Dark Sun returns

[Spaghetti Western]

Yeah, I run all games freeform. If players want to go teleport to the frozen wilderness and have adventures there, I can totally do that. I can generate potential enemies on the fly while I'm describing scenery, so I totally don't get the idea that it would be in any way difficult to handle players going off the rails in any system. I straight up insult the creativity of any DM who can't handle that shit, and have little respect for them.

I don't get this. Being a DM is not a profession or competition. It's great that you are that adept but not respecting someone who wants to play a game with some friends who doesn't have the either the inclination or talent to do the same is bullshit. Some people get put in the DM chair for reasons other then thinking its some divine calling. Reasons like no one else is willing or it's their turn. These players are not going to be able to or not go to want to do those things on the fly. It's ok to design an RPG for them as well and I'm not sure why that would cause you to lose respect for someone.

[mandrake]

Mandrake: I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The conversation seems to be going so many different ways I can't lock down your point. Could you please outline the specific points YOU are trying to get across (without the arguments against it)

This is a problem with this kind of communication in general, especially on a board with so many people who are arguing one side against one or two people, if I respond to everyone, things get confusing, and therefore I lose, because I make a small mistake. If I respond to some people, I'm ignoring arguments and therefore lose. This instance is particularly egregious, because Frank seems incapable of actually responding to what I am saying, and kept putting words in my mouth. Also he has the imagination of a slug.

My point is that skill challenges work out. It may take some practice to get used to the new system, but they are functional, and if run well, fun and interesting.

Oh, and that I love Dark Sun and that I think it'll work fine in 4E.

[Morzas]

Skill challenges work out. It may take some practice to get used to the new system, but they are functional, and if run well, fun and interesting.

K. That's an opinion. Here are the facts. Both versions of the skill challenge system, as they are written, suck balls. They must be fun for your group because your DM is house-ruling them or letting you guys win.

Oh, and that I love Dark Sun and that I think it'll work fine in 4E.

K. That's an opinion. Here's a fact. The 4e rules as written make it far too easy for characters to survive this:

The themes of this setting could fit in the Dying Earth subgenre and include survival against the elements, ecological disaster, resource depletion, survival of the fittest, slavery and poverty, and the widespread use of psionic abilities. The political setting is similar to ancient Middle East, North Africa or Mesopotamia. Water and metals are extremely scarce. Survival against the elements has made it a harsh exotic world.

Gosh, that "harsh exotic world" sure seems scary when the Cleric, according to the rules as they're written, can just CLW every day to survive in the desert forever.

K, so here's where you ignore everything I've said and say some more useless bullshit because you're a troll.

[Doom]

I can certainly feel for you dealing with the wolfpack tactics, although what you see here doesn't come close to matching Gleemax, where I believe such tactics were perfected, or RPGnet, where the wolfpack is kin with the mods.

And, after a year of tweaking and houseruling and modifying, I do have a version of skill challenges that sort of works (still requires some ad hoc BSing on my part every time, though), although half the players still hate when it's skill challenge time, and half the players (nonidentical) cringe when someone with a +7 rolls a skill instead of the guy with the +8.

But, my version of skill challenges is about as similar to RAW skill challenges of DnD4.0 as DnD4.0 is to Dungeons and Dragons, which is to say, minimal.

What kind of house rules do you use to have skill challenges make any sort of sense?

[Lago PARANOIA]

I do have a version of skill challenges that sort of works (still requires some ad hoc BSing on my part every time, though), although half the players still hate when it's skill challenge time, and half the players (nonidentical) cringe when someone with a +7 rolls a skill instead of the guy with the +8.

Why are you torturing your players like this?

[mandrake]

K, so here's where you ignore everything I've said and say some more useless bullshit because you're a troll.

One last time, I'll indulge you. If you keep talking like this, it won't happen again.

K. That's an opinion. Here are the facts. Both versions of the skill challenge system, as they are written, suck balls. They must be fun for your group because your DM is house-ruling them or letting you guys win.

So, it's my opinion that they work (also my experience). For the record, "sucks balls" is not a fact in any instance of D&D that I'm willing to discuss. He can't say whether or not his suppositions are correct because he can't figure out the intent or the conditional modifiers because it's too complex for the interpretation he's trying to give.

K. That's an opinion. Here's a fact. The 4e rules as written make it far too easy for characters to survive this:

Not any more significantly than other editions.

Gosh, that "harsh exotic world" sure seems scary when the Cleric, according to the rules as they're written, can just CLW every day to survive in the desert forever.

Sure, and in 3rd if they cast create food/create water they never ever die and those are even easier to have access to. Also they save the whole party instead of one person. I don't have the 2nd ed books here, but I suspect similar exploits are available.

[Kaelik]

My point is that skill challenges work out. It may take some practice to get used to the new system, but they are functional, and if run well, fun and interesting.

Your point is wrong. Skill challenges don't meet their own goals. They don't meet any appropriate goals for a game. And the very idea of "skill challenges" which are just roll Blue attack against AC Y is so inherently boring and shitty that back when people made fucking D&D 1e the first thing they did was start coming up with ways to make combat more interesting that Attack vs AC.

We have done much better, and in both 4th and 3rd addition it has gotten to the point where there are crap tons of characters who never ever have to roll +X vs DC Y for damage as their contribution to combat.

Why on earth anyone is so fucking stupid that they think rolling +X vs DC Y is appropriate for non combat actions is completely beyond me.

[Kaelik]

Sure, and in 3rd if they cast create food/create water they never ever die and those are even easier to have access to. Also they save the whole party instead of one person. I don't have the 2nd ed books here, but I suspect similar exploits are available.

You think casting create food and water is easier than being a level 2 Cleric?

Also, level 2 Clerics can actually grant this protection to a basically the entire party. Having a Cleric in your party means you never have to eat or drink again.

A level 6 Cleric? He can carry the whole party and 3 horses per person.

[Doom]

I do have a version of skill challenges that sort of works (still requires some ad hoc BSing on my part every time, though), although half the players still hate when it's skill challenge time, and half the players (nonidentical) cringe when someone with a +7 rolls a skill instead of the guy with the +8.

Why are you torturing your players like this?

Good question.

I started off using a skill challenge, even though it obviously couldn't work as written, just to see empirically that the design doesn't work with even players at least semi-intelligent. I just couldn't believe that a big company could spend time and effort on such a big chunk of the game (keep in mind, every non-combat challenge is a skill challenge, and skill challenges can even take place IN combat, too), inventing this whole new concept, and have that concept be complete and utter crap.

Then, I tinkered with skill challenge rules, and got some minor improvement...that's probably what screwed me. Since I established that they were improvable, the next question that naturally comes up is "can skill challenges be improved to viability?"

After more than a year of experimentation, and consulting the dozen or so other places where people are trying to make these things work, I think I can fairly call what I have as semi-viable. Maybe in another year, I'll have something that could be formatted into the rules THAT FREAKING SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE DMG IN THE FIRST PLACE. More accurately, the GMG, since DM applies to Dungeons and Dragons, which DnD4.0 isn't.

Sorry, got a little irate and digressive there. But, to answer your original question in complete brevity: curiosity.

[mandrake]

Your point is wrong. Skill challenges don't meet their own goals. They don't meet any appropriate goals for a game. And the very idea of "skill challenges" which are just roll Blue attack against AC Y is so inherently boring and shitty that back when people made fucking D&D 1e the first thing they did was start coming up with ways to make combat more interesting that Attack vs AC.

We have done much better, and in both 4th and 3rd addition it has gotten to the point where there are crap tons of characters who never ever have to roll +X vs DC Y for damage as their contribution to combat.

See I think the problem is they assume that you're roleplaying with these challenges. You keep talking about them like they exist in a vacuum, where all that's going on is the person's turn comes and they roll the die and pass/fail the next person goes. If that's not how you're thinking, tell me, but that's the impression I get from everyone.

Why on earth anyone is so fucking stupid that they think rolling +X vs DC Y is appropriate for non combat actions is completely beyond me.

So... what does this part here accomplish? You're against the entire idea of having skills be rolled at all ever? Why even participate in this discussion?

You think casting create food and water is easier than being a level 2 Cleric?

I think all 3e clerics have create food and water as a spell then can prepare on any given day. A 2nd level cleric who hasn't taken that power does not have that power until he levels and retrains.

Also, level 2 Clerics can actually grant this protection to a basically the entire party. Having a Cleric in your party means you never have to eat or drink again.

3e or 4e? If 4e, how?

since DM applies to Dungeons and Dragons, which DnD4.0 isn't.

Shut up.

[MartinHarper]

Wandering out into the desert without food and surviving is just one of those things that holy people do. 3e and 4e both fail here, because that shouldn't even be an application of magic. A high level fighter should be able to cross a desert with a hip flask of blessed water and a dream.

[Kaelik]

See I think the problem is they assume that you're roleplaying with these challenges. You keep talking about them like they exist in a vacuum, where all that's going on is the person's turn comes and they roll the die and pass/fail the next person goes. If that's not how you're thinking, tell me, but that's the impression I get from everyone.

"See I think the problem is they assume that you're roleplaying with these combats. You keep talking about them like they exist in a vacuum, where all that's going on is the person's turn comes and they roll the die and hit/miss the next person goes. If that's not how you're thinking, tell me, but that's the impression I get from everyone."

Why do you need powers? Why can't you just roll hit/miss and roleplay that you are using your shield to push them back? Why do you have Tide of Iron as an actual ability? Why are there rules about position and status conditions?

Can't you just roleplay combat challenges where you pick an attack and you roll it against a defense and you get a success or a failure and when you get 5 failures TPK and when you get 5 success you flawlessly win the encounter, and you roleplay what success and failures represent?

I'll tell you why, because that is bullshit. It is bad game design. And it's not worth a single second of my time in a world where actual good combat mechanics exist. And likewise it's absolute shit for game design when it applies to non combat challenges too, and I won't fucking take it when I can use a game that doesn't have shitty non combat design.

So... what does this part here accomplish? You're against the entire idea of having skills be rolled at all ever? Why even participate in this discussion?

No, I am against +X vs DC Y being the only thing you do.

Some things you have to understand:

1) It doesn't matter what skill you roll in a skill challenge, it can be any skill you can convince your DM, the only thing that changes is the modifier.
2) All you do is make a roll that is a 'success' or 'failure' that's it. That isn't enough for in combat actions, why is that enough for out of combat actions? If you rolled a acrobatics check and as part of that you ended up on top of tree safe from the stampede, that would be meaningful, the result being a "success" is not.

Just like rolling an attack and getting a success is not enough in combat.

I think all 3e clerics have create food and water as a spell then can prepare on any given day. A 2nd level cleric who hasn't taken that power does not have that power until he levels and retrains.

All level 7 Clerics in 3e have Create Food and Water. Which in 4e conversion is level 10-11. All level 2 Clerics in 4e can keep a party alive forevers. (Yes you can take a shitty power instead, that doesn't matter because no one is that stupid.)

Which one of those are you more likely to have sitting around?

3e or 4e? If 4e, how?

In 4e. A level 3 Cleric can heal one healing surge value per extended rest, Assuming you want to travel for 6 hours then rest for six hours, that is just long enough that a single level 2 Cleric can heal the exact amount of damage five people who are not eating or drinking would sustain in the same time period.

This is only true at levels 2-10, but luckily, at level 6 you get access to Cure Moderate, which means you can heal the amount of damage that 5 people would sustain, and 15 horses.

You can travel indefinitely with a cleric in your party and never eat or drink.

[mandrake]

"See I think the problem is they assume that you're roleplaying with these combats. You keep talking about them like they exist in a vacuum, where all that's going on is the person's turn comes and they roll the die and hit/miss the next person goes. If that's not how you're thinking, tell me, but that's the impression I get from everyone."

Don't do that.

Why do you need powers? Why can't you just roll hit/miss and roleplay that you are using your shield to push them back? Why do you have Tide of Iron as an actual ability? Why are there rules about position and status conditions?

Because D&D is a combat focused game.

Can't you just roleplay combat challenges where you pick an attack and you roll it against a defense and you get a success or a failure and when you get 5 failures TPK and when you get 5 success you flawlessly win the encounter, and you roleplay what success and failures represent?

Because D&D is a combat focused game.

