Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
PhoenixEnigma
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:11 am UTC
Location: Sasquatchawan, Canada
Contact:

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby PhoenixEnigma » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am UTC

Arabascan wrote:I just know that some people say that D&D and TDA use similar rule systems. And the TDA system is complex.
And I don't have the D&D rules (and no money to buy them just for playing PbPs).
The d20 SRD I linked to above (and will again here) is basically the D&D rules, free and legal. You don't get some of the fluffy bits (pretty much anything that's a proper noun is out, so no named example characters or sample deities), but all the core mechanics are there. Certainly enough to play with.

I'd still think 3.5E might be a little on the complicated side of the spectrum, but it's not that bad in absolute terms. As mentioned, if you put the one-time effort into a comprehensive character sheet, it's usually pretty simple from a player's point of view. The DM can opt to do some rule diving if they want, but even that is pretty optional, as plus/minus 2, 5, or 10 covers a lot of situations.
"Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." -Elon Musk
Shivahn wrote:I am a motherfucking sorceror.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:14 am UTC

Is there any place I can find all the current 4e classes and which book they're in?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Is there any place I can find all the current 4e classes and which book they're in?

My brain!

Classes:
PHB1: Fighter, Wizard, Warlord, Warlock, Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, Paladin
PHB2: Warden, Shaman, Druid, Barbarian, Bard, Sorcerer, Avenger, Invoker
PHB3: Psion, Battlemind, Monk, Ardent, Seeker, Runepriest, Hybrid
FRPG: Swordmage
EPG: Artificer
Dragon Mag: Assassin

Builds (less accurate and complete here)
DS: Themes, Warlock(Templar)
MP1: Fighter(Tempest, Battlerage), Rogue (Ruthless), Ranger (Beastmaster), Warlord (Resourceful)
MP2: Fighter(Brawler), Rogue (Sneak), Ranger (Hunter), Warlord (Battlefront, Archer)
AP1: Swordmage(Ensnaring), Wizard(Orb Deception, Tome Summoning, Tome Readiness), Warlock (Vestige), Bard (???), Artificer (???), Sorcerer (Cosmic, ???)
DP1: Avenger (Unity), Paladin (???, ???), Cleric (???), Invoker (Malediction)
PrP1: Barbarian (Whirling), Shaman (Watcher, ???), Druid (Swarm), Warden (???), ???Seeker???
PsiP1: Monk (???), Ardent (???), Psion (???), Battlemind (Harrier)
Ess#1: Fighter (Knight, Slayer), Rogue (Thief), Cleric (Storm, Sun), Wizard (Mage(Evocation, Illusion, Enchantment))
Ess#2: Ranger (Scout, Hunter.2), Warlock (Hexblade(Fey, Infernal)), Paladin (Cavalier), Druid (Sentinel(Spring, Summer))

Note that builds of classes are sometimes piece-meal able. I didn't include the builds that are included in the initial books above.

Apparently my brain isn't complete. :)
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:45 am UTC

Hey thanks for that. Actually after I posted I found out where Knight and Slayer were...


Anyway could someone explain that shit to me!? It's so confusing.

All the PHB1-3 classes (Edit: Actually everything before Essentials) were at-will spamming might-as-well-be-using-super-magic-power-beasts... Are the Knight and Slayer subbuilds to Fighter and still get all the fighter At-wills? I'm guessing not (from what I'm reading in Heros of the Fallen). They seem like their own classes.

It just seems so weird that the Fighter is At-Will Power Spamming Based and the Fighter, Knight and Fighter, Slayer use augmented basic attacks. Weird to the point that it confuses the hell out of me.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:17 pm UTC

They are both fighters, in that they both have access to feats, paraogon paths, epic destinies that say "requires fighter". They may both have access to utility powers from the same list.

The essentials fighter(knight) is a different build of the fighter that is a defender. It starts with plate armor instead of just scale. It replaces the marking mechanic of the fighter with something simpler (a 1 square "defender aura"), and replaces the standard fighter mixture of opportunity attack/interrupt features with an opportunity-attack based "fight me, or be doomed" effect.

The essentials fighter(slayer) is a different build of fighter that is a striker. It starts with scale armor, and lacks shield proficiency. It has no marking or aura mechanic, and instead has a dex-to-damage mechanic that is similar to the pre-essentials sorcerer with weapon attacks.

Both the slayer and knight get features as they gain levels instead of the daily/encounter powers that the PHB1 (now called 'weaponmaster' fighter) does.

Both the slayer and knight start with at-will stances that are minor actions to activate. They improve basic attacks. The PHB1 fighter instead has at-will attack powers that are standard actions that you use instead of basic attacks. The difference is subtle -- if you took every PHB1 fighter power and said "this power can be used as a basic attack", it would be close -- but the slayer/knight don't get to choose on a per-attack basis (so off-turn attacks end up being based on their current stance).

All (weapon master, slayer, knight) can take a feat that gives them a bonus to opportunity attacks when they are wielding a two-handed weapon.

Classes, under the essentials regime, are archtypes. So the fighter archtype includes multiple sets of mechanics.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Vaniver » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:28 pm UTC

Is the Mage worth checking out Essentials for?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:43 pm UTC

Mage is the least changed class.

They tidied up the PHB wizard quite nicely, however.

Instead of the confusing verbage around how wizard daily powers work (if you can read the actual RAW and get the RAI interpretation on the first run through, it isn't because of the RAW but rather because you had common sense and/or previous experience), it has a simple rule:

You have a certain number of spells prepared of each category. You can prepare at most one spell from a given level at a time.

Done. They then give you a table of spells you can prepare of each category (which is pretty simple -- basically the same as the number of spells you have of each category in 4e PHB1, but rendered into a table).

The various specializations are more old-school feeling than the tool specialization of the core 4e wizard (which was a bit too "4e fighter" esque -- fighters specialize in a weapon type by choice of powers, what if we made wizards specialize in an implement? Except fighter's tool specialization was elegant and implicit, not a build choice: while wizard tool specialization was more than a bit clunky). Pyromancer (a specialization from dragon magazine), Evoker, Mage.Illusionist and Enchanter.

If the Essentials mage was published as the 4e wizard, with a cleaned-up ritual system attached, I'd consider that the 4e PHB would have been strictly better. It is a drag-drop-and-polish improvement.

On the other hand, I am not sure it is that much better than the 4e core wizard, because the changes are relatively small. So it might not be worth buying essentials for. :)
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:55 pm UTC

Yeah I figured out after reading more that they're basically stand alone classes, which, as you mentioned, still can take all the "fighter" feats. I didn't realise they get paths and destinies though, or utilities.

Slayer is a striker who uses minor action stances to augment basic attacks.

Knight is a defender who uses minor action stances to augment basic attacks.

Thief is a striker who uses movement action tricks to augment basic attacks.

That is a mich better way of splitting up the classes, at least they'll actually "feel" different now. As in PHB they're all pretty much exactly the same except fighter type classes use [W] for base damage and mage type classes use a set range. Anyway how compatible is Essentials with the rest of the game? Does the Essentials Human overrule the PHB Human or is an option?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby bigglesworth » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:58 pm UTC

ST you said this game was simple :shock:
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:37 pm UTC

So's checkers. And chess. Horsey guy moves like this, pointy-head moves like that.

Oh, powergaming at it is hard, yes. But 4th Ed? It's like playing a table-top version of WoW or something. You start with a small selection of powers, some of which you can use all the time, some of which you can only use once a fight, some of which you can only use once a day. As you level up, you get more and more powers of each of those levels. Just like an MMO. Unless you're using a 10th level character in your very first adventure ever, it's not enough to overwhelm you at first.

Same thing with 3.X. You start with a certain amount of skills and a feat or two. As you level up, you get more skills, more feats, and more special abilities based on your class. For the most part, it's not overwhelming if you started at level 1 or so.


Looking at the Savage Worlds thing, it seems relatively simple too, which is good. It also seems like it'd get really complicated, which is also good.

But yeah, when you're working out how the horsey guy moves, it's not exactly a good idea to start reading about counters to the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:49 pm UTC

It's all pretty easy to understand, it's just that they've sort of changed the paradigm, so I was confused for a while.

All the classes before, as far as I'm aware, pretty much used standard actions to do battle. But now they've introduced classes that do combat with minor actions, like stances, or move actions (called "tricks" for the thief). This makes a lot more sense and actually differentiates the classes from one another. It was confusing for me initially because every single other class had "builds" that you choose from, then a big table of at-will powers and stuff to choose from and retrain as you level up.

Instead the Knight and Slayer just have a whole bunch of skills they learn at level 1, that you don't choose from (except the stances). That was the first big thing that confused me. When I saw Defender Aura, Battle Guardian, Choose 2 Stances, Weapon Talent, Shield Finesse and Power Strike my first response was "Wut? Which ones do I get to choose?" instead you actually just get all of them (afaia). Then going on from that and seeing essentially no typical standard action at will powers confused me more because, like, that's how they had done classes at all points before this.

So, really, they're not any more complex than any other character. They are just different in that their powers utilize a different action type (Minor, Movement, instead of Standard).

The major difference from this their feel, which I think is great. Previously, in my head, my fighter stands around in battle like it's some classic Turn Based RPG, and then a menu comes up and I click "Fight" and then I click "Powers" and then I click "Cleave" then my character plays a little animation where she cleaves and goes back to being a statue. NOW, my Knight in mid battle fluidly and subtley shifts the way she's standing and holding her weapon just before she attacks so that when she does she can more effectively swing her weapon in a wide arc and hit two enemies at once.

The major difference is my rogue isn't standing around like a statue in battle, the menu comes up and I choose "Move" that is an entirely seperate any other command, then she's a statue sitting behind my enemy until I choose choose "Fight" "Powers" "Acrobatic Strike" from the menu then my character plays a cute little animation where she spins in the air and hits someone. NOW, my Thief dashes off quickly towards the enemy, flips over the top of them and as she is landing behind them strikes them before they can turn around.

In the end it's basically the same thing but it "feels" a lot better. Which matters, at least to me.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:54 pm UTC

Second Talon wrote:But yeah, when you're working out how the horsey guy moves, it's not exactly a good idea to start reading about counters to the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit.

Heh.

The 4e essentials stuff presents each character class build as a stand-alone document, mostly. You don't need to know much more than the section describing the character -- even more, you only need to read up to the spot where your character's level is.

Toss in a small amount of general system knowledge (standard;move;minor action per-round), and you are ready to play.
Gelsamel wrote:Yeah I figured out after reading more that they're basically stand alone classes, which, as you mentioned, still can take all the "fighter" feats. I didn't realise they get paths and destinies though, or utilities.

Dunno about utilities -- I think they do?

Any level-numbered power is actually an option, even if it doesn't tell you it is an option (essentials tells you how to build a specific path -- the heroes of sword and spell supplement tells you how to mix and match). The paragon path/epic stuff tends to be woven right in, but the abilities do say "paragon path feature". You are free to swap for a different paragon path.

