappointed with how over complex a lot of it was.

 

They changed THAC0 because it "confused" new players (bleh. It was part of what made 2nd Edition so unique! ), but then proceeded to add in a lot of unnecessary crap.

 

Feats were great. Reminded me of Perks from Fallout. I liked the changes to Saving Throws. I liked the new skills system (except for how many there were - a diplomacy skill? Why can't I just roleplay it, and roll a Charisma check if necessary?).

 

I disliked what they did to Thief (Rogue). They aren't as unique as a Class as they once were.

 

And even though I was a fan of 2'nd Edition, I dislike the kind of game they tried to show D&D 3'rd Edition as being with its artwork and atmosphere. I know you can DM whatever type of campaign you wish, and that the supplements and such probably go in to the darker side of things...but bleh. I want the darker side of D&D. I want a 1'st Edition feel when I read the core rulebooks.

 

Last but not least...the combat system. I watched that Teaser Video on youtube (they could have done a little better, but it is what it is), and laughed when they got to 3'rd Edition, regarding grappling and attacks of opportunity. Much too complex.

 

I'm hoping that 4'th Edition keeps what I feel are the positive adjustments to D&D that 3'rd Edition brought in, and removes some of the complexities. Being a bit selfish here, but that's what I'm looking for.

 

EDIT: Forgot one last gripe about 3'rd Edition...all those Prestige Classes! Holy *&$(! Expand the base classes, balance them, and leave it at that. There are way too many Prestige Classes in 3E (I don't mind a few), and everyone and their mother who plays 3rd Edition seems to play one. I highly doubt 90% of the individuals who play Prestige Classes even went through the work to meet its prerequisites; they just built them. Or they had an over-generous DM who awarded them a million experience for a simple adventure.

 

I'm hoping 4E is more restrictive. Not 1E-type restrictive...but something. =P

 

Finally, in response to Mr. Sawyer regarding buying your stats...I like the idea to an extent (I believe that base stats such as STR and DEX should be able to be raised), but not in the way you're suggesting. It makes no sense for someone to automatically be able to simply raise their Dexterity because they leveled and gained points. Unless it's by magical means such as a Wish spell, those kinds of abilities should have a natural growth and progression. I know I was just whining about overcomplexities earlier in this post, but it just doesn't make any sense to me that a Wizard can raise his Strength when he levels when he's been sitting in the back casting spells in his light weight robes the whole time. For a Computer RPG, something like that would be fine, but tabletop D&D has always been more realistic than those. Unless of course somethings changed the past half-decade that I'm unaware of.

 

Oh, you know what, I just re-read and I think you were referring to character creation? Yeah, I'm totally with you on that. Buying stats with set points instead of rolling for them. There should still be some sort of rolling involved to designate a potential bonus, though. Something simple that would give you the kind of delight you used to get when you rolled 3 6's for an 18. :D

Edited August 18, 2007 by TravisPennington

[steelfiredragon]

after going through some of the you tube(ular) videos.

i have come to the conclusion, that they wewre right on one thing.

back in nwn1 there was no difference between my elven ranger and my dwarven fighter/defender.

feat wise they were about the same.

ac was about the same.

no real difference.

im quite interested to know more on the racial feats.

[TravisPennington]

Yeah, I read through the changes that were posted (I had not before my first post). Instead of an Axe Master Prestige Class (example)...you'll just pick feats in that direction. Feats atop of feats atop of feats. It's the same thing, masked under a veil, to sell more books and make $$$.

 

Level 1 Characters seem to get more and more powerful as D&D continues to be updated. It's to appease the whiners who want to start off as gods. Brings me back to my whole Prestige Classes rant...the classes everybody seems to play...in the mid 20's of levels.

 

I bet you could take 99% of the 3.5 Edition Gaming Community and throw them into the classic Temple of Elemental Evil module, with 1'st Edition Rules, and they'd never survive, no matter how many attempts they made.

 

I realize why WotC are doing this. You can't sell books and make money if you cant appeal the mainstream. But it just makes D&D less and less hardcore, less and less based on roleplaying of any form (roll diplomacy and DC!). They might as well just turn it in to a flat out boardgame. Something like Clue. The game is just way too easy these days.

[steelfiredragon]

and 2nd edition goofed by making the paladin class restricted to humans.

and some now still believe that the paladin should of been a prestige class.

well as far as all the prcs, your right there are to many of them andsome of them are absolutely garbage, and carry a bit of design flaws.

and some just stereotype characters.

some ofthem need to go, some of them id like to see in 4.0( the bladesinger, frostmage, elemental savant, highmage and champion of corellon larethian just to name a few) some others i can do with out ever seeing or hearing of ever again.

 

 

while i can see some people's arguments on somethings, ill disagree with people on others.

[Tale]

I don't know how Sammael can say the current (pre-4th edition) stat system is meaningless and arbitrary. Check out any of the JRPGs. Those have meaningless and arbitrary stat systems. When a character's stats are 100x higher than they previously were, they're doing 1000x the damage, and the character is supposedly only slightly stronger than he was before, then it's arbitrary.

 

The D&D stat system appears incredibly meaningful. And I'm not saying that simply by comparison.

 

Forgot one last gripe about 3'rd Edition...all those Prestige Classes! Holy *&$(! Expand the base classes, balance them, and leave it at that. There are way too many Prestige Classes in 3E (I don't mind a few), and everyone and their mother who plays 3rd Edition seems to play one. I highly doubt 90% of the individuals who play Prestige Classes even went through the work to meet its prerequisites; they just built them. Or they had an over-generous DM who awarded them a million experience for a simple adventure.

 

I love Prestige Classes. I just think they're abused. Maybe they were introduced poorly. Maybe enough emphasis was not put out that these are not meant for everyone. But, it's probably largely the schism between people who want to roleplay and those who are just gathering to kill imaginary things. One doesn't see how he can join some order of wizards he's never met before, the other just sees that he gets a nice new ability that lets him kill even more goblins.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Tale

[Gromnir]

"Yeah, I read through the changes that were posted (I had not before my first post). Instead of an Axe Master Prestige Class (example)...you'll just pick feats in that direction. Feats atop of feats atop of feats. It's the same thing, masked under a veil, to sell more books and make $$$."

 

'cause of pre-reqs, two players who wanna take red wizard prc is gonna have very similar character builds... prcs actually decrease customization as 'posed to a relative free feat choice format. end up with same old kit nonsense of past.

 

...

 

'course this raises another issue: all feats is not created equal. sean k. at least tried to come up with a system for giving some kinda cost range for feats, no? the more d&d depends on feat allocation for customization, the greater attention wotc must devote to making sure feats is better balanced.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[J.E. Sawyer]

Yeah, I read through the changes that were posted (I had not before my first post). Instead of an Axe Master Prestige Class (example)...you'll just pick feats in that direction. Feats atop of feats atop of feats. It's the same thing, masked under a veil, to sell more books and make $$$.

All of that stuff should have just been feats to begin with.

 

Level 1 Characters seem to get more and more powerful as D&D continues to be updated. It's to appease the whiners who want to start off as gods.

The rules have always made low-level D&D characters feel terrible, even in 3E. I've never wanted my characters to feel like gods, but being able to survive an unlucky crit from an orcish axe at 1st level would be nice. The ToEE CRPG proved just how terrible low-level D&D characters feel (in case anyone forgot slugging through The Slums in Pool of Radiance). You whiff constantly and get blasted into nothingness with one or two unlucky die rolls. At 3rd or 4th level, you finally start to feel like you have a healthy amount of control over your success or failure.

 

I bet you could take 99% of the 3.5 Edition Gaming Community and throw them into the classic Temple of Elemental Evil module, with 1'st Edition Rules, and they'd never survive, no matter how many attempts they made.

ToEE, like Tomb of Horrors, sucker punches players constantly. You could put junk like the "werewolf/angel mirror" in any edition of D&D and it would be just as bad.

 

I realize why WotC are doing this. You can't sell books and make money if you cant appeal the mainstream. But it just makes D&D less and less hardcore, less and less based on roleplaying of any form (roll diplomacy and DC!). They might as well just turn it in to a flat out boardgame. Something like Clue. The game is just way too easy these days.

All tabletop games are as easy as the DM/GM makes them. I slaughtered just as many (if not more) players in my 3E campaigns as I did in my 2nd Ed. and 1st Ed. games.

[TravisPennington]

I'll agree that low level characters in D&D are terrible. I've been in more adventures than not where battles consist of 10 minutes of misses (in real time) without anything happening. That was more of a problem with THAC0 being entirely too harsh, in my opinion. There were tables in the 1E DMG designating your weapons bonuses, or minuses, for hitting a certain AC type however, and that did help out a bit. It was a pain in the ass to have to keep referring to the charts though.

 

And yeah, a lot of those old modules are very unforgiving. I didn't mention Tomb of Horrors, because its traps defy any and all human logic. I consider it to be a hilarious and fun challenge though.

 

I don't disagree with all changes that have been made to D&D over the years. I feel a lot of them are positive. But the system as a whole feels too powerful, to me, and overly complex in some areas. I hate combat in 3'rd Edition with a passion. I love feats, I really do, but it's annoying to have to refer to charts and a tier hierarchy for your character everytime you want to select a feat. I always found selecting spells as a Magic-User (Mage, Wizard) to be an annoyance more than anything, and selecting Feats is done in a very similar way. Further complexity of feats in 4E (that's what it sounds like to me at the moment) makes me feel a little dissapointed. The skills system too is ridiculously complex. Not because it in itself is difficult to understand. There's just way too many skills. I haven't read anything about skills and how they'll work in 4E though, so forgive me if I'm assuming it's going to get worse.

 

I guess I'm looking for complexity in some areas, and simplicity in others. I'm being picky and selfish, but that's what I like.

 

And well...I'm pretty sure you're a very experienced DM and hardcore D&Der, Josh. I'm sure your regular groups of players don't have Level 30 Prestige Classes either. You probably do give your players a challenge. They probably die quite a bit. That's one major difference between a good DM, and a bad one. But I don't think the majority of DM's and players are like that.

 

Everytime I meet a new person who's in to D&D, they just seem to be the individuals who have everything hand fed to them. Or they DM for their regulars, and are overly generous. Its next to impossible for me to find anyone these days who plays D&D with any kind of challenge.

 

Not that I'm claiming to be some end all, be all, god of D&D. I'm not at all (maybe a poor player, infact), and aren't trying to suggest that in any way. I just feel 1E and 2E are more exciting, overall. 3E just gives off an "easy mode" vibe to me, I guess.

[Sand]

The rules have always made low-level D&D characters feel terrible, even in 3E. I've never wanted my characters to feel like gods, but being able to survive an unlucky crit from an orcish axe at 1st level would be nice. The ToEE CRPG proved just how terrible low-level D&D characters feel (in case anyone forgot slugging through The Slums in Pool of Radiance). You whiff constantly and get blasted into nothingness with one or two unlucky die rolls. At 3rd or 4th level, you finally start to feel like you have a healthy amount of control over your success or failure.

 

Gee, who would have guessed adventuring being... DANGEROUS!

 

[Tigranes]

There's a difference between fun danger and stupid danger. I don't agree that you need to get to 3rd or 4th level to feel 'safe', dependent on the creativity of the players and the DM, but it can be very frustrating to be first level for new players I suppose.

[Sand]

There's a difference between fun danger and stupid danger. I don't agree that you need to get to 3rd or 4th level to feel 'safe', dependent on the creativity of the players and the DM, but it can be very frustrating to be first level for new players I suppose.

 

If you play smart any class is viable at 1st level, but for inexperienced players I always suggest playing fighter. They are straight forward and easiest to get the game mechanics down. However, keeping the kidgloves on permanently does no one any good, and ultimately not fun. If there is no chance for failure, no chance for death, then what is the point of succeeding?

[Gromnir]

There's a difference between fun danger and stupid danger. I don't agree that you need to get to 3rd or 4th level to feel 'safe', dependent on the creativity of the players and the DM, but it can be very frustrating to be first level for new players I suppose.

 

not matter how smarty or careful you is at level 1-3; you can die... fast... 'less the dm cheats, and all dms cheat to help keep d&d 3e characters alive until 3-4th level. spell casters has almost no spells, and other characters is also limited in their repertoire o' combat abilities. those means to protect self from insta-kills that is available to higher level players is not an option for 1-3. if you enter combat (and d&d is a squad-based tactical combat simulator, so combat is almost inevitable,) then critical hits 'n such make for pretty common insta-death nonsense.

