*D&D 4ed*

[Voss]

If, you know, they're stupid enough to stand there and take it. If they take two run actions, it can't actually catch and kill them- it will catch one or two with opportunity attacks, but the rest of the village survives. Maybe it can run down a few more later, but really, if everybody scatters, 95% of the village will make it.

Well, you get unlimited opportunity attacks in 4E, you can only take one per creature. but you can seriously just rip apart the villagers if you want.

As far as destroying a village, the Tarrasque, in any edition, has never been particularly good at killing people. People are going to scatter and get away from the Tarrasque, but not before he stomps your village to rubble and stuff. There is in fact very little any monster in any edition can do about villagers who just scatter into the woods. If you want to kill lots of villagers, you're going to need more people, or a lot of time to track them.

The tarrasque in 4E also has a trampel attack that can hit a great number of people, since it has a move of 8 and occupies a pretty big space. So it can really stomp the village down.

Also keep in mind that most villagers are not level 1 characters, they're minions. Town guards and the like may have levels, but regular commoners should just be minions.

Only if the DM makes them minions. Which is an indictment in itself, since it means the town's kids can totally kill the adult population with thrown rocks and go play out a 'Star Trek Children's Planet' episode.

I did forget the opportunity attacks against each target thing. But still, I'm just not impressed. They're going to hear it coming and they're going to scatter. And thus, most aren't going to die.

[spasheridan]

If the people line up in a row around the tarrasque the people farther away run first - the people behind them block the OA from the big T. THis should work so only the people closest to the Big T actually gets OA's - they get to pray that he rolls a 1 or something.

[RandomCasualty2]

Only if the DM makes them minions. Which is an indictment in itself, since it means the town's kids can totally kill the adult population with thrown rocks and go play out a 'Star Trek Children's Planet' episode.

I did forget the opportunity attacks against each target thing. But still, I'm just not impressed. They're going to hear it coming and they're going to scatter. And thus, most aren't going to die.

Yeah this is one reason where I support having relative minion status, where a cat would be a minion to an adventurer, but not if it was fighting a rabbit.

So sometimes something can be a minion and other times it may not be, depending on the level of the challenge it faces.

Pretty much this would be whenever there's like a certain level discrepancy between the creatures. So a child against a farmer is pretty muhc both using monster rules, but when either is against a hill giant, they're both just minions.

[Psychic Robot]

The more forceful are your sword-waving gestures, the more you can put them out of position for a more effective stab, doing more damage. It is acting, which is CHA-based.

Although, I'd have thought that 'sly' would be an INT-associated word, rather than a CHA-associated one.

Ugh. While that makes some sense, given the power, it feels like pure cheese and mental gymnastics-justification.

However, given that the wizard now doesn't actually burn targets with a fireball spell, I suppose it's okay. (The wizard actually rattles off a snappy zinger when he casts it, crippling his opponents' self-esteem until they go off and die in a corner.)

[RandomCasualty2]

However, given that the wizard now doesn't actually burn targets with a fireball spell, I suppose it's okay. (The wizard actually rattles off a snappy zinger when he casts it, crippling his opponents' self-esteem until they go off and die in a corner.)

Huh? What do you mean by that?

[Voss]

He's still on about damage bonuses from charisma. Which don't seem to apply to fireball, but whatever.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Yeah this is one reason where I support having relative minion status, where a cat would be a minion to an adventurer, but not if it was fighting a rabbit.

Why the fuck do we care enough about a fight between a kitty and a bunny to afford them special status? Isn't it enough that on every attack by the cat there's a high chance of the bunny dying, and on every attack by the bunny there's a very low chance of the kitty dying?

Or do you really want a non-'Garfield level' cat to be, to an adventurer, a moderate threat that goes down in a few hits?

[RandomCasualty2]

Why the fuck do we care enough about a fight between a kitty and a bunny to afford them special status? Isn't it enough that on every attack by the cat there's a high chance of the bunny dying, and on every attack by the bunny there's a very low chance of the kitty dying?

Or do you really want a non-'Garfield level' cat to be, to an adventurer, a moderate threat that goes down in a few hits?

You don't, but by the same token you probably don't care about villagers versus the Tarrasque either. So while a town guard might be a match for an orc, against the Tarrasque, or a giant, it's just a common minion and nobody cares about it.

The main thing I don't like about minion rules is that we're to believe that there are these level 12 minions running around that somehow have awesome attack and defense, but low hp. I prefer to think that the creature can be cast as either a minion, a normal creature, or an elite depending on the level. So a level 1 monster might be a level 6 minion for instance.

It's a simplification tool and a damn useful one, especially when we want to represent a group of shitty warriors in a high level fight. Because seriously, I don't want to be tracking the hp of every human guard. That's exactly what the minion system was made to fix.

[virgil]

Except that minions in 4E aren't total crap. They pose the same offensive threat as any other equal level creature, and are just as hard to hit with attacks.

[RandomCasualty2]

Except that minions in 4E aren't total crap. They pose the same offensive threat as any other equal level creature, and are just as hard to hit with attacks.

Well like anything they're by level. A level 1 minion against a level 10 character is in fact crap. Even a level 10 minion is pretty weak, it can do some minor damage to you, but it's pretty much not going to kill you.

[virgil]

4E doesn't have you fight level 1 minions at level 10, but level 10 minions, and they hit just as hard as level 10 monsters.

It reminds me of the clay mooks that the Power Rangers fought. In one episode, they fought some newly upgraded ones and it was almost a boss fight in and of itself. Once they finally killed the two or three present, they later fought a horde of them, at which point they went down like two dollar whores.

Or, to put it more succintly...minions in 4E follow the Conservation of Ninjitsu except for purposes of damage output.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I prefer to think that the creature can be cast as either a minion, a normal creature, or an elite depending on the level. So a level 1 monster might be a level 6 minion for instance.

In that case, minion is just what you call any creature of level - 5. Why bother with special terminology?

[Psychic Robot]

Huh? What do you mean by that?

Hitpoints in 4e. My friend and I joke that the wizard's not actually casting a fireball spell. Instead, he's using a sassy zinger to damage the enemies' morale.

[Voss]

Except that minions in 4E aren't total crap. They pose the same offensive threat as any other equal level creature, and are just as hard to hit with attacks.

Actually they don't. The attack and defense numbers are almost level appropriate but the damage is a set number (so they effectively can't crit) and low (even by 4e standards). In play, their only real function is to provide flanking and block movement to enemies you actually care about. They're really mobile battlefield 'obstacles' that you can waste actions to kill.

[Psychic Robot]

No, no, no, Voss...they can be dangerous in large numbers! And they're to make the players feel awesome because they can take out lots of them! (What's the term around here? "Playing Magical Tea Party"?)

[Voss]

Actually, they exist, as far as I can tell, solely to give the Wizard something to do. Really, no one else cares about damaging AoEs, since the AoE invariably means even lower damage.

This actually justifies (in a truly fucked up way) the idea that AoE damage = controller. You're doing battlefield control by taking out the mobile obstacles.

[rapa-nui]

I don't need to actually PLAY Hello Kitty Online to know its not my kind of time waster. A quick once over is more than enough to identify the reasons.

And that's why I dislike them whole "don't knock it 'till you try it" mob. Because its really a stupid thing to say and even stupider to actually do when you think about it.

I agree. I don't have to try Magic Water to know that it is a crock of shit. But that's more because someone actually went and did controlled experiments to CHECK... not just because the idea of homeopathy is inherently stupid and anti-scientific (which it is). I'm an experimentalist at heart, and no amount of theory will convince me of something without an experiment. I'll even take a good simulated experiment, as was often the case with 3.x .

A lot of the things that made me hate the living crap out of 3.x are not present in 4e. There's no disputing that the 4e system is a bit bland (OK, very fucking bland), but at least there is a reason that people don't go around Gating each other and shit.

One of the most consistently brought-up problems in this Edition is the monster hit points. That has a beautifully easy fix: the monsters don't get jacked up simply because the MM says so. Trying to 'fix' 3e was/is a fucking nightmare beyond a certain level.

Currently, it looks like this system will allow us to tell internally consistent fantasy stories. The main problem it has is that it will take a good DM to make them INTERESTING fantasy stories.

Then again, I thought 3e was going to be fantastic when I first read the rules and that turned out to be wrong.

[Voss]

Well, the hitpoints can be fixed, its true. (Two things you can do here- drop the multipliers for solos and elites, and/or include the stat, feat and enhancement bonuses in the multipliers for the characters. So when a 30th level character drops a daily power that says 7[W] + cha, its 7d10 +7*16 rather than 7d10+16). Because ~56 damage isn't something you should care about *at all* at 29th level. And thats really what a fighter is expected to do to Orcus at 30th level- against a monster with over 1000 hit points, thats somehow supposed to matter. (Though the stance that gives an extra +1[W] to all encounter and at will attacks, and free at will attack is a lot better, but even that is kind of sad as the ultimate power for your entire class).

But you're going to have to do a lot of work to make what the PC's can do even vaguely interesting. The best thing you can do amidst the pushing of the minis around the battle mat is make a figure not be able to move, or indeed, do anything. Really, the original version of the game, back in the 70s when it was still mostly a tabletop wargame, was more interesting and conducive to role-playing then this shit is.


Even with a good DM its going to be hard to make the paltry number of things you're allowed to do seem interesting.

[K]

Currently, it looks like this system will allow us to tell internally consistent fantasy stories. The main problem it has is that it will take a good DM to make them INTERESTING fantasy stories.

I don't think it does that. I think 4e is so far removed from a storytelling device that DMs have to just handwave everything plot related and then find a way to explain to players why monsters do all the cool stuff. It's like a Warhammer novel where they don't even pay lip service to the rules because the rules aren't designed to explain things in the world, but to represent tactical combat on an unchanging field.

PCs don't do interesting things anymore. With this game, two 5th level Wizards can school a 20th level Wizard, but a 20th level Wizard can't beat a beholder, and that's just the combat. The fact that no one can do anything outside of combat means that anything you do.... anything.... has to be magical tea party.

No one rides griffins. No one has a castle. There are no love spells, no way to fly more than a few minutes, no way to shapechange, no way to animate the dead, no way to create constructs, forge a sword, build a hut, or impress anyone.

You don't have POWER. A Demigod is just a title in 4e, not a description of your power.

You can't even convince a bartender to extend you a tab without a DM deciding beforehand he wants that to happen and he is willing to ignore huge swaths of the written rules that say he can't do that.

Basically, this is actually a step back before Basic DnD in the Red Box. At least then there were strictly defined areas where you knew where you stood. Now you just play the 4e Tactics Mini-game and hope the DM has decided that you get to do anything.

[Koumei]

I agree. I don't have to try Magic Water to know that it is a crock of shit. But that's more because someone actually went and did controlled experiments to CHECK... not just because the idea of homeopathy is inherently stupid and anti-scientific (which it is).

I am unable to dislike you, thanks to this statement. In my course, someone from Braurs, a company that uses homeopathy-based products, gave a speech on their products. I wasn't the only one to be convinced that it was utter bullshit.

They also gave free samples. The "it helps you sleep because it contains MAGICAL ANTI-CAFFEINE ENERGY!" thing didn't help me sleep, it just left the foul aftertaste of alcohol in my mouth.

Moral of the story: if you want to sleep, try narcotics, exhausting yourself physically and mentally, or getting struck in the temple or the KO-point at the end of the chin. Don't try a magic potion. If you want pain relief, try narcotics or anything that releases endorphins (including, oddly enough, certain types of injuries). Don't try a magic potion.

Actually, just don't try a magic potion, full-stop.

Although I still disagree with you on 4E being better for telling a consistent story than 3E. The whole gating thing seems to be held in check the same way nuclear warheads are held in check: if I Gate Balthazar in at an opportune moment and kill him, Bigby will do the same to me, and I don't want to be at the mercy of a guy with an enormous hand fetish.

[rapa-nui]

Yes, in a way it's almost like they're trying to sell more books. Gasp.
This comes around the time the Magic division announced they're adding a 4th rarity to their Magic booster packs.

They must really be strapped for cash.

But, yeah, I totally agree that 4e is a pretty unacceptable product when it comes to a roleplaying rules book. Both in crunch and flavor, 3e has a lot more going for it, AND it wasn't an almost completely derivative product like 4e is.

But while most DMs can fix stuff like no flying with a simple sentence ("your party finds a lair of friendly pegasi") and there are those retarded rituals for planar travel and teleportation, very few DMs can do what Frank and K did with the Tome series, for instance. And while the Tome series is fantastic, it only goes so far... as the creators themselves wrote in it, after a certain level the game just stops making any damn sense.

You said:
"A possie of 1st level Wizards can kill a Demigod in 4e. "

Did someone actually show that mathematically, or are you using hyperbole to emphasize a point?

[K]

You said:
"A possie of 1st level Wizards can kill a Demigod in 4e. "

Did someone actually show that mathematically, or are you using hyperbole to emphasize a point?

I changed it after I realized that the "enough Cloud of Daggers = Dead Demi-god" is almost the same as "enough 3e Magic Missiles = dead no SR monster."

I didn't think it showed my point that well, despite being true.

[Username17]

You said:
"A possie of 1st level Wizards can kill a Demigod in 4e. "

Did someone actually show that mathematically, or are you using hyperbole to emphasize a point?

That's kind of hyperbolic, but fighting a demigod is pretty underwhelming. Let's toss around Dwarven Wizards for the moment.

A 1st level Wizard has about 24 hit points, and if they spent a feat on it thy have 29. Jack him up to demigod status and he has 106 hit points. If at some point he spent a feat on it (which he probably did because he runs out of feats that he cares about super fast) he has 121.

A demigod has an attack bonus so high that he only misses a 1st level character on a natural 1. But even his most powerful spell (Cloudkill) just does 2d10 + 24 damage to an 11x11 area (half on a miss). Most of his attacks do like 3d8+12 and catch a guy or two. He can seriously spend an encounter power and not even expect to drop a 1st level enemy Wizard!

Meanwhile, the Demigod's defenses are also so high that enemies hit him only on a nat 20. He increased them all by 10 just for gong up levels and he has special equipment and blah blah blah. But a 1st level Wizard can deal out 3 damage automatically on a miss, so that's not a super big problem. And any hit is also automatically a critical (dishing out like 13 damage). So in 20 attacks, the 1st level Wizards will be doing like 73 damage. A group of 20 Wizards would therefore expect to crush him badly before they lost too many guys. Heck, less than that even, because player characters don't really stay down unless someone jumps up and down on their corpse, and the one guy vs. the many doesn't have the luxury of doing that, and the many versus the 1 actually does.

Of course, with a Wizard Demigod it actually may not come to that, because the Wizard seriously has an available utility power at 10th and 16th level that will make him immune to 1st level Wizards for one encounter. If he prepared either Resistance or Stoneskin and hasn't used them up, he can wade through the whole fight and possibly not take any damage at all.

---

But if it's a Fighter Demigod, someone who just does enough damage to not even knock a 1st level Wizard down in a single blow and has no special ability to draw on hidden reserves of ignoring Force damage plinks, he's fucked. He has an extra 45 hit points or so, and he'll be able to use a couple of healing surges. But that in no way changes the fact that ten wizards standing around in loose formation will have about 100 total shots at him, each of which will inflict 3 damage automatically. I mean sure, he can automatically parry the occasional critical hit that sneaks through his high defenses, but that 3 points of pure no-reason damage really adds up when your at-will attacks only do 2d8+14 damage and that isn't even expected to drop an enemy Wizard.

So yeah. A level 21 Fighter is a "demigod." On the safe side, I would want about 12 or 13 first level Wizards. Loose formation, knowing Cloud of Daggers. There are other demigods that could win that fight (the Grind Paladin or a Defense Wizard), but the Swordsman Demigod is toast.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Couple things.

First, you don't crit if your attack on a natural 20 couldn't hit the guy's AC to begin with. So the demigod versus wizards thing will never result in a critical, a natural 20 for them is just an autohit, but not a critical.

Second I'm not sure if I consider the lack of rules a bad thing for noncombat stuff. Most of the shit, like forging mundane weapons and all that just isn't important enough to really warrant wasting the space for rules. You really can and should hand wave it. The rest is about what abilities you think you find balanced. The crafting rules sucked in 3.5 and they didn't add anything to the game at all, except wasting space.

Having PCs run around wtih a bunch of summons may be fun, but it's just not very practical gameplay. Where as an NPC necromancer with skeletons is just seriously part of the encounter and you honestly dont' care where he got his minions. Maybe he paid NPC mercs, maybe he raised skeletons, maybe he has a fucking trained pet basilisk. You're going to be fighting monsters that group together, and really I don't feel the need to write a bunch of rules to try to figure out how they did that. It just limits stories, and I don't feel it adds anything to the game.

One thing I like that 4E did was that it pretty much acknowledged that D&D is a game people play to have fun. It's not some crazy ultrasimulationist thing that's supposed to replicate an economy .

The options players get are options that are playable, balanced and make for a fun game. The options NPCs get are the ones that make for an interesting story and a balanced encounter. It's not especially necessary to try to justify all the NPCs abilities in PC terms, or even in game terms at all. If the abilities happened prior to combat, like animating the dead, we probably just don't care about them much.

Now while it'd be nice to have a few interesting rules, at the very least some way the PC can animate an undead minion or something, there's nothing saying those rules won't be added later (and they probably will).

[virgil]

If D&D is supposed to be a game where you have fun, then they should have actually done so. It's a set of three 200+ page books that only give combat, and expect you to play magical teaparty if you do anything that isn't explicitly on the grid.

Why not just buy Mage Knight? The money I save on not buying cumbersome books with a time-consuming learning curve is better spent on a plethora of different miniatures.