Essentials is designed to reduce the number of choices you are presented with. There are more options than you are presented with clearly.
Slayer is a striker who uses minor action stances to augment basic attacks.
Knight is a defender who uses minor action stances to augment basic attacks.
Thief is a striker who uses movement action tricks to augment basic attacks.

*nod*, that is basically it. And they have per-encounter boosts to (mainly) damage (power strike and backstab respectively).
That is a mich better way of splitting up the classes, at least they'll actually "feel" different now. As in PHB they're all pretty much exactly the same except fighter type classes use [W] for base damage and mage type classes use a set range.
Meh, in play the Fighter played far more differently than the Wizard than your description implies. Someone who merely read the classes, and didn't play them, can easily be confused: 4e rulebooks where designed to be played, not read. This caused problems, because many RPG theorycrafters read books far more than they play them.

The biggest difference is that fighters feel like low-edition number fighters in essentials.

Two essentials knights are pretty damn similar, while two "weaponmaster" fighters can easily be quite distinct.
Anyway how compatible is Essentials with the rest of the game? Does the Essentials Human overrule the PHB Human or is an option?
Option. There is an errata for the PHB human that details what you can swap out, and similarly for the other races that where updated in essentials.

They used a compatible calculus of balance. So you can drop a essentials rogue(thief) into a pre-essentials 4e party and not really blink (and vice versa).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

But when it comes down to it the, say, Ranger plays by saying "I move here" and then saying "I attack X with at-will power Y", right? Whereas spell based classes do the exact same thing. Sure they all have their own little gimmick like marking, forced movement, etc which makes them feel different, but at most this is an extra number on the mathematical database. When you boil it down to the basics they all used standard action powers just like any other mage does or like a wizard would do in 3.5e. When you strip away all the flavour from the powers there are only minor differences in the mechanics behind the classes, which could at any point really just be explained with some flavour if you were to export powers to other classes.

Fighters play like Mages/Wizards. You choose a movement action, or not, then you choose a "Power", or not. This pattern and mechanic is the same for, afaik, every non-essentials class.

With the Knight, Slayer and Thief though even when you strip all the flavour they're inherently different to wizards/mages mechanic wise. There are whole new mechanics added to move and minor actions that you cannot compare to standard actions. You can't get Thief Trick, strip of flavour and then somehow make those "movements augmenting basic attacks" mechanic jive with the flavour and mechanics of a mage/wizard.

Knights, Slayers and Thiefs DON'T play like Mages/Wizards. Essential Fighters choose to take a stance skill, then you can choose to move and/or attack (in vast contrast to using a "power"). Essential Rogues choose to use a movement skill, a flip, a misdirection, a jump off of a wall, and/or attack (in vast contrast to using a "power"). Mages/Wizards choose to move and/or use a Power, as they should.

And even then you can still add in all the forced movement and marking stuff to make these classes even more differentiated from the other classes (like, for instance, the Knight's Defender Aura). Stances and Movement Augementing attacks also just make a lot more sense flavour wise for these classes, as I explained in my last post.

This was perhaps my biggest issue with 4e: Fighters felt pretty much exactly like wizards/mages. Perhaps this was done with the purpose of avoiding the linear warriors/quadratic mages dichotomy of ages past, but it made fighters not feel like fighters. At least to me. Now that there are Knights, Slayers and Thiefs I think I prefer 4e is almost every aspect to 3.5e now.

Edit: Added paragraphs.

Edit: And, especially when it comes to roleplay the feel is a lot different to talk about how your character lowers her stance and sweeps her weapon wide than to just declare that you attack with the Cleave Power. Of course, that's all just flavour and you could talk about stances with the PHB fighter if you wanted but now the roleplay and flavour is engrained into the mechanics, which makes the flavour "feel" much more like an intrinsic part of the game than just a spray on mask they put on over the top of hundreds of interacting databases and formulas.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby EmptySet » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:12 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:But when it comes down to it the, say, Ranger plays by saying "I move here" and then saying "I attack X with at-will power Y", right? Whereas spell based classes do the exact same thing. Sure they all have their own little gimmick like marking, forced movement, etc which makes them feel different, but at most this is an extra number on the mathematical database. When you boil it down to the basics they all used standard action powers just like any other mage does or like a wizard would do in 3.5e. When you strip away all the flavour from the powers there are only minor differences in the mechanics behind the classes, which could at any point really just be explained with some flavour if you were to export powers to other classes.

Fighters play like Mages/Wizards. You choose a movement action, or not, then you choose a "Power", or not. This pattern and mechanic is the same for, afaik, every non-essentials class.


Isn't that like saying that a queen, pawn and knight all do the exact same thing in chess, because you just pick a spot to move them and that's it? Or that, in an RTS, a worker and a tank are the same because you just click on command X and then target Y? Or, in 3.5e, all the classes are the same because you take a move action (or not), and then a standard action (or not)? I'm not sure what your point is here. As far as I can tell you're complaining that 4E has a consistent game mechanic.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:15 am UTC

Actually it's like saying that all the classes move like pawns. They all have the same rules and mechanics. Now that the Essentials fighter uses Minor Actions to Augment basic attacks, the Thief uses movement actions to augment basic attacks and the mage has standard action powers it's more like we have a Knight a Rook and a Bishop all with different rules that govern how they behave and act.

Yeah, the end result is that they take an opposing piece when they land on a square, that doesn't change (much like Cleaving Stance or w/e has the same result as cleaving attack or w/e) but the way they go about reaching that result is entirely different.

In both 3.X and 4e of course you have standardized mechanics like the existance of minor, free, move, standard and full actions. They were BOTH standardized, and that's a good thing. But in 4e all the actions were all the same (all the same being different from standardized) until essentials. In 3.5e the fighter/thiefs standard actions used to attack were not powers, they were basic attacks augmented by class features and feats as opposed to mage/wizard standard actions being the use of powers, or rather spells.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:57 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:But when it comes down to it the, say, Ranger plays by saying "I move here" and then saying "I attack X with at-will power Y", right? Whereas spell based classes do the exact same thing. Sure they all have their own little gimmick like marking, forced movement, etc which makes them feel different, but at most this is an extra number on the mathematical database. When you boil it down to the basics they all used standard action powers just like any other mage does or like a wizard would do in 3.5e. When you strip away all the flavour from the powers there are only minor differences in the mechanics behind the classes, which could at any point really just be explained with some flavour if you were to export powers to other classes.

When you boil it all away, you are sitting at the table describing what some imaginary being is doing while rolling multi-sided platonic solids with markings on them.

The kind of things that the Ranger is going to be doing will be different than the kind of things that the Wizards are going to do. They have different incentives to position (the Ranger wants to position themselves to be closer to their target than anyone else, and have their target be the closest enemy, to get full benefits) (the Wizard position game is sometimes about "close" powers, but more often it is about keeping herself protected while playing a positioning game with area-effect powers that can hit both allies and enemies. The wizard, in a hard fight, is going to be tempted to do a double-sustain situation: if they can get into a position where movement isn't required anymore, they can do this safely.)

So sure -- they are both moving, and then both doing an attack action, and often a utility action. The kind of attacks they have vary massively. The kind of movement they are worried about is different. The kind of utility actions they do is different.

And they are both playing pretend while rolling multi-sided bits of plastic with numbers on them...
Fighters play like Mages/Wizards. You choose a movement action, or not, then you choose a "Power", or not. This pattern and mechanic is the same for, afaik, every non-essentials class.

No, fighters don't play like mages/wizards. If you made the same movement choices with a mage/wizard as a fighter, you'd be hopeless at one of them.

Weaponmaster fighters play far more like Knights than they do Wizards.

Now, the class/power structure of a Weaponmaster (PHB1) fighter is more like a Wizard than like a Knight -- but that isn't how they play.
With the Knight, Slayer and Thief though even when you strip all the flavour they're inherently different to wizards/mages mechanic wise.[

I wasn't talking a tiny bit about flavour above. Not one iota.

A class whose flavour was "spellcaster" but whose mechanics was "ranger" would play like a ranger, not a spellcaster. Flavour doesn't change how a class plays.

If all you have done is read the rules, then the flavour and class structure looks dominant. And apparently you imagine they play similarly. They ... do not play similarly in actual play.
There are whole new mechanics added to move and minor actions that you cannot compare to standard actions. You can't get Thief Trick, strip of flavour and then somehow make those "movements augmenting basic attacks" mechanic jive with the flavour and mechanics of a mage/wizard.

Honestly, the difference between Essentials mechanics and PHB1 mechanics is mechanical fluff.

A move action that grants a bonus to the next basic attack is different mainly in fluff from a move action, followed by a standard action attack that is a basic attack with a bonus.

Stances that give a bonus to a basic attack differ in mechanical fluff from at-will powers that modify basic attacks.

There are a few corner cases where they differ, but these are mainly corner cases.

If you took a weaponmaster fighter (PHB1 fighter), and changed all of their at-will powers to Essentials style stances, the difference in how a weaponmaster (PHB1) fighter plays would be very small. If you swapped their at-will powers for warlock at-will powers, the difference in how the fighter plays would be huge.
Knights, Slayers and Thiefs DON'T play like Mages/Wizards. Essential Fighters choose to take a stance skill, then you can choose to move and/or attack (in vast contrast to using a "power"). Essential Rogues choose to use a movement skill, a flip, a misdirection, a jump off of a wall, and/or attack (in vast contrast to using a "power"). Mages/Wizards choose to move and/or use a Power, as they should.

Everything you describe in this paragraph reads like "they differ in fluff". They do differ -- Wizards don't play like Fighters. But that difference in how they play has very little to do with the stuff in this paragraph.

And "as they should"? Um, you mean "as they do in 3e"? Because that is what you seem to be talking about.

BTW, you do know that "basic attack" is a "power" in 4e parlance, right? You cannot attack in 4e without using a "power". Because every attack is called a "power".

Martial powers are also called "exploits". Arcane powers are also called "spells".
And even then you can still add in all the forced movement and marking stuff to make these classes even more differentiated from the other classes (like, for instance, the Knight's Defender Aura).The 4e PHB melee classes had all of the "forced movement and marking stuff". That does make them play differently.
Stances and Movement Augementing attacks also just make a lot more sense flavour wise for these classes, as I explained in my last post.

So, you like the essentials rules fluff? Sure. The fluff of the essentials classes is a tad more polished. And people who get caught up in mechanical fluff consider that important.


but it made fighters not feel like fighters. At least to me.

Yes. Essentials built martial classes that where more similar to previous edition melee characters.

And people imprint on game rules. When the mechanics change, they get nerdrage and confusion, and get upset.

Having a class that feels more familiar is comforting. And that is why essentials was a good marketing move.

It also gave them an excuse to rebuild a lot of stuff that was overly crufty and simplify it.

The "Mage" wizard has a better spellbook method.

The Knight "defender aura" strips out a bunch of state and replaces it with positioning state. They get rid of reliance on understanding immediate actions to run a defender fighter, sticking to opportunity actions. Sadly, they also got rid of interesting per-encounter/daily options, and left in a poor damage boost ability (the power attack feature of knights is pretty meh).

