D&D Essentials: Ask me anything.
Moderator: Moderators
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
Because you're Just As Planning it or something. I don't know.Oh good grief... how does knowing where the sword that is swinging at your head was made somehow make you harder to hit?
Let's not start that discussion again.The class sucked anyway.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
I believe being unconscious on the ground only gives you a -5 to your defenses, so your superior intellect still helps you avoid attacks when you're bleeding out in the corner...TheFlatline wrote:Oh good grief... how does knowing where the sword that is swinging at your head was made somehow make you harder to hit?Psychic Robot wrote:Yes. Heaven forbid the wizard have abysmal AC and all.
@hogarth: True. In practice though, while its two times out of twenty , how long it will take to drop something depends practically on the final percentage of attacks that hit.
If you're rolling to hit once per round, and need say 4 successful hits to drop something, it will take you:
at 6+ (75% to hit): 4 attacker rolls (rounds) per 3 successful hits to defender...approx 5 rounds to drop the target (actually 5.33)
at 8+ (65% to hit): 1.5 rolls per successful hit...approx 6 rounds (6.12)
at 11+ (50% chance to hit)...2 rolls per hit...8 rounds
at 16+ (25% chance to hit)...4 rolls per hit...16 rounds.
at 18+ (15% to hit)......around 7 rolls per hit...27 rounds to kill (26.67)
at 20: (5% to hit): 20 rolls per hit...80 rounds to kill defender
The formula I used here is:
length of combat = [base # hits to drop] x 100/ successful attack %
I used 4 hits just for ease of calculation - I don't know how long it takes to pop an Essentials character - but it should work the same, proportionally, regardless. In the example above shifting from 6+ to 8+ would make you able to take one additional combat round, while moving from 18+ to 20 there's a blowout in how long you'd last.
Last edited by CCarter on Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
I don't know what to tell you. The difference between "very difficult to hit" and "slightly more difficult to hit" doesn't feel qualitatively different to me than "very easy to hit" and "slightly more easy to hit". It's still a bad idea to try to fireball a (3.5) monk to death -- Lightning Reflexes or no Lightning Reflexes.CCarter wrote:@hogarth: True. In practice though, while its two times out of twenty , how long it will take to drop something depends practically on the final percentage of attacks that hit.
AC is a slightly different matter, since AC targeting attacks are more common.
Last edited by hogarth on Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't forget "Climbing into people's assholes" checks (er, Escape Artist). Factotum plays a huge role in that build. And that's the most productive thing it's ever done.Princess wrote:TheFlatline, in 3.5 Factotum stacked Int into Init, AC, jumping/swiming, etc.
So wait, the game isn't actually printed B&W on shitty photocopy paper? I understand the whole "grognard appeal" but I'm glad they're not deciding "Let's just be fucking cheap and pretend we're in the '80s".
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Well, you probably wouldn't 'feel' it so much unless you had to attack the same defense/save over and over...but yeah the effect is there.hogarth wrote:I don't know what to tell you. The difference between "very difficult to hit" and "slightly more difficult to hit" doesn't feel qualitatively different to me than "very easy to hit" and "slightly more easy to hit". It's still a bad idea to try to fireball a (3.5) monk to death -- Lightning Reflexes or no Lightning Reflexes.CCarter wrote:@hogarth: True. In practice though, while its two times out of twenty , how long it will take to drop something depends practically on the final percentage of attacks that hit.
AC is a slightly different matter, since AC targeting attacks are more common.
Its hidden a bit since as Sashi noted, the GM can dodge the problem of PCs with super-hard defenses just by hitting a different defense. I guess there's also all the feats and powers that do damage on misses, too.
I suppose the 3.5 monk could be off the RNG even without the +2, making Lightning Reflexes pointless. I gather that 4.0 has much tighter bonus and DC scaling though, so that PCs are more inclined to fight over tiny +1 bonuses.
4E takes a much stronger "top down" approach to combat modifiers. In 3.5 a character's AC/Saves/attack bonus can vary by fairly surprising amounts just by having a player choose to buy a few items with large bonuses rather than a large number of items with small bonuses.
So a 4E character will pick up a +4 armor and a feat for +1 AC, instead of having the choice between a +4 armor or a +3 armor and +2 ring of deflection.
So a 4E character will pick up a +4 armor and a feat for +1 AC, instead of having the choice between a +4 armor or a +3 armor and +2 ring of deflection.
I've played quite a bit of Essentials since Heroes of the Fallen Lands came out...combat definitely moves a lot faster than the core 4E game that I'm in.Juton wrote:I've played a bit of 4e, my biggest complaint is that combat takes so damn long. I think in a 4 hour session we could squeeze out two fights and each fight consisted of using our encounter powers first round then spamming at-wills. Has essentials mitigated this at all?
Part of this is because turns go by a lot quicker, since there's a lot less flipping through power cards, and also because there is less emphasis on "Fuck you, DM!" immediate actions.
There is still the problem of PC's unloading their big guns and gradually powering down to their at-wills over the course of combat...there's nothing that the 4E ruleset can really do to quell this habit.
So far, I find that I enjoy Essentials more than core 4E. However, initially I really enjoyed 4E around the time of it's launch until a constant barrage of player supplements and Dragon articles turned the rules into a bloated mass akin to Tetsuo at the end of Akira, that most players won't even try to navigate without the aid of the character builder. Essentials is supposedly more self-contained...which I would enjoy...but eventually it may become just as bloated.
That's mainly due to the new MM3 stats for monsters - less HP, more damage. It's also in errata'd 4E.Shazbot79 wrote:I've played quite a bit of Essentials since Heroes of the Fallen Lands came out...combat definitely moves a lot faster than the core 4E game that I'm in.
Well, the DM can fix this, by using dynamic encounter design - that is, not all the foes are there in the first round already... aka "unleash the hounds".Shazbot79 wrote:There is still the problem of PC's unloading their big guns and gradually powering down to their at-wills over the course of combat...there's nothing that the 4E ruleset can really do to quell this habit.
Yeah...we play with those revisions in my core 4E game as well...and combat is still notably faster in the Essentials game.malak wrote: That's mainly due to the new MM3 stats for monsters - less HP, more damage. It's also in errata'd 4E.
When our party was 1st level, we took on a solo in 3 rounds.
True. A good DM can fix this...I often plan encounters along these lines. I also shy away from staging the BBEG in the absolute last room of the bottom most layer of the dungeon....players are more willing to part with dailies when they're not sure which fight is the boss fight.Shazbot79 wrote: Well, the DM can fix this, by using dynamic encounter design - that is, not all the foes are there in the first round already... aka "unleash the hounds".
Anyway, I don't think that the power structure in 4E is a problem per se...but players unloading powers from the top down does make things feel monotonous and generic.
Anyway, as an aside, I really don't have a problem with a game where combats last like 10 rounds on average...as long as every one of those rounds is interesting. What I don't want is a 10 round combat where all of the dynamic tactical elements are expended in the first 5 rounds, and the last 5 rounds are spent chiseling away at a few stragglers with at-will powers.
Yeah, ok, it's faster because the melee chars in essentials have about the same amount of options as melee chars in 3.5..Shazbot79 wrote:Yeah...we play with those revisions in my core 4E game as well...and combat is still notably faster in the Essentials game.malak wrote: That's mainly due to the new MM3 stats for monsters - less HP, more damage. It's also in errata'd 4E.
When our party was 1st level, we took on a solo in 3 rounds.
But this is not necessarily a bad thing - I know I can give a newbie a slayer or thief and they can play it within no time. None of the indecisive looks at the different power cards, slowing everything down.
I also prefer the auras to the previous marking, as it's less fiddly...
Last edited by malak on Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DC 80 Escape Artist checks? Sure.Koumei wrote:Don't forget "Climbing into people's assholes" checks (er, Escape Artist). Factotum plays a huge role in that build.
I'd add that sudden deep in to some classes have "surprising" effects too. Well, I think classes with "4 levels cool, 16 levels suck" are examples of being bad game design, but nonetheless builds with something from Pal2-4, Fighter2, Barbarian1-2, Monk2, Swashbuckler3 list are quite popular.Sashi wrote: In 3.5 a character's AC/Saves/attack bonus can vary by fairly surprising amounts just by having a player choose to buy a few items with large bonuses rather than a large number of items with small bonuses.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
There's actually quite a bit of interesting things you can do. There's instant friends, which basically works as charm person for 1d4 hours and has an amnesia effect; spectral image lets you create an illusion of up to Medium size; arcane gate lets you create a rift in space that treats two distant squares as being adjacent adjacent for purposes of movement; blur gives you a +2 bonus to defenses and you're invisible to creatures more than five squares from you; beneficent transformation lets you "borrow" a special ability from a monster (nothing too powerful, but things like fly speed, blindsight, tremorsense, etc.).CapnTthePirateG wrote:What kind of magical effects can you drop with arcana? Anything besides illusions? And are there any open-ended, flexible effects such as silent image?
However, something that rubs me the wrong way is the entire skill system. After going back over it, it's a giant "fuck you" to pretty much everyone. There are DCs listed at each level--easy, moderate, and hard. Rather than having set DCs for specific things--such as manacles being a DC 25 skill check to escape--Essentials decided to turn the game into a tremendous Oblivion-esque rubberband. A few things have statics DCs (such as making Heal checks to let someone use his second wind), but Essentials favors improvisation and gives examples of such.
For instance, with Intimidate, cowing an unruly crowd is a hard DC. Rather than doing the obvious--such as making it an Intimidate vs. Will check--WotC decided that it would be nice to have the mob's DC scale with you by level. So, by epic tier, when you've moved from Fighter Bob to Sir Bob the Valorous Lord, telling a bunch of peasants to fuck off is as difficult as it was when you were a step above a mud farmer.
Blech. No, thanks. But if the skills are already "lol make it up," I guess it won't be much of a stretch from there to completely overhaul the system into something that isn't retarded.
Last edited by Psychic Robot on Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
If the reactions on rpg.net are anything to go by, people are PISSED at WotC's decision to switch to an online-only mode for their character builder--which was one of the few selling points of that edition.
Looks like 4E just pissed away any goodwill they got from Essentials.
Looks like 4E just pissed away any goodwill they got from Essentials.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Rpg.net is a fucking hole, and people get pissed at wholly random shit over there. But still, I'm not sure I'm surprised that 4rries would be pissed at change of any kind.Lago PARANOIA wrote:If the reactions on rpg.net are anything to go by, people are PISSED at WotC's decision to switch to an online-only mode for their character builder--which was one of the few selling points of that edition.
Looks like 4E just pissed away any goodwill they got from Essentials.
That being said, wouldn't having the character builder run in a browser window be a GOOD thing? It should run on like Macs and shit now, right?
-Username17
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
If a competent company was helming the change then it wouldn't be all that bad of a change. I mean, this is 2010. Unless you're doing something like commuting 90 minutes on a train or a military guy stationed overseas you can get Internet if you want.FrankTrollman wrote: Rpg.net is a fucking hole, and people get pissed at wholly random shit over there. But still, I'm not sure I'm surprised that 4rries would be pissed at change of any kind.
But seriously, have you seen the Compendium or the Monster Builder? Those things fucking suck and I honestly can't blame 4rries for feeling dread at the thought of switching over. WotC just flat-out sucks at their online offerings--unless WotC shows a competence with their web apps that they have not shown at all previously I don't see this going anywhere good.
But the takeaway from this is that 4E continues to go down the death spiral. My prediction of 4E getting axed Spring of 2012 looks really optimistic now.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
"online-only" is the bad thing. If you have the builder running on your computer you can be pretty sure you will still have it tomorrow or next year, not to mention you will be able to use it without net access.FrankTrollman wrote:That being said, wouldn't having the character builder run in a browser window be a GOOD thing? It should run on like Macs and shit now, right?
Murtak
Wasn't it the case that you could pay for one month's access to the on-line service and it would permanently update the locally installed version of the Character Builder? Changing it to a subscription-only program would be a definite downgrade, then.Murtak wrote:"online-only" is the bad thing. If you have the builder running on your computer you can be pretty sure you will still have it tomorrow or next year, not to mention you will be able to use it without net access.FrankTrollman wrote:That being said, wouldn't having the character builder run in a browser window be a GOOD thing? It should run on like Macs and shit now, right?
How is it you're not banned for that post? I was writing for them and got instabanned for even lightly questioning Darren's incredibly craven behavior.FrankTrollman wrote: Rpg.net is a fucking hole, and people get pissed at wholly random shit over there. But still, I'm not sure I'm surprised that 4rries would be pissed at change of any kind.
That being said, wouldn't having the character builder run in a browser window be a GOOD thing? It should run on like Macs and shit now, right?
-Username17
And in an unrelated note, how comes there's no "Diary of Failure--Essentials" thread yet? I'm guessing because nobody around here actually cares enough about the game to know it well enough to trash it yet.
Last edited by Doom on Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.