I'll tell you why, because that is bullshit. It is bad game design. And it's not worth a single second of my time in a world where actual good combat mechanics exist. And likewise it's absolute shit for game design when it applies to non combat challenges too, and I won't fucking take it when I can use a game that doesn't have shitty non combat design.

Well, maybe it's that way to emphasize the combat, It's not a shitty or broken system, it's simply a less developed one because it's not the important bit of the system for a large part of interactions.

No, I am against +X vs DC Y being the only thing you do.

That's not what you said. You said that rolling +X against DC Y is completely fucking stupid.

It's also the central mechanic of D&D.

Some things you have to understand:

1) It doesn't matter what skill you roll in a skill challenge, it can be any skill you can convince your DM, the only thing that changes is the modifier.
2) All you do is make a roll that is a 'success' or 'failure' that's it. That isn't enough for in combat actions, why is that enough for out of combat actions? If you rolled a acrobatics check and as part of that you ended up on top of tree safe from the stampede, that would be meaningful, the result being a "success" is not.

So binary success/failure doesn't work for you. Great. That doesn't make the system broken. It means that as written, you don't like it, which is exactly what rule 0 is for, rules that don't quite work for you. What part of this did you think I didn't know?

I think all 3e clerics have create food and water as a spell then can prepare on any given day. A 2nd level cleric who hasn't taken that power does not have that power until he levels and retrains.

All level 7 Clerics in 3e have Create Food and Water. Which in 4e conversion is level 10-11. All level 2 Clerics in 4e can keep a party alive forevers. (Yes you can take a shitty power instead, that doesn't matter because no one is that stupid.)

Which one of those are you more likely to have sitting around?

In 4e. A level 3 Cleric can heal one healing surge value per extended rest, Assuming you want to travel for 6 hours then rest for six hours, that is just long enough that a single level 2 Cleric can heal the exact amount of damage five people who are not eating or drinking would sustain in the same time period.

This is only true at levels 2-10, but luckily, at level 6 you get access to Cure Moderate, which means you can heal the amount of damage that 5 people would sustain, and 15 horses.

You can travel indefinitely with a cleric in your party and never eat or drink.

You know you can only benefit from one extended rest in any 24 hour period, and also that assumes that you never fight anything. Also that's the worst most boring game I could imagine playing in.

[Psychic Robot]

TD:

I don't think that's really accurate anyway. I don't think the target audience has changed significantly between the editions.

Come on, TD. We both know that's not true. To put it bluntly, D&D players have gotten pussified--they can't handle things like "paladins have to be LG or they fall and lose their class abilities." And let's be brutally honest: 4e is designed to play toward the tastes of the 13-year-old WoW crowd. No, I'm not saying that 4e is WoW, but it's targeting WoW's target audience. Seriously, look at tieflings and eladrin and tell me with a straight face that they aren't draenei and blood elves.

I'm not even saying that it's a bad thing to include exotic races. It's not my cup of tea, but you can't deny WotC's obvious intent.

Well, as I've explained on the WotC forums (though perhaps not to you), this is actually false. And David Sirlin agrees with me, as do the designers of D&D. I'm in good company. And we are right.

Before getting into the meat of your post, I'm going to sigh audibly and address this nuisance. No, it's not your actual argument, and I could simply let it slide, but it's going to get right under my skin if I don't.

First off, don't try and namedrop to add credibility to your statement. Not only do I not know who Dave Sirlin is, I don't particularly care. His existence impacts my ideas in no way whatsoever, and I don't give two whits about what he has to say about game balance. Monte Cook is probably a bigger name than Sirlin, and I think Monte Cook is an incredibly talentless designer who has really bad ideas.

Second of all, you cite the development team of 4e as sharing your ideology for support. Mike Mearls said that rogues in 3e were underpowered, and he did Iron Heroes. That pretty much counteracts whatever it is that you were trying to do by citing the D&D devs.

Thirdly, the 3e D&D devs clearly thought that SODs were good game design. I could say, "I disagree with you (about SODs being bad game design) and the 3e devs agree with me, so I'm in good company," and what have I done? Done nothing to reinforce my point.

As a finale on this critique, allow me to reword your statement for effect:

Well, as I've explained on the Twilight forums (though perhaps not to you), the notion that Edward is a creepy pedophile stalker is false. And all the other Twimoms agree with me, as does Stephenie Meyer. I'm in good company. And we are right.

Now we can move on to your actual argument.

Balance is important in every game. In a game wherein you are competing "against the computer" (as you are in D&D, as the DM is not really your opponent; you are competing against the game system, more or less) balance is when the game is challenging enough to be enjoyable and you have a real chance of failure. Failure comes in many forms, and does not necessarily equate to "game over" (though having the possibility of that is not a bad thing, which is why games have preserved it). An unbalanced game is less fun than a balanced game, all other things being equal, because the challenge inherent in a game is a part of what makes the game enjoyable. A game which is too easy is boring, and a game which is too difficult is frustrating. You can see this in Devil May Cry 2 and 3, both single player games in the same series; DMC 2 was roundly criticized for being far too easy, whereas DMC 3 was criticized for being controller-snappingly difficult. Games are meant to present a challenge to be overcome by the player, and if the game is unbalanced, the game becomes much less enjoyable. And even beyond the difficulty level, if one aspect of the game is masively stronger for beating it than the others, even if the difficulty level with that one aspect is appropriate, it hurts the game. This is why balance is important in a single-player game - it ensures diversity in gameplay and appropriate challenge level. It cannot create these things out of whole cloth - if there isn't any diversity in the first place, it cannot make it out of thin air. But it can make it so that the diversity which is present remains present, and is not just a facade, a bunch of shitty choices and only a couple of real ones.

I will agree that balance is important in a game to some degree. However, I will take your DMC examples and raise your Ninja Gaiden--the defining factor of the series is that it is ridiculously difficult and requires extensive system mastery to beat. And again, we have people who absolutely love the game because of this.

In addition, take FPS games. How is the pistol balanced with the rest of the guns? Well, it's not. It's junk because it's meant to be junk. So the pistol isn't a real option, except when you're out of ammo, and you want something better. It's purposely designed to be a poor choice. In the 4e mindset, the pistol needs to be balanced with the rocket launcher, uzi, and M-16--and that's just not true.

I will provide another video game example: MUME, or Multi-Users of Middle-Earth. It's a MUD, and it's all about doing things like killing orcs. In fact, the orcs are a playable faction, as are trolls and black Númenóreans. The thing is, all of the dark races have severe disadvantages--they all have weaker stats, orcs are crippled in the sunlight and have junk magic, black Númenóreans are really only good as mages and they suffer from depression (which lowers their mana supply), and trolls permanently die in the sunlight. But there are plenty of people who play the underlings and try to kill the good races.

There is a secondary consideration as well, and this is that D&D, in many ways, is a competitive game. Not in a formal way, but there is an informal competition for "screentime", "time in the spotlight", or "relative contribution". This is another very important reason why the game needs to be balanced - if one player gets too much or too little of this, it makes the game less fun for the people who get too little (and sometimes the player who gets too much as well, because they feel like they are doing all the work and no one else is contributing). This is bad because it makes players unhappy. And in D&D, you may be stuck with a character for a very long period of time - weeks, months, or even years. This can put unhappy players in the uncomfortable situation where they aren't really enjoying themselves but all their friends are, and they don't want to quit playing with them because they are their friends but simultaneously feel like the game is a downer every week.

You've managed to prove my point marvelously--it's not combat balance that matters, it's screentime. Which is something I pointed out in my original post. Spotlight balance often has little to do with combat prowess or skills--rather, it's the people who love play-acting that steal the spotlight out of combat. It's the DM's job to make sure that everyone is getting about equal spotlight time--and, again, that has little to do with combat balance, except in a hack 'n' slash game.

Here's the thing, though: a lot of people disliked this, and in my experience, the odds of someone quitting or changing characters if they played a non-caster character were about twice the odds of the same happening to someone who played a caster character.

My point still stands. I am in agreement that the fighter needs to be able to do more than he can in 3e, though.

Enchanters are bad because they charm and dominate people, which are insanely powerful abilities. You can in fact dominate people in 4th edition for very short periods of time, but they're high level abilities, and they are very limited in duration and uses. If you violate this, then they end up having multiple characters, effectively, which causes problems.

Yes, it does grant someone the equivalent of multiple characters, and I'm okay with that. Not to the extent with which 3e did it, mind you, but I am okay with enchanters having extra characters. Why? Because it's their schtick--they go around and use their magic to get other people to do what they want.

And if you are talking about subtlely affecting the attitudes of people you're interacting with via magic, that's just a reflavored Diplomacy (or possibly Bluff) check.

No, thank you. Skills are nonmagical. You can say that you're casting a spell, but if you're not using spellcasting mechanics, you're not using a spell. Especially if the wizard has low Charisma.

Summoners are bad when their summons have independent actions. 4th edition summoners solved this problem by having them share actions with their summons. Only some summons are worthwhile, but this is not due to sharing actions but due to some summons being horribly designed.

Necromancers are bad when they have lots of undead, or even one undead with indepedent actions, for the same reasons as summoners. There aren't any yet, but there will be a class based around dealing negative energy damage and temporarily "dominating" dead enemies.

The entire point of being a summoner is to summon things and have them do things for you. That's just how the concept works. Necromancers are the same way. And, again, if I have to choose between class fantasy tropes and balance, then balance is getting kicked to the curb.

It is bad because it obsoletes the Diplomacy skill. As I pointed out, if you simply reflavor your diplomacy check as charming them via magic, its the same thing and the wizard doesn't get an unfair advantage.

Charm person doesn't obsolete the Diplomacy skill at all. How could it? You have to wave your hands around and chant and look like a total goober and then if the target fails his save--then and only then does it replace the Diplomacy skill. What happens if the save fails? And what are people going to say when they see you trying to cast charm person on someone else? And what happens when the spell wears off?

These are all important factors to consider when dealing with magic, and it sounds like the people who didn't like charm person didn't bother to think about the spell from an in-character perspective.

EDIT: I'm going to quote myself for your benefit, TD.

It's not balance that counts. It's the people you play with. If you're playing in an extremely combat-heavy game, balance counts. I'll be the first to admit that never hitting in combat is frustrating. However, once you're out of minis-mode and back to role-playing, balance is put on the back burner. And what happens if you're playing in a game where you spend about half an hour every session doing combat? How much does it matter then if the wizard can end the fight in three rounds?

Face it: it doesn't matter much at all. It's the spotlight that counts. If the spotlight is on everyone fairly equally, then combat balance doesn't mean a damn thing.

And I'd like to see you address this:

Then let's move on to skill challenges. They're broken. Completely. Frank did an accurate analysis of them that highlights their flaws, one of them most crippling being that it encourages dice spam. The reasoning is simple: you have a pool of successes and failures. Every time someone fails, you grow closer to failing the entire skill challenge. That means that only the people who are likely to succeed are encouraged to participate, since anyone who screws up has the chance of screwing it up for the entire party.

Mandrake:

Yet, when Frank is proved wrong no one expects him to actually own up? Interesting. Again, I was proved to be wrong about something I never even said.

That's pretty much how it goes, unfortunately. Like I said, classic Frank Trollman intellectual dishonesty.

You're going to find out that there are people worth replying to on these forums, and then there are people who can only set up strawmen, rant, and scream. I'm trying to be in the former group.

[mandrake]

Come on, TD. We both know that's not true. To put it bluntly, D&D players have gotten pussified--they can't handle things like "paladins have to be LG or they fall and lose their class abilities." And let's be brutally honest: 4e is designed to play toward the tastes of the 13-year-old WoW crowd. No, I'm not saying that 4e is WoW, but it's targeting WoW's target audience. Seriously, look at tieflings and eladrin and tell me with a straight face that they aren't draenei and blood elves.

Sorry for stepping on your discussion here, but a couple things: the alignment system has always been shitty and led to shitty things, reducing its importance is one of the best things 4E did. Secondly Eladrin and Tieflings come from 2e. They're (at least in my opinion) a way of giving people distinctly nonhuman options for characters in core. Otherwise, what do you have? Short, effeminate humans, short, butch humans, tall butch humans, short, irritating humans x2 and progeny of humans and short effeminate humans.

[Psychic Robot]

I'm talking art design, not races. I'm quite aware that tieflings and eladrin have a history behind them. Compare the art in 2e/3e to the art in 4e, though, and you'll see what I mean.

[mandrake]

Eladrin look very much like 3e at least human form eladrin.

I can't find any dranei that don't look more like tieflings from earlier editions than tieflings look like them. I think WoW was influenced by them, not the other way around.

[MGuy]

+1 to PR on that note. Incidentally I like the idea of the Draenei and was suckered in by the artwork for it. (Though I have yet to play either because I like Dragonborn and Dwarves far more than elves and demon spawn)

Tieflings= 3.5
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rof_gallery/49759.jpg

Tieflings 4.0
http://www.madeofawesome.net/images/upl ... efling.jpg

Draenei:
http://www.huncomics.hu/img/feltolt/Dra ... g-7559.jpg

[Pinniped]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090814

Dark Sun in 4E. I had to look up what the 4E rules were for starvation and thirst. For reference, here they are from page 159.

Note that a character with 10 healing surges can thus go two weeks without water, even if they fail every endurance check.

I know this is a week late, but it seems like there were a few posts misreading these rules. Specifically, note the line, "When a character fails the check, he loses one healing surge and must continue to make checks."

If you read this as, "when a character fails the check, he loses one healing surge and must make another check at the end of the next time period," it implies that a character who succeeds on any of these Endurance checks does not have to continue making checks, rendering him immune to hunger/thirst/suffocation. That can't be right.

The line must mean that the character continues to make checks right away, potentially losing multiple surges until he succeeds. This is further supported by the line "Success buys the character another day (if hungry or thirsty)" -- surviving to the next time period requires a success. This way, as makes sense, every time period without food/water/air is more dangerous than the previous time period, and no character can survive indefinitely, no matter how many surges or how much access to healing they have.

Alternatively, the "roll once per time period, lose one surge if you fail, move on either way" model makes sense to me in a situation where a character has limited access to food/water -- for example, a forest where he can find the occasional handful of berries but no potable streams, or a prison where he's fed only a thin gruel. In these circumstances, you might expect a character to live for multiple weeks while hungry/thirsty, growing slowly weaker but surviving.

[Morzas]

So binary success/failure doesn't work for you. Great. That doesn't make the system broken. It means that as written, you don't like it, which is exactly what rule 0 is for, rules that don't quite work for you. What part of this did you think I didn't know?

Here's an old, OLD post that might enlighten you. I'd always heard people toss around "Oberoni" this and "Oberoni" that so I got off my lazy ass and googled it.

Originally posted by Oberoni on the D&D general board July 23, 2002:
This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

"There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

* "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
* "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
* "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:

* "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.

Now, for this.

He can't say whether or not his suppositions are correct because he can't figure out the intent or the conditional modifiers because it's too complex for the interpretation he's trying to give.

You still didn't give me a direct quotation. To clarify what you're trying to say, I'll quote the part I think you are misinterpreting.

The only assumptions are the last column, "Expected levels." If you don't like Stalker0's and my assumptions, feel free to scoot the levels up or down until you're happy. If you think we should assume that 4 other party members are using "Aid Another" to add +2 each for a total of +8, move the levels up 8 rows.

As Published

Note that this includes a +5 to difficulty classes for all checks. This matches the rules as written and to the best of my understanding. If you disagree with that interpretation, you'll want to move the entries in "Expected levels" five rows up.

Is this the part you're talking about? If it is, what about it causes you to say that his "suppositions are incorrect"? The math in the table is all correct and quite damning of how skill challenges work in practice, the very last column is the part that isn't clear, but is easily modified. that column has nothing to do with the actual math that shows how skill challenges are flawed, it is only an attempt at predicting when the flaws will occur in a game. The actual calculations are completely sound.

[mandrake]

Here's an old, OLD post that might enlighten you. I'd always heard people toss around "Oberoni" this and "Oberoni" that so I got off my lazy ass and googled it.

Quote that does not actually have to do with what I said

Right, I said that isn't a problem. I said if you don't like it, that's easy to house rule. Not it's not broken because you can house rule it but it's not broken, but I can see how it wouldn't be to your taste, so change it up a bit.
I will in the future not suggest that the system is alterable, as that is apparently some kind of mind breaking fallacy.

The actual calculations are completely sound.

I can't be arsed to look it up at the moment, but he says that he can't predict what modifiers will be used or what the success rate is supposed to be, but the system still fails because...? The idea is that the math he is using is insufficient to properly model a skill challenge as it would be seen in the wild.

Tieflings= 3.5
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rof_gallery/49759.jpg

Quoting this because the male tiefling in that picture is fucking awesome.

[Data Vampire]

Gosh, that "harsh exotic world" sure seems scary when the Cleric, according to the rules as they're written, can just CLW every day to survive in the desert forever.

Sure, and in 3rd if they cast create food/create water they never ever die and those are even easier to have access to. Also they save the whole party instead of one person. I don't have the 2nd ed books here, but I suspect similar exploits are available.

My knowledge of Dark Sun is limited, but I can think of a couple problems with this. Firstly the Gods are pretty much dead in Dark Sun. Second magic kills plant life in a radius around someone that casts spells.

So it might not be possible to rely of a cleric and there spells to help survive the harshness of the world and if you do get around that then killing the plant life is a world that is almost dead will likely make you public enemy number one.

Psionics does have healing powers and the Sustenance power that allows you to go without food or water for a day. However, healing is almost strictly personal range only and Sustenance is a personal range power.

[IGTN]

Defiling is, if I remember right, a subset of Arcane. Clerics don't have to worry about killing things when they cast.

Also, 4e materials aren't allowed to change core rules definitions. They might say that Clerics aren't appropriate, but original Dark Sun had clerics of the elements instead.

[FatR]

Secondly Eladrin and Tieflings come from 2e.

Your statement is bullshit and you know this.. 4E Eladrins very literally are similar to pre-4E eladrins in name only. Tieflings got complete visual redesign and even have different origins.

They're (at least in my opinion) a way of giving people distinctly nonhuman options for characters in core. Otherwise, what do you have? Short, effeminate humans, short, butch humans, tall butch humans, short, irritating humans x2 and progeny of humans and short effeminate humans.

Yeah, and humans with rubber foreheads no one knows or cares about are soooo different. You're not even creative or imaginative as far as trolls go.

[RandomCasualty2]

Question RC, why don't you make a NPC pregen chart like the DMG but custom for your needs?

I actually tried doing that at one point, but it just got tedious after doing a few sample NPCs at various levels, so I gave up on it. I really don't want to write up a new pregen chart, because it takes a very long time to do all those classes at all their levels. I mean it basically amounts to designing 20+ PCs, and taking snapshots of them at each level that may be relevant. And that's a lot of work. More so than I want to do to prepare for a game.

As a DM, i want to work on world building, and creating interesting NPCs, not a bunch of number crunching because the NPC building system assumes that DMs have no job outside of DMing. I honestly don't really have the time to write up a chart of pregens from level 1 to 20 for every archetype. If I did take the time to do it, then I wouldn't have time to make NPCs with personality, or even interesting locales for the PCs to visit. It would literally be all prep work on NPC stat blocks.

Now maybe some people like Frank can actually calculate out an encounter with a level 11 spiked chain fighter, a level 12 beguiler, a level 10 rogue and a level 11 multiclass completely on the fly and without halting the game to do up statblocks. I honestly can't even tell you how much wealth a level 12 NPC would have without consulting the chart, let alone pick out his entire gear load from memory, because you have all the gear table memorized as well. And then doing that for 4 separate NPCs all without a long delay to the game? There is no way I could ever do that. If you can do that while adhering to the godawful clunky 3E NPC system, I am in awe. Your brain is a fucking supercomputer and a way better DM than I'll ever be. I can't do that, and 99% of DMs out there won't be able to do that either. Like the majority of human beings, they'll have to calculate their tax code on paper instead of calculating it in their head in mere microseconds.

4E NPC design is dumbed down, but that's a good thing. I don't want NPCs to work like PCs, because I need to create lots of them, and run lots of them at once. They shouldn't be as innately complex as a PC. At least for those DMs out there who don't have supercomputer brains.

Now I understand some of the 4E hate, but the 3.5 apologetics, especially for the NPC system, is just sickening to me. The 3.5 NPC system is analogous to a bag of equal parts puke and diarrhea, and you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for being apologists for it.

As far as bad design, I would put it up there with 4E skill challenges. That's seriously the level of bad that it is.