They screwed up with the melee striker Ranger, but that is a mechanical corner case that any DM worth their salt will ignore (and those who aren't won't spot the problem, as it is pretty subtle). (the 1/turn free action attack rule ends up meaning that the melee Ranger's features don't work together by the rules...)

Thief tricks are a bit dissappointing, honestly. Probably because of simplification. Ideally, I'd have wanted the thief to have "higher level" tricks that got more complex. These higher level tricks could have involved skill checks (like skill powers from pre-essentials) or, less abusable, ability checks to determine the effect, which could provide a neat source of unpredictability. (delay that until higher levels, so first level characters remain simple)

The lack of an essentials warlord mades me sad -- but I understand that it would have been hard.

And, as noted, the essentials mage was better done than the original wizard. I just wish they had a rituals replacement for essentials, instead of just dropping it.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:44 am UTC

I think your main objection to my posts is based on a misunderstanding. You solely use the phrase "play like" whereas I was using "play like" but more importantly "feel like" interchangably because when I say "play like" I mean "roleplay like" which is the same as "feel like".

Of course you're not going to have your Wizard position like your fighter, in pure tactical and strategic terms they certainly do not "(game)play like", I absolutely agree. Although wouldn't agree that it's "mechanical fluff", as the base combat mechanic of D&D (how different action types are used) is utilized so differently, but it's certainly tactical and strategical "fluff" and "(game)play" fluff. I mentioned numerous times that, yeah, cleaving stance and cleaving attack (or what ever their names are) have the exact same end result and tactical/strategical options but generic movement+choosing a power from a spellbook "feels" and "(role)plays" like a wizard should.


Edit: Well I guess you do use "feel like" once but I think you mean more "gameplay feels like" whereas I mean "roleplay feels like". I think this is highlighted best in that you're talking about movement in terms of why you move (tactics etc.) and I have a big paragraph talking about how roleplay and flavour now match the mechanics, even if that is just "fluff" the "fluff" completely matters.

Edit2: Typos.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:18 am UTC

I'm perfectly willing to tear out fluff and replace it.

You also seem to be "ignoring the fluff" -- ie, "ignoring the fluff, wizards play like fighters".

To me, ignoring the fluff, knights play like fighters.

The "choose cleave" is a player decision to me, not a character decision.

On top of that, "cleaving stance" makes less sense than "cleave exploit" -- what kind of "stance" makes all of your swings cleave? I can see a given attack managing to cleave, but I don't see how changing how you are standing is particularly tied to "your hits cleave". I'm willing to accept that disassociation to reduce and spread decision points, and because I've seen players who struggle with the power system. Ie, a Ranger in my game who likes to roll, then decide what he is attacking with: the decision of "who to attack" and "what to attack with" is too many decision points at once.

With stance/attack separation, there is an answer to what happens when you just roll the d20 to attack someone -- whatever your stance is. If you don't choose to think about it, it doesn't change.

So decision points (by the player) get spread out, maximum cognitive load drops, and that is a good thing -- especially when the gameplay consequences (cleave attack vs cleave stance) are nearly indistinguishable.

As a bonus, people who are hooked on 3e mechanics feel warm and fuzzy. And I'm all for people warm and fuzzy at low cost.

The Fighter I'd want to play would be a mixture of the Essentials Knight and PHB Weaponmaster.

Knight defender aura/defender mechanics, because those are just smoother.

I like the at-will as stances, as noted, because of the decision point spreading.

I'd like to tear out the power attack option, because it sucks. The core mechanic (exploit you use after you hit) is good, because it once again keeps cognitive load low, but the "you get a small amount of extra damage" is boring.

My version would look like PHB weaponmaster exploits, more than power attack. So you'd have a collection of exploits that would do things like "shift 1, and make another attack", or "spend a healing surge" or "make an attack against all adjacent opponents, Str vs AC, Damage of [W] on a hit" -- note that these are perfectly acceptable power-wise at higher levels.

And I suspect that the people who have issues with martial exploits would be perfectly ok with things that they can pull off once/encounter after they hit someone...

I might also introduce some daily exploits (gasp). I could add some uncertainty and fun to them.

Idea 1: Daily exploits you can only use on a critical.
Idea 2: Daily exploits that require a hit. You replace the hit with another attack roll. If the new attack misses, you get the old effect.
Idea 3: Moments of Awesome that boost encounter exploits. You can use one moment of awesome per encounter, and only a certain number per day.

#3 is sort of like PHB3 psionic power points, but daily and attached to encounter powers.
#2 means you have a chance to upgrade, it isn't certain.
#1 is probably too restrictive (crits are overly rare at lower levels), but could be rather fun.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:43 am UTC

Yakk wrote:I'm perfectly willing to tear out fluff and replace it.

You also seem to be "ignoring the fluff" -- ie, "ignoring the fluff, wizards play like fighters".


(Role)play like fighters.

To me, ignoring the fluff, knights play like fighters.


(Game)play like fighters.

The "choose cleave" is a player decision to me, not a character decision.


Which is part of the roleplay-gameplay seperation that I don't like about 4e! You can roleplay wizards thinking about which spell from a list of spells they know about to use so it's easy for Magic Missile to be a character decision, it "(roleplay) feels" good! It does not make sense for a fighter to choose "Bash and Pinion" from a list of "Moves" he knows and to preform that move.

On top of that, "cleaving stance" makes less sense than "cleave exploit" -- what kind of "stance" makes all of your swings cleave? I can see a given attack managing to cleave, but I don't see how changing how you are standing is particularly tied to "your hits cleave".


I'm not sure if you've studied many martial arts or not, but as someone who has I can fairly certainly say that you can't just go from some generic standing stance and expect to be able to swing wide enough and effectively enough that you harm multiple targets while simultaneously not unbalancing yourself. To preform a swing of your weapon that could hit multiple people in "adjacent squares" (translated into real life, I mean) you would have to lower your center of gravity, lean forward slightly and preform a basic side-swing of your weapon from one side to the other. A simple analogy would be that baseball batters don't generically stand and swing with their bat which follows through a large swing arc that hits the ball and gets a home run... they take a stance that allows them to swing as hard as they can, while maintaining their balance and allowing the bat to follow through a large arc. Same goes for swords, if not more so.

An extreme example would be battoujutsu and iaijutsu type attacks which you can't even TRY to preform without assuming a certain stance, but they're still just normal swings of the weapon... they just come out of a particular stance towards a particular direction.

A "double strike" or "slash into grapple" or "slash into shield ram/block/bash" exploit that triggers off of a basic hit would also make a lot of sense as that would generally be something you'd expect to occur after the normal swing, which occurs after you assume the stance required to swing with the method you want to swing with.

I like your ideas and agree with your analysis on them.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby EmptySet » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:49 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:It does not make sense for a fighter to choose "Bash and Pinion" from a list of "Moves" he knows and to preform that move.


Why not? As far as I'm aware many martial arts do involve learning set techniques, and regardless of whether this is how things work in real life, it is certainly a very common depiction in all sorts of media. Hell, half the time people actually shriek the name of the technique when they use it.

I'm not sure if you've studied many martial arts or not, but as someone who has I can fairly certainly say that you can't just go from some generic standing stance and expect to be able to swing wide enough and effectively enough that you harm multiple targets while simultaneously not unbalancing yourself. To preform a swing of your weapon that could hit multiple people in "adjacent squares" (translated into real life, I mean) you would have to lower your center of gravity, lean forward slightly and preform a basic side-swing of your weapon from one side to the other. A simple analogy would be that baseball batters don't generically stand and swing with their bat which follows through a large swing arc that hits the ball and gets a home run... they take a stance that allows them to swing as hard as they can, while maintaining their balance and allowing the bat to follow through a large arc. Same goes for swords, if not more so.


Shifting your feet and balance before attacking would be included in the standard action. If you walked around in some odd stance all the time in real life, you would be caught wrong footed when you needed to do something else instead of your planned action, and in addition, you would telegraph what you intended to do. This is why, for example, in racquet sports you are taught to return to a default "ready" stance between shots and shift into the correct position smoothly as part of playing a shot, rather than running around in the "I'm totally going to hit a forehand drop shot" stance.

User avatar
Arabascan
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Aachen, Germany

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Arabascan » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:48 pm UTC

Letters... so much... letters...

Anyway, I opened a new post for PbP.
"Everyone has his price. Mine is a clean conscience."

If I make any spelling or grammar mistakes, just tell me (if you stay polite).
(Edit:Or if I write anything stupid.)

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:01 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Yakk wrote:I'm perfectly willing to tear out fluff and replace it.

You also seem to be "ignoring the fluff" -- ie, "ignoring the fluff, wizards play like fighters".

(Role)play like fighters.

No, you don't roleplay a wizard as jumping into the middle of a pile of opponents and shouting out a challenge, blocking a blow and responding with a sword to the leg, physically smashing through enemy front lines, grabbing people and throwing them to the ground.

Every one of the above is a 4e weaponmaster fighter power. There is next to no gap between "I use this power" and what I described above. That is what it means, character-wise, when the player says "I use tide of iron" or "I use come and get it" or the like.

You don't roleplay a fighter as creating an illusion of a chest of "what you most desire" on the far side of the room, then summoning a cage of lightning that encases the chest and all of the enemies who gathered to it, then creating a cloud of poison gas to defeat those who are still standing.

How in the world can you confuse roleplaying one of the above for the other? I'm honestly confused.
To me, ignoring the fluff, knights play like fighters.

(Game)play like fighters.

No, they role play like fighters. They are people who are so dangerous with a blade that nobody dare ignore them. They seek to engage the strongest, most dangerous opponents, and protect their allies. They use fighting techniques that they have spent years mastering to turn a mere length of iron into an instrument of art.
The "choose cleave" is a player decision to me, not a character decision.

Which is part of the roleplay-gameplay seperation that I don't like about 4e! You can roleplay wizards thinking about which spell from a list of spells they know about to use so it's easy for Magic Missile to be a character decision, it "(roleplay) feels" good! It does not make sense for a fighter to choose "Bash and Pinion" from a list of "Moves" he knows and to preform that move.

So it is "the thing has a name"? "Tide of iron" just means "I smash the opponent back with my sword and shield".

"Bash and Pinion" means "I hit the guy with the hilt of my sword, then grab him" (or whatever).

As it happens, there are a handful of tricks you are good at.

The essentials knight, meanwhile, is ... well, worse at tricks. All they have is page 42, which the weaponmaster fighter has access to as well.
On top of that, "cleaving stance" makes less sense than "cleave exploit" -- what kind of "stance" makes all of your swings cleave? I can see a given attack managing to cleave, but I don't see how changing how you are standing is particularly tied to "your hits cleave".

I'm not sure if you've studied many martial arts or not, but as someone who has I can fairly certainly say that you can't just go from some generic standing stance and expect to be able to swing wide enough and effectively enough that you harm multiple targets while simultaneously not unbalancing yourself. To preform a swing of your weapon that could hit multiple people in "adjacent squares" (translated into real life, I mean) you would have to lower your center of gravity, lean forward slightly and preform a basic side-swing of your weapon from one side to the other. A simple analogy would be that baseball batters don't generically stand and swing with their bat which follows through a large swing arc that hits the ball and gets a home run... they take a stance that allows them to swing as hard as they can, while maintaining their balance and allowing the bat to follow through a large arc. Same goes for swords, if not more so.

I said "every attack". And remember, doing it once doesn't cause you to change stance -- plus this stance is telegraphed (in that stance, you will always make this attack).

In comparison, "Cleave" means "I am not in a telegraphed stance, and my attack manages to hit another target with a glancing blow".
An extreme example would be battoujutsu and iaijutsu type attacks which you can't even TRY to preform without assuming a certain stance, but they're still just normal swings of the weapon... they just come out of a particular stance towards a particular direction.

A "double strike" or "slash into grapple" or "slash into shield ram/block/bash" exploit that triggers off of a basic hit would also make a lot of sense as that would generally be something you'd expect to occur after the normal swing, which occurs after you assume the stance required to swing with the method you want to swing with.

Yet, other than the concentration of decision points, I consider them the same thing.

In one of them, I move decision points so you are making a single decision at a given time. This has the downside of having more points where you pause and make a decision, and the upside that it doesn't cause peoples head to explode.

The character I'm roleplaying would be next to indistinguishable to me. The combat tactics (gameplay) would change far more than the character I'm roleplaying.

Do you mean "identify" when you say (role)play? Are you trying to say that the only form of roleplaying is "method" acting? That would explain my confusion. I could see it being harder to pull off method acting for you, especially if you have internalized 3e mechanics...
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Telchar » Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:02 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:An extreme example would be battoujutsu and iaijutsu type attacks which you can't even TRY to preform without assuming a certain stance, but they're still just normal swings of the weapon... they just come out of a particular stance towards a particular direction.


Iajutsu is a method of drawing your sword and actually emphasizes drawing your sword from multiple positions that one would encounter in everday life especially seiza. It's actually one of the more stance irrelevant sword arts.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:51 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:
Yakk wrote:I'm perfectly willing to tear out fluff and replace it.

You also seem to be "ignoring the fluff" -- ie, "ignoring the fluff, wizards play like fighters".

(Role)play like fighters.

No, you don't roleplay a wizard as jumping into the middle of a pile of opponents and shouting out a challenge, blocking a blow and responding with a sword to the leg, physically smashing through enemy front lines, grabbing people and throwing them to the ground.

Every one of the above is a 4e weaponmaster fighter power. There is next to no gap between "I use this power" and what I described above. That is what it means, character-wise, when the player says "I use tide of iron" or "I use come and get it" or the like.

You don't roleplay a fighter as creating an illusion of a chest of "what you most desire" on the far side of the room, then summoning a cage of lightning that encases the chest and all of the enemies who gathered to it, then creating a cloud of poison gas to defeat those who are still standing.

How in the world can you confuse roleplaying one of the above for the other? I'm honestly confused.


...You said "Ignoring the fluff" that is all fluff, it's all flavour description. As I mentioned about mechanics two paragraphs down, at a mechanic level there is no distinction between their roleplay. The roleplay isn't integrated with the mechanics. So, ignoring the fluff Wizards (role)play like fighters. You also still mention a whole lot of (game)play choices, I don't mean that the gameplay is the same.

(Game)play like fighters.

No, they role play like fighters. They are people who are so dangerous with a blade that nobody dare ignore them. They seek to engage the strongest, most dangerous opponents, and protect their allies. They use fighting techniques that they have spent years mastering to turn a mere length of iron into an instrument of art.


Actually I think I have a better way of explaining myself, I think it was perhaps inaccurate to apply the word "roleplay" to the classes. Let me try explain.

You have "Class A" which gets to Move and then Use a Power, or "Class B" which gets to Move and Use a Power. How do you roleplay these differently on this basis alone? You can't.

You have "Class A" which gets a Minor Action Power to augment their standard action, a move action, then a basic attack and "Class B" which gets to Move and Use a Power. Even if both classes end up cleaving (gameplay the same) they have a fundamental difference in that their roleplay compares to the mechanics differently (this is what I should have been emphasizing). And if both Class A and B are fighters then yeah they gameplay the same and they both roleplay like fighters because they're warriors with armor and weapons and shields and stuff. But the way in which the roleplay corresponds to the game mechanics is different.

In the case of the PHB Fighter roleplay feels like something I'm using to mask over the game mechanics to make it seem more real and less "This is a game with numbers and spell list menus that I'm choosing from". In the case of the Essentials Fighters my roleplay feels like it's an intrinsic part of the game that makes sense and is faciliatated by the game itself rather than something I have to use to mask that I just retrained stuff and now I have a different power-list.

Which is part of the roleplay-gameplay seperation that I don't like about 4e! You can roleplay wizards thinking about which spell from a list of spells they know about to use so it's easy for Magic Missile to be a character decision, it "(roleplay) feels" good! It does not make sense for a fighter to choose "Bash and Pinion" from a list of "Moves" he knows and to preform that move.

So it is "the thing has a name"? "Tide of iron" just means "I smash the opponent back with my sword and shield".

"Bash and Pinion" means "I hit the guy with the hilt of my sword, then grab him" (or whatever).

As it happens, there are a handful of tricks you are good at.

The essentials knight, meanwhile, is ... well, worse at tricks. All they have is page 42, which the weaponmaster fighter has access to as well.


Yes, I know Bash and Pinion means those things and should obviously be roleplayed like that. Absolutely. But do you see how that wildly departs from the basic game mechanics? "Magic Missile" means "You cast the spell 'Magic Missile'", when you roleplay a wizard their roleplay matches the game mechanics. You move and you choose a spell from your spellbook/memory to cast and you cast it (Roleplay). You move and you choose a standard action power from your powers list (Mechanics). They match. You move and you slash you weapon, like any other slash, except it's wider than usual and hits two enemies (Roleplay). You move and then you choose a minor action power just before you attack so that your normal attack swings differently (mechanics). That matches. You move and then you choose a standard action power from your powers list (mechanics). Doesn't.

If we were talking about a magical knight who imbues their weapons with magical benefits before attacking it would similarly match roleplay better if they used minor actions to "imbue" their weapon with magic and then did normal attacks.

Do you mean "identify" when you say (role)play? Are you trying to say that the only form of roleplaying is "method" acting? That would explain my confusion. I could see it being harder to pull off method acting for you, especially if you have internalized 3e mechanics...


I'm not exactly sure how you mean method acting such that it is applied to roleplaying. I guess mainly because I PbP and don't physically roleplay the character. I write the character.


Ninja: Iaijutsu does emphasize drawing your sword from positions one might be in everyday life, but, those techniques are still -specific to those positions-. So while one might not call seiza exactly a "stance" you cannot really preform the same iaijutsu in seiza as you can in iai-hiza or tachi-ai. Certainly you can use "Iaijutsu" itself from almost any particular stance, but specific iaijutsu waza are very specific to the stance one is in.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Levi
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:12 am UTC

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Levi » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Levi wrote:I meant arbitrary in the sense "I can think of no reason why, outside of game balance, this would be the case". I might be happy with opening that can. I like to see how much I can do with a spell, and I wouldn't mind a massively tougher game if I were able to use spells optimally.


Even without the "no damage" qualifier, you have no line of sight OR line of effect to the place in his aorta that you are trying to create the blockage.


Oops. Would one technically have LOS to the inside of an eyeball?

More prestidigitation fun: Convincing people you are a totally badass wizard at level 4. I'm going to be completely screwed if I fail a bluff check doing this...

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby TaintedDeity » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:26 pm UTC

I remember hearing a story of somebody playing a rogue that told the party they were a wizard, in and out of character.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Menacing Spike » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:I remember hearing a story of somebody playing a rogue that told the party they were a wizard, in and out of character.


With a lot of skill points in use magic device, yes. I cannot find the source.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Chen » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:53 pm UTC

Levi wrote:Oops. Would one technically have LOS to the inside of an eyeball?


Probably not without some sort of enhanced vision. Even then I'd argue you still wouldn't have line of effect. There is a barrier (the front of the eye) that blocks it from the inside of the eye. I'm not sure if its all, but its at least MOST spells that require line of effect to your target.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:16 pm UTC

If you could see blood vessels in someone's eye you'd have LOS to there. Poison could be delivered there, which could blind or have other effects.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Chen » Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:33 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:If you could see blood vessels in someone's eye you'd have LOS to there. Poison could be delivered there, which could blind or have other effects.


Well if it was contact poison. But then it would probably work anywhere you touched them. DM discretion I'd say to allow injected poison to end up affecting a creature if you just rubbed it in their eyes. Personally I'd probably give them a big bonus to the fort save since not nearly as much poison would be getting into the system as "usual".

With a spell that had to target a blood vessel (which would be far more specific than most spells are) you'd probably STILL lack line of effect to effect that blood vessel. Remember a pane of glass blocks line of effect but not line of sight. For most spells creatures body parts are irrelevant to blocking line of effect because most spells that effect creatures just target "the creature". You can't creature water in some creatures lungs even if you have x-ray vision because you lack line of effect to said lungs....though I wonder if you were incorporeal or using some sort of incorporeal create water spell if it would work...

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:11 pm UTC

Glass blocks line of effect? Didn't know that.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:29 pm UTC

Things like glass are why there's a difference between line of effect and line of sight.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:30 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Things like glass are why there's a difference between line of effect and line of sight.

That, and walls of force.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:33 pm UTC

Well, yes. But in most campaign worlds, windows are more common than force fields.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

The example I use to compare the two is "wall of force" or "magic circle against evil", vs a "wall of darkness" or "wall of fog".

Fog/Darkness blocks line of sight, not effect.
Invisible barriers block effect, not line of sight.

Glass is a ... poor blocker to effect, because anything with penetration goes arguably goes right through the glass (or at least, my brain cartoon physics implies that a spear thrown by a fantasy super-hero isn't very much slowed down by smashing through a pane of glass).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:43 pm UTC

Usually I rule that the glass has so many hit points, so it reduces damage by whatever for the first arrow/spear you put through it, and certain spells (i.e., magic missile) are just screwed. (Since they can't target objects.) I might allow something like Chaos Bolt to do the arrow thing. Maybe I'd roll for reflection in that case...that might be a bit too evil.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Yakk » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

Meh, basically all 4e attack powers target creatures or enemies. "Can it target an object" is supposed to be up to the DM.

(Look at twin strike -- by that reading, you cannot use twin strike on a rock.)
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:57 pm UTC

I muddled my editions a bit there. 3.5 MM can't target creatures; 4e MM pre-errata I probably would have let break windows, post-errata there's no attack roll so I'd probably say it can't, which somehow makes sense to my brain.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Keldaran
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:46 pm UTC
Location: Canadiana

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Keldaran » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:22 am UTC

Hey guys, I think this is the right place to put this. Is anyone gathering people for a game of 4e over the web? if so i am interested, pm me!

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

Postby Menacing Spike » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:49 pm UTC

I... what... I don't even...


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests