Would you allow this to work in your game?

[Relaxo]

shadoes wrote:
Certainly I would allow it..but it would not be easy and most likely you would only meet with a varying degree of success.

Oh yeah... never a bad idea to add that. hte more you beat the target by on your roll, the better the results. a cool twist (totally on the fly and not RAW, but more thrilling IMO)

[mgtremaine]

I tend to approach things as a story, with long plot lines. So a TPK is never a good thing to me and I would hope to hell that a player would come up with a move like this just so I could allow it and save the poor over matched party. But hey to each his own. If that move became the standard then of course something horrible would have to happen the character later on but bonus points for saving the parties bacon in the first place.

-Mike

[Secret Skeleton]

I sometimes give my players Bullshit points for just such an occasion. Like running up the tail and onto the back of a dinosaur or something.

They can only be used for bullshitting your way through a situation. They can only be obtained through bribery, such as picking up the pencils or paying for a map to be laminated.

I also pass out gift certificates at the end of a campaign.

Usually I give the players A: 20 Session Campaign of their choosing for me to run; B: Maximum results for one dice roll per session, C: One miracle per campaign, D: One free re-roll per session.

[DaveyB]

Yeah, I figured as much. I'm not totally crazy then. I like the one reply from the other board that since my cleric took the "pacifist healing" feat which makes him a better healer but weakens him if damaging a "bloodied" enemy (1/2 HP loss), then that means that my guy wouldn't attack anything, EVAR! I'm just supposed to stand there and buff or turn around with my fingers in my ears while I ignore the screams of agony and anguish while my buddies get turned into a grease stain on the ground.....I guess I'm playing the game "wrong".....

[Secret Skeleton]

If you are a pacifist, then you do not engage in violence in order to settle a dispute. A pacifist could never adventure in 4E, as all there is to do is be violent.

I played a pacifist cleric in 1st ed years ago. How I fought was by healing my allies and lowering the morale of enemies through use of my high Charisma. We drove off more enemies than we actually killed. It was pretty cool.

4E lost its legitimacy to me for good when I watched an RPGA table at my local gamestore finish an adventure and then decide to run it again for the "drops."

Just photoshop your own power cards.

[Maliki]

Buttmonkey wrote:
I think both sides have legitimate points. The "correct" answer depends on each DM, I think. Personally, what you are attempting to do is akin to a called shot, something I as a DM normally don't allow since the abstract combat system in D&D/C&C assumes the character is already attempting to get in the best shot possible. Allowing for called shots upsets that abstract system. On the other hand, your point is well taken about expecting more than 1d4 damage to result from a dagger to the eye. D&D/C&C don't use exploding dice, so there's no mechanism for that kind of wound unless the DM has incorporated a critical hit system (like double damage on a natural 20 to hit roll). I use a basic critical hit system, so I think I've already factored in "daggers to the eye" into the abstract combat system.

I think under the rules, it's up to each DM to decide how abstract combat is and to what extent combat tactics like you describe are allowed. A DM could take either side of this completely reasonably.

That said, as a DM I would be open to allowing "go ahead and roll" for non-attacking combat tactics. For example, let's say a player wants to throw a towel over a monster's head to blind/distract it. That sort of tactic is definitely not subsumed by D&D's abstract combat system, so I would encourage and allow that type of out-of-the-box play. My restrictions would be against damaging attacks that try to get around the abstract combat system. From a certain point of view, that can be seen as power-gaming (trying to manipulate your way around the rules to gain an advantage that is not supposed to exist under the rules). I guess I'm rambling at this point. The answer is the DM is always right.

I agree, (ramble or not ), due to the abstract nature of combat, I would not allow something that allowed an instant kill/blindness etc. For me that doesn't fit with the abstract nature of combat. Other "outside the box" ideas (like the towel over the head and such) would be allowed, no problem.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[Buttmonkey]

Maliki wrote:
I agree, (ramble or not ), due to the abstract nature of combat, I would not allow something that allowed an instant kill/blindness etc. For me that doesn't fit with the abstract nature of combat. Other "outside the box" ideas (like the towel over the head and such) would be allowed, no problem.

Finally, someone recognizes my genius!

[DaveyB]

Secret Skeleton wrote:
If you are a pacifist, then you do not engage in violence in order to settle a dispute. A pacifist could never adventure in 4E, as all there is to do is be violent.

I played a pacifist cleric in 1st ed years ago. How I fought was by healing my allies and lowering the morale of enemies through use of my high Charisma. We drove off more enemies than we actually killed. It was pretty cool.