 

d&d at high levels is equally terrible. might as well throw 'way the dice. look at character record sheets and at a glance you can predict outcomes of virtually any encounter... pretty much all combat outcomes is predetermined.

 

4-12 is d&d sweet spot.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sand]

Well, being 1st level wizard in the current campaign I am in I often went into melee. At that low of level having a +0 BAB is not that big of a deal and with having both Shield and Mage Armor up I had the best AC in the party at 20. So my 6 hit point AC 20 Wizard moves into flank against a Warforged Barbarin and bashed in its chest cavity with his quarterstaff is just a random roll of the die. It could have meant the end of my character if I missed and the warforged barbarian criticalled with her (female personality) battle axe. That would be the end of my wizard, and I accept that. That is the danger of being an adventurer. If you cannot accept the possibility of death of your character then you shouldn't be playing the game.

 

Adventurers die, messily. Just make a new character and stop whining.

[Gromnir]

Well, being 1st level wizard in the current campaign I am in I often went into melee. At that low of level having a +0 BAB is not that big of a deal and with having both Shield and Mage Armor up I had the best AC in the party at 20. So my 6 hit point AC 20 Wizard moves into flank against a Warforged Barbarin and bashed in its chest cavity with his quarterstaff is just a random roll of the die. It could have meant the end of my character if I missed and the warforged barbarian criticalled with her (female personality) battle axe. That would be the end of my wizard, and I accept that. That is the danger of being an adventurer. If you cannot accept the possibility of death of your character then you shouldn't be playing the game.

 

Adventurers die, messily. Just make a new character and stop whining.

 

 

you is not being rational. surprise!

 

most weapons critical on a 20... some on a 19 and 20. every melee attack from a lowly goblin with a spear carries with it a 5% o' insta-kill? a dm creates 4 encounters with 3-4 goblins and you almost guarantee that somebody in sand's party is gonna die.

 

...

 

gets annoying for everybody when rolling up a new character becomes a forgone conclusion for 1-2 people during each session... regardless of how smart they play... which is why all 3e d&d dms cheat.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sand]

you is not being rational. surprise!

 

most weapons critical on a 20... some on a 19 and 20. every melee attack from a lowly goblin with a spear carries with it a 5% o' insta-kill? a dm creates 4 encounters with 3-4 goblins and you almost guarantee that somebody in sand's party is gonna die.

 

...

 

gets annoying for everybody when rolling up a new character becomes a forgone conclusion for 1-2 people during each session... regardless of how smart they play... which is why all 3e d&d dms cheat.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Insta-kill? You are just being idiotic, Gromnir. Okay, lets say you have a Wizard with 4 hit points and a goblin with a spear. A goblin is a small creature with a Strength of 11. So, the maximum damage a small goblin can do with the basic spear with a 5% chance of critically is 18 hit points. Now that is indeed a insta kill but a Wizard would not to go into melee if he or she didn't have the right protection spells up and the chances of a goblin critical hitting and doing maximum damage. Doing average damage, that being 12 points, the Wizard would still be alive, but unconscious or bleeding to death with enough time for his or her companions to staunch the wound.

 

Again, adventuring is DANGEROUS.

 

The DM in our group does not cheat. In fact he can be downright viscious, as he should be. The party as a whole do not go into melee all that much. Instead we use range weapons, and guerrila tactics against our foes. Hit and fade attacks, harrassing the enemies, picking off weaker targets first, and that sort of thing. Its called USING STRATEGY! In fact in one encounter we had a elemental driven cart that kept us exactly 100 feet away from a corpse crab, a powerful beastie that would have easily killed us if we went into melee. We had bows and crossbows and we took it down, with only 3 of us taking hits from poison barbs, and only one of us actually succumbed to the poison, taking damage to his Dexterity.

 

Yes, in every other encounter or so one of the PCs goes down, bleeding or unconscious and we do the responsible thing and caste a quick cure minor, or do a heal check. Nearly everyone in the group has at least one rank in Heal, my wizard has 2. This keeps people from dying, in case you don't know.

 

it seems to me that you guys just want to get rid of the danger, to have your adventurers be a bunch of pansies. Where is the fun in that?

Edited August 21, 2007 by Sand