4E lost its legitimacy to me for good when I watched an RPGA table at my local gamestore finish an adventure and then decide to run it again for the "drops."

Just photoshop your own power cards.

Ahh the irony then that no matter how you try to build a cleric in 4e, even a "pacifist", you have to take a power that deals damage. There isn't an option to NOT deal damage of some type.

We had our usual game last night and good lordy, 4 hours managed to net us 2 encounters (combats) and 1 skill challenge. I think the DM running isn't that experienced because he instead of trying to make the skill challenge natural and seamless, he pretty much said "Okay, you're in a skill challenge....X successes before Y failures...." The combat were the real killers though. Uninteresting (except for the last one which included a trap, even though for some reason nobody decided to search for traps down a long corridor even though I suggested it....) and totally by the book snore-fest. For people who have supposedly grown up playing earlier versions, you'd never know considering how they just spam power cards and use no imaginative thinking. Oh well....don't want to beat a dead horse....

[Lord Dynel]

Secret Skeleton wrote:
4E lost its legitimacy to me for good when I watched an RPGA table at my local gamestore finish an adventure and then decide to run it again for the "drops."

DaveyB wrote:
We had our usual game last night and good lordy, 4 hours managed to net us 2 encounters (combats) and 1 skill challenge. I think the DM running isn't that experienced because he instead of trying to make the skill challenge natural and seamless, he pretty much said "Okay, you're in a skill challenge....X successes before Y failures...." The combat were the real killers though. Uninteresting (except for the last one which included a trap, even though for some reason nobody decided to search for traps down a long corridor even though I suggested it....) and totally by the book snore-fest. For people who have supposedly grown up playing earlier versions, you'd never know considering how they just spam power cards and use no imaginative thinking.

Wow...I just can't believe, after all this time, anyone who's goal is to sit down and roleplay would actually consider this fun. Eye of the beholder and all, I suppose. I'm not trying to pile on 4e, but damn, that stuff's just wrong.

That's why I'm loving some C&C. Even though this kind of trend started with 3e, I never played it that way. Combat was a focus of some games, sure. But even in those games, there was probably 30% roleplaying. 3e started the "rule for everything" trend and at first it was fascinating. It wasn't until later that I realized that a rule for everything was a "not so good" thing. It wasn't horrible, but if you ever wanted to "wing it" you were reminded that you were doing it wrong. I had to make sure my players understood that sometimes things don't fall into place all nice and neat, as the rules may suggest. 4e, and the spamming of power cards, and skill challenges (as opposed to role-playing it out) seemed to take role playing a couple of steps in the wrong direction. Funny thing is, I hear people defend this by saying, "you can easily role-play in 4e," but when they follow the book religiously it doesn't seem to work that way. I don't know.

I usually let a mundane task succeed. When the situation is a little cloudy, I'll roll (or have the PC roll). If the task won't succeed (assuming I know beforehand) I'll still have a roll. I never dissuade and I never say no.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[DaveyB]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Wow...I just can't believe, after all this time, anyone who's goal is to sit down and roleplay would actually consider this fun. Eye of the beholder and all, I suppose. I'm not trying to pile on 4e, but damn, that stuff's just wrong.

That's why I'm loving some C&C. Even though this kind of trend started with 3e, I never played it that way. Combat was a focus of some games, sure. But even in those games, there was probably 30% roleplaying. 3e started the "rule for everything" trend and at first it was fascinating. It wasn't until later that I realized that a rule for everything was a "not so good" thing. It wasn't horrible, but if you ever wanted to "wing it" you were reminded that you were doing it wrong. I had to make sure my players understood that sometimes things don't fall into place all nice and neat, as the rules may suggest. 4e, and the spamming of power cards, and skill challenges (as opposed to role-playing it out) seemed to take role playing a couple of steps in the wrong direction. Funny thing is, I hear people defend this by saying, "you can easily role-play in 4e," but when they follow the book religiously it doesn't seem to work that way. I don't know.

I usually let a mundane task succeed. When the situation is a little cloudy, I'll roll (or have the PC roll). If the task won't succeed (assuming I know beforehand) I'll still have a roll. I never dissuade and I never say no.

To be sure, you can run 4th mostly like older editions, as it does away (mostly) with a "rule for everything", but where 4e fundamentally falls apart is that outside the rules thinking in vastly inferior to the defined set of actions (all in the name of "balance") that you can pull off via powers. Some mundane actions are even hard-coded into the powers, such as the Rogue's "Sand in the Eyes" power. Why is that the purview of the rogue class but not a desperate fighter, ranger, etc.? Now there's nothing stating that, as a fighter, you can't try and throw sand in someone's eyes, but the Rogue's ability is so much better that why would the fighter want to try? Why is it that the fighter gets a "disarm" power, but there is no general "disarm" rule?

It's my belief that 4e engenders a certain way of play after you've played it a while. I've even found myself slipping into the lull of worrying about nothing but what the next cool power is that I can get, rather than roleplaying my character. With the total lack of fluff in the core rulebooks and total focus on all powers dealing damage in combat, there's a definite disconnect from cooperative storytelling and more of a shift towards a tactical combat game with a plot. Just my opinion though.

[Secret Skeleton]

My 4E gripe is that the abstraction of powers in role-playing. What kind of world is it where everyone can do all those incredible things? How do you live your daily life as a bard who can generate a burst of sound capable of killing? When you are talking or just tinkering around do these powers just go away? Can you use an at-will fire attack to melt the ice caps? Is it possible to become imprisoned at all with the ability to endlessly perform energy-based attacks?

Where do the powers come from? Does everyone have magical powers?

In my opinion its designed to make you buy as much as possible while reducing the need for parts they make no money on like character sheets and pencils.

I understand their need to make money, but don't piss on my back and call it rain.

[DaveyB]

Secret Skeleton wrote:
My 4E gripe is that the abstraction of powers in role-playing. What kind of world is it where everyone can do all those incredible things? How do you live your daily life as a bard who can generate a burst of sound capable of killing? When you are talking or just tinkering around do these powers just go away? Can you use an at-will fire attack to melt the ice caps? Is it possible to become imprisoned at all with the ability to endlessly perform energy-based attacks?

There is brief mention of using powers for other things besides combat, but why would one waste a daily power to do something mundane when they can't use it again until they take an extended rest......

Quote:
Where do the powers come from? Does everyone have magical powers?

Fighters /etc. use the "martial" power source which supposedly represents years of studied practice, battle, etc.

M-Us use the "arcane" power source which is granted via studies of arcane writings, etc.

Clerics get their "divine" power source through "rites of investure"....NOT from their deity.

Barbarians/etc. get their "primal" power source from nature and the primal spirits.

Psions obviously get their "psionic" power source from within.

Quote:
In my opinion its designed to make you buy as much as possible while reducing the need for parts they make no money on like character sheets and pencils.

It does have a CCG aspect to it in that there is always that next book (i.e.-booster pack) around the corner with "better!" powers in it, giving one incentive to buy it. Otherwise, one could just get an Insider subscription and do away with all but the core books altogether. Granted it's an ongoing, yearly expense, but I can't imagine playing 4e without the character builder app; and the compendium is pretty darn handy.

[Secret Skeleton]

DaveyB wrote:
There is brief mention of using powers for other things besides combat, but why would one waste a daily power to do something mundane when they can't use it again until they take an extended rest......



Fighters /etc. use the "martial" power source which supposedly represents years of studied practice, battle, etc.

M-Us use the "arcane" power source which is granted via studies of arcane writings, etc.

Clerics get their "divine" power source through "rites of investure"....NOT from their deity.

Barbarians/etc. get their "primal" power source from nature and the primal spirits.

Psions obviously get their "psionic" power source from within.



It does have a CCG aspect to it in that there is always that next book (i.e.-booster pack) around the corner with "better!" powers in it, giving one incentive to buy it. Otherwise, one could just get an Insider subscription and do away with all but the core books altogether. Granted it's an ongoing, yearly expense, but I can't imagine playing 4e without the character builder app; and the compendium is pretty darn handy.

So what is the difference between all the powers? Are there requirements that you have to fulfill like praying or study or anything?

Why do you get special powers from martial training?

What do you do with powers as you get more? Do you just stop using some? I know magic items have levels, what happens to old items? Are players permitted to know which items are best for their class?

What is the difference between a good cleric and an evil one? Are there any powers not related to combat, like Analyze Dweomer, Tenser's Floating Disc, or Purify Food & Drink?

[Lord Dynel]

DaveyB wrote:
To be sure, you can run 4th mostly like older editions, as it does away (mostly) with a "rule for everything", but where 4e fundamentally falls apart is that outside the rules thinking in vastly inferior to the defined set of actions (all in the name of "balance") that you can pull off via powers. Some mundane actions are even hard-coded into the powers, such as the Rogue's "Sand in the Eyes" power. Why is that the purview of the rogue class but not a desperate fighter, ranger, etc.? Now there's nothing stating that, as a fighter, you can't try and throw sand in someone's eyes, but the Rogue's ability is so much better that why would the fighter want to try? Why is it that the fighter gets a "disarm" power, but there is no general "disarm" rule?

It's my belief that 4e engenders a certain way of play after you've played it a while. I've even found myself slipping into the lull of worrying about nothing but what the next cool power is that I can get, rather than roleplaying my character. With the total lack of fluff in the core rulebooks and total focus on all powers dealing damage in combat, there's a definite disconnect from cooperative storytelling and more of a shift towards a tactical combat game with a plot. Just my opinion though.

That's...interesting. I've heard that some of the actions that would have been just regular actions (the sand in the eyes, disarm) were folded into the powers system. What's odd is that they fall into the realm of a certain class, as you stated above. Are there any actions everyone can do?

I think to C&C and most combat actions can be done by the majority of classes (the only one I can think of that can only be attempted by certain classes, is fact, disarm). Even in 3.x, most "general combat actions" could be attempted by the majority of classes (whether or not they did it well was another matter) and actions that required a feat was usually generally available.

And as far as powers go (and where I think games like 3e and, especially, C&C shine) is the power structure. After listening about these for a long time, I still can't wrap my head around the logic. At-will attacks are better than just swinging a sword, which is only used for attacks of opportunity (I think). At-wills for casters are better than firing a crossbow. But in the end, the caster at-wills are more-or-less just like firing a crossbow. Daily powers are saved until the BBEG, but if you don't encounter on in the day, you lost your chance to use it. Daily powers seem too much like spells to me, and everyone has them.

I don't know. I've always tried to stay open-minded in regards to new games, new rules. But after two years, I'm still scratching my head. No offense to those who play it, but I just can't get excited about it.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Are there any actions everyone can do?

I think to C&C and most combat actions can be done by the majority of classes (the only one I can think of that can only be attempted by certain classes, is fact, disarm). Even in 3.x, most "general combat actions" could be attempted by the majority of classes (whether or not they did it well was another matter) and actions that required a feat was usually generally available.

I don't know. I've always tried to stay open-minded in regards to new games, new rules. But after two years, I'm still scratching my head. No offense to those who play it, but I just can't get excited about it.

GaryCon I...Playing in seskis's game, the party had no rogue. There was a clear-cut point where the party definitely needed to check for traps. Who got to do it? Seeing as how he was the most highly armored member of the party, my knight gave it a shot and, of course, rolled a Gygax (that's a natural 20 for those who've never played at my table) and found the tripwire connected to the collapsing ceiling. That day saw the best dice rolling I've ever had in my 25+ years of gaming.

[Geleg]

i'd allow the attempt, but would impose some significant penalties (modifiers) to the attempt, would not guarantee instant death, and would probably impose a consequence on the player regardless of the success.

but i'd definitely encourage such creativity!
_________________
The only thing you find in the middle of the road are dead animals and dumb Americans - Anton Newcombe

[Joe]

I don't beleive that a true pacifist exists in reality. Sure I have met many a cowardly punk that claimed to be pacifist. i have even met passive aggresives that hid behind pacifism. But in reality I have just seen folks switch good old fasioned honest aggression into violence of a different sort. Now instead of resorting to violence, they wish to ruin your career, ruin your life, and watch you crawl and beg for forgivness. Give me a black eye any day over a grievance, or harrassment suit. pacifists...pfttt...just harm others thru non-violence and then put of airs of superiority as someone has to step in to protect them.

There is only one way to prove if a pacifist truly exists.

Walk up and punch them as hard as you can right in the face.
Their next immediate reaction will either prove of disprove my theory.

Now let it be for the record that I do not condone such scientific experiments testing the truth of pacifism. I am only speculating. Kids...do not try this at home!
As for impromptu imagination in games...I only wish my players used it more. I am so desperate for the very same sort of action you describe that I would not only allow it, but be so thankful someone finally used their imagination in a fantasy game of the imagination that I would jump up and down screaming glory hallelujah from on high!!!

I would shout from the rooftops!

I would know finally that yes there is a meaning to life.

At the very least, I would let the dice decide and quite probably shower you with additional experience points.

That is unless I was running a game like 4e. Then I would punish you for obviously making a mockery of the game and not playing it "right".
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[serleran]

Sounds like someone has enjoyed a dose of Fight Club.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Joe]

I've had a little time on my hands.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Rigon]

I'd allow it, for sure. However, I'd have the PC do a grapple check first and then an attack roll, with a penelty of some kind, probably based on size difference between combatants or a -2 if the same size.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[bloodymage]

"D&D" lost its fun for DMs with 3e and hasn't stopped its downward spiral since. Actions attempted by the OP are why role-playing is fun for all. It's all a movie in the head and you're the creator, the DM, the editor. Some fugly SOB is trying to KILL you! What do you do? ANYTHING to prevent that from happening and maybe killing the fugly one first! Climb on his back, drop and grab his ankle (assuming there isone!), poke it in the eye with a sharp stick. Improvised weapon (cleric with a dagger)? No problem. There's rules for that. No rules? Make 'em on the fly and make sure that's the rule.

Part of my job as a CK, DM, GM, judge, whatever, is to make it as difficult and as deadly to any characters that cross my table. It's also part of my job to give them an out for any situation I throw at them. Heart. That's what modern D&D lacks. Do it by the numbers...

To hell with that! Step up and be challenged! Use every wile and trick there is to save the day and get the girl... uh, wait. Mixed genre, maybe? Maybe not. Anyway, it a player character with a relish for life and a burning desire for glory, fame, honor and wealth. Of course a PC striving to burn a town might have other priorities. Point is, it's a game and the one behind the screen is the rules. Anything else is just watered-down pablum.
_________________
Death to all PCs!

[Lord Dynel]

bloodymage wrote:
"D&D" lost its fun for DMs with 3e and hasn't stopped its downward spiral since. Actions attempted by the OP are why role-playing is fun for all. It's all a movie in the head and you're the creator, the DM, the editor. Some fugly SOB is trying to KILL you! What do you do? ANYTHING to prevent that from happening and maybe killing the fugly one first! Climb on his back, drop and grab his ankle (assuming there isone!), poke it in the eye with a sharp stick. Improvised weapon (cleric with a dagger)? No problem. There's rules for that. No rules? Make 'em on the fly and make sure that's the rule.

I agree with you, bloody, but I think it comes down to how the rules are presented. In other words, it's a strange interpretation that players are getting from the rules. With the advent of 3e, almost everything had a hard-coded rule to it. So new players...and DMs...coming into the game first and foremost looked at this and played like everything had rules - which could make for a lackluster game. But to these fellows, it is/was fun (at least initially...or maybe still). Same with 4e. Even though I've heard they've lessened up a bit on the "rule for everything," it's counterproductive to have things in the rulebook (in the 4e DMG, can't remember the page number) that says, "no one wants to talk to the guard" and to move from one action sequence to another. To a new DM, it speaks volumes. From a DM that started with 3e, it speaks the same. We talk all the time about "even a game of Monopoly can be roleplayed." Sure it can, but when some folk don't have proper exposure to what roleplaying is (and it's n ot computer or console games) then the result is something less than memorable. Maybe that's the definition of "this hobby is changing," I don't know. What I do know, and call me a grognard or whatever you please, but I think that new players (not necessarily young players) coming into the hobby with 3e and 4e don't have the same depth of roleplaying exposure that those who came into the game pre-3e. Of course, those coming in now with "tutors," of the old ways () can change all that. And I guess there could also be a small contingent who want it "easy." I'll admit, I was one of them...for a very, very brief time. I'd let the system do all the work and not worry about much else (that was about the time of the birth of my first child, and with 3e). I suppose if one lets the rulebooks do all the talking, then it would mean playing a style of game that's promoted in the rulebooks themselves. And from my cursory examination of the books, it seems that that it's "one fight to the next" with roleplaying as an afterthought.

My apologies - I'm not trying to slam 4e. I'm not. It's more of how influenced players could be by the books, which seem to promote the aforementioned attitudes. I can speak from experience (the 3e side) so I kind of know what I'm talking about. 4e, not so much, just what I've read in the DMG and what I've heard from friends.

I think the situation could have been rolplayed out, could have been adjudicated much differently. But if these people play so heavily influenced by the books, then maybe not. I never had an issue with prepping games - it took a few hours, but it never bothered me. It never "lost its fun" for me - prepping games and creating adventures never seemed any more difficult than other editions. But I understand that's my experience. I allowed actions that weren't in the books - and players just had to understand that if I came with something (whether to cover a situation not in the rules or sometimes even something contrary to the rules in the book) that I was the final arbiter. That point seems to get lost in recent editions of the rules (since the books have all the rules) and is a real big indicator, to me, of the previously mentioned shift in playing (and learning) styles.

But yeah, bloody is right. Kill the big bad coming to get you...by any means necessary. Sometimes what players want to do is not in the books. Wing it...it's okay.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[DaveyB]

Lord Dynel wrote:
That's...interesting. I've heard that some of the actions that would have been just regular actions (the sand in the eyes, disarm) were folded into the powers system. What's odd is that they fall into the realm of a certain class, as you stated above. Are there any actions everyone can do?

I think to C&C and most combat actions can be done by the majority of classes (the only one I can think of that can only be attempted by certain classes, is fact, disarm). Even in 3.x, most "general combat actions" could be attempted by the majority of classes (whether or not they did it well was another matter) and actions that required a feat was usually generally available.

And as far as powers go (and where I think games like 3e and, especially, C&C shine) is the power structure. After listening about these for a long time, I still can't wrap my head around the logic. At-will attacks are better than just swinging a sword, which is only used for attacks of opportunity (I think). At-wills for casters are better than firing a crossbow. But in the end, the caster at-wills are more-or-less just like firing a crossbow. Daily powers are saved until the BBEG, but if you don't encounter on in the day, you lost your chance to use it. Daily powers seem too much like spells to me, and everyone has them.

I don't know. I've always tried to stay open-minded in regards to new games, new rules. But after two years, I'm still scratching my head. No offense to those who play it, but I just can't get excited about it.

In 4e, it can be said that basically everyone is a caster and that every class gets spells. Everyone makes the argument that in older editions all the fighter did was run and attack, but that's basically all you are doing in 4e, as 99.9% of the powers all deal damage. So instead of saying "I attack with my longsword!", you now say, "I use Exorcism of Steel! That's 2[w] + slide/push/pull/condition!" Not much of a change except now you can slide/push/pull/afflict some condition on them. There are also interrupts and reactions like in Magic: The Gathering that are triggered off of other actions. Good luck remembering them in the middle of battle.

As for things that everyone can do, there are only simple things like grab and charge. Stuff like sand in the eyes would either be a Rogue power or an ability check. The thing is, the Rogue's ability allows you to do damage and daze/stun the enemy, where the ability check is up to the DM what happens, which is most likely just a daze/stun. There ARE something new called "Skill powers" which are based off of the skill chart. Each skill has about 3 or 4 powers that can be used with that skill to do something non-combat such as being more diplomatic, jump up after being knocked prone as a minor action, etc. The problem with that is that they cost a feat to gain and the benefit is hardly worth the feat expenditure. There are also martial practices for martial characters which are basically like rituals where you can do things like forge papers, disguise oneself, etc. Not sure how those fall under "martial" practices, but whatever. They also cost a feat but are usually more useful than skill powers. 4e is very gamist and abstract like that.

Regarding at-wills, they are better than a "Basic Melee Attack" as they often allow you do either more damage or inflict a condition or heal someone. Basic melee is only for Opportunity Attacks or powers that let you get more than one whack in. Daily powers seriously need to be re-thought as they are pretty lame in that you often miss with them, and even though they do damage on a miss (don't ask me how since I was always under the impression that "miss" meant that you didn't hit them), you just blew your big power and are now reduced to puny encounters and at-wills. Miss with your encounter and you're back to spamming at-wills, or the old "I run up and attack" routine. Sounds familiar....

[DaveyB]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I agree with you, bloody, but I think it comes down to how the rules are presented. In other words, it's a strange interpretation that players are getting from the rules. With the advent of 3e, almost everything had a hard-coded rule to it. So new players...and DMs...coming into the game first and foremost looked at this and played like everything had rules - which could make for a lackluster game. But to these fellows, it is/was fun (at least initially...or maybe still). Same with 4e. Even though I've heard they've lessened up a bit on the "rule for everything," it's counterproductive to have things in the rulebook (in the 4e DMG, can't remember the page number) that says, "no one wants to talk to the guard" and to move from one action sequence to another. To a new DM, it speaks volumes. From a DM that started with 3e, it speaks the same. We talk all the time about "even a game of Monopoly can be roleplayed." Sure it can, but when some folk don't have proper exposure to what roleplaying is (and it's n ot computer or console games) then the result is something less than memorable. Maybe that's the definition of "this hobby is changing," I don't know. What I do know, and call me a grognard or whatever you please, but I think that new players (not necessarily young players) coming into the hobby with 3e and 4e don't have the same depth of roleplaying exposure that those who came into the game pre-3e. Of course, those coming in now with "tutors," of the old ways () can change all that. And I guess there could also be a small contingent who want it "easy." I'll admit, I was one of them...for a very, very brief time. I'd let the system do all the work and not worry about much else (that was about the time of the birth of my first child, and with 3e). I suppose if one lets the rulebooks do all the talking, then it would mean playing a style of game that's promoted in the rulebooks themselves. And from my cursory examination of the books, it seems that that it's "one fight to the next" with roleplaying as an afterthought.

My apologies - I'm not trying to slam 4e. I'm not. It's more of how influenced players could be by the books, which seem to promote the aforementioned attitudes. I can speak from experience (the 3e side) so I kind of know what I'm talking about. 4e, not so much, just what I've read in the DMG and what I've heard from friends.

I think the situation could have been rolplayed out, could have been adjudicated much differently. But if these people play so heavily influenced by the books, then maybe not. I never had an issue with prepping games - it took a few hours, but it never bothered me. It never "lost its fun" for me - prepping games and creating adventures never seemed any more difficult than other editions. But I understand that's my experience. I allowed actions that weren't in the books - and players just had to understand that if I came with something (whether to cover a situation not in the rules or sometimes even something contrary to the rules in the book) that I was the final arbiter. That point seems to get lost in recent editions of the rules (since the books have all the rules) and is a real big indicator, to me, of the previously mentioned shift in playing (and learning) styles.

But yeah, bloody is right. Kill the big bad coming to get you...by any means necessary. Sometimes what players want to do is not in the books. Wing it...it's okay.

The "Get Past the Guards" is in the DMG and it basically states that roleplaying encounters with the city guard is not fun and to just handwave that and get on with the fun (fun=combat). In all fairness, it is trying to say that you should skip past the mundane things *if* they don't serve a purpose to the story, but it doesn't come off that way as written in the book.

Winging it isn't as beneficial as a power, thus there is no incentive to wing anything.

[Lord Dynel]

DaveyB wrote:
The "Get Past the Guards" is in the DMG and it basically states that roleplaying encounters with the city guard is not fun and to just handwave that and get on with the fun (fun=combat). In all fairness, it is trying to say that you should skip past the mundane things *if* they don't serve a purpose to the story, but it doesn't come off that way as written in the book.

Winging it isn't as beneficial as a power, thus there is no incentive to wing anything.

What I'm saying, though, is that things like that can be misinterpreted to mean "fun=combat" and that's all there is to it - that roleplaying encounters themselves are to be glossed over in favor of combat. Who are they to tell me what's mundane and what's not? If my party wants to stop and talk to everyone on the street they meet, check out the local faire, gamble with the local thieves in the back alley, I'm supposed to be sitting in that GM's chair to allow that activity.

Sorry, Davey, I don't want this to sound like a personal attack. I've personally viewed the drop-off in roleplaying (not the hobby, but what I see at the table) and heard so many stories confirming things I've witnessed. But these guys at these tables seem to have fun, so that's a good thing. But it's not the same "roleplaying" I, and many others, participated in. And, in the long run, that's fine - they're entitled to their own game, their own style. But, like us in our day, they're influenced by the set of rules - it's just that the rules I grew up on told me to act out a lot of stuff at the table, where the rules today tell players just to roll a few dice to get the desired result.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[DaveyB]

Lord Dynel wrote:
What I'm saying, though, is that things like that can be misinterpreted to mean "fun=combat" and that's all there is to it - that roleplaying encounters themselves are to be glossed over in favor of combat. Who are they to tell me what's mundane and what's not? If my party wants to stop and talk to everyone on the street they meet, check out the local faire, gamble with the local thieves in the back alley, I'm supposed to be sitting in that GM's chair to allow that activity.

Sorry, Davey, I don't want this to sound like a personal attack. I've personally viewed the drop-off in roleplaying (not the hobby, but what I see at the table) and heard so many stories confirming things I've witnessed. But these guys at these tables seem to have fun, so that's a good thing. But it's not the same "roleplaying" I, and many others, participated in. And, in the long run, that's fine - they're entitled to their own game, their own style. But, like us in our day, they're influenced by the set of rules - it's just that the rules I grew up on told me to act out a lot of stuff at the table, where the rules today tell players just to roll a few dice to get the desired result.

Nothing personal taken in the least. I would much rather take in the local fair, gamble with the thieves guild, etc. than just do combat after combat. 4e is very much in the mindset that combat=fun. Just look at any of the 4e adventures. Most of them are devoid of anything except combat; which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't draaaaag on for upwards of 30 minutes or better. That being said, one would get the impression from reading the 4e books that combat is all there is to D&D. It doesn't help when 99% of the powers are useful only in combat, with only a small handful useful outside of it.

Thankfully, as you point out, we grew up with rules that were there for adjudicating actions and didn't deign to tell one how to play the game. "Balance" wasn't the all-encompassing factor when it came to the game's design. Now to be fair, there are aspects of 4e that I enjoy, but it is entirely too gamist and too fixated on grids, minis, and maps for me to really enjoy the game to the extent I do older versions and C&C. It's just that at the present, that's what the group wants to play, so I roll with whatever they want to play. When I DM again, it will be C&C most likely.

[Lord Dynel]

Understandable, Davey. If all you got to play is 4e, then that's all you got to play. I admire you perseverance.
But yeah, thumbing through the books, I got this tactical minis game vibe. And if that's what it is, then so be it. As long as it does it well, that's what matters. My issue is exactly what you and I have both said - the game books focus too much on combat that impressionable minds (those coming into the game and lean on the books for guidance) will see this and equate the game to all combat, with roleplaying as an afterthought.

I've gotten over most of my beef with 4e. I just don't feel it should be put in the same category as C&C, earlier editions of D&D, Palladium, WoD, Warhammer, et al. as a roleplaying game. If it were to bill itself as "Fantasy Warfare: The tactical miniatures game" I think all my issue with it would be gone. But I guess if you own the D&D name, might as well use it...
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Arazmus]

You're basically just doing an assassination a la` the Assassin class. Your cleric can attempt it in my game but he gets no level or class bonus to do so and he's using a dagger so it's a weapon he normally doesn't use so there will probably be a penalty for that. If you succeed then of course the bad guy gets his saving throw and even if he succeeds you'll do damage (and if baddie should survive I will give him a nasty scar and a hatred of your character).
_________________
I'll tell you what I do like though: a killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. ~Zorg

[DaveyB]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Understandable, Davey. If all you got to play is 4e, then that's all you got to play. I admire you perseverance.
But yeah, thumbing through the books, I got this tactical minis game vibe. And if that's what it is, then so be it. As long as it does it well, that's what matters. My issue is exactly what you and I have both said - the game books focus too much on combat that impressionable minds (those coming into the game and lean on the books for guidance) will see this and equate the game to all combat, with roleplaying as an afterthought.

I've gotten over most of my beef with 4e. I just don't feel it should be put in the same category as C&C, earlier editions of D&D, Palladium, WoD, Warhammer, et al. as a roleplaying game. If it were to bill itself as "Fantasy Warfare: The tactical miniatures game" I think all my issue with it would be gone. But I guess if you own the D&D name, might as well use it...

Well, to be honest, I was the one that first introduced the group to 4e actually. I initially (make that, naively) bought into Wizards' marketing pitch leading up to 4e; and I must admit, what they showed off and promised sounded awesome. Fast forward a year to the release of 4e, and things still looked good when I got my gift set of the core 3. Wizards actually looked fun to play because I didn't have to keep jockeying spells around on my list, fighters "appeared" to have more options, the monsters were/are very easy to run, and DM'ing the game is a fairly simple task.

We played our first game a few months after 4e came out to give our guys time to acquire the PHB and read it over. After that, I DM'ed our first 4e game. Things went well initially, but as we played longer and longer (about 6 months or so total, and then some off and on games of varying lengths with different DMs), the cracks started to show through. Monsters turned from "cool" into walking bags of HP. Magic items were totally devoid of any character, degenerating into what amounted to bonuses to hit with a fancy power here or there that could only be used ONCE per day. Players went from doing imaginative things to spamming their power cards instead because they realized that there is no incentive to NOT use the powers they have. The rest, as they say, is history.

Like you said, it is what it is and for those that enjoy that type of tactical game, more power to them. It's just not the D&D I grew up playing or really want to play, but I stick it out because I like the group of guys I play with and they seem to like it for the most part. A funny contrast is that I also play with some of the guys from the same group in a Deadlands campaign that it just starting into it's third session and I can already tell a difference in style of play. In that game we had a guy who made an improvised "molatov cocktail" (he stuffed a rag into a canteen), yelled "BOMB!", and threw it in the midst of a crowd of bandits to try and disperse them. That one instance was more imaginative than anything I've ever seen him (or any of the other players) do in 4e.

[Rigon]

This came up in our game last night. Nate's dwarf jumped on the back of a small dinosaur and hacked at it. Tree had him roll a Dex check every round before an attack rool to see if he could hang on and gave him a +2 to hit, I think.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind