Where the hell was that quote?

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:50 pm

There will be more such questions here, but for now just one.

Where was that bit about the Hulk having a 5% chance to die in M&M from any hit, and why exactly is this true?

koz · Post by **koz** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:53 pm

Not sure where it was, but in MnM, hit points are replaced with a Toughness save. And you know d20 and saves...

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:59 pm

M&M doesn't have autofail on a one.

The Hulk certainly does not have the 5% chance to die on any hit, because he has Impervious Toughness and anything short of Thor smacking him with a hammer is hardly going to even hurt him.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:03 pm

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:Another Steve Kenson story (although not nearly as awesome as Frank's):

I signed up to playtest Mutants and Masterminds the instant I heard about it--I was (and still am) desperate for an awesome d20 superhero game--, was accepted as a playtester, and got the initial M&M draft. My first reaction was This a fucking Champions hack, and my second reaction was This a fucking bad Champions hack. I essentially told him this had been done before (it was called Fuzion--and, like so many things in the mid-90s--it blew, partially because it tried to emulate the dark and edgy and no-feet-ever-ness and over-pouched and over-lined and cock-like gun-ness of 90s comics but mainly because it just fucking blew). I suggested--as I tend to do with things that totally suck--that a total rewrite was in order; that is, do something original, ground-breaking, and, y'know, cool. (Yeah, I'm still half-assed working on my Power Domain system that'll satisfy my jones--shut up.)

I was ignored. The game hit. Who knew people wanted a shitty Champions hack?

I mean, fucking goddam, when there's a 5% chance of taking down the fucking Hulk in one shot, fuck your superhero game. Seriously. Fuck it right in the ass. With a pogo stick. Bouncy. Bouncy. Bouncy.

Found the quote.

Next question. How the fuck does it happen?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:08 pm

Is he talking about the d20 Mutants and Masterminds?

Because the d20 version by Green Ronin goes out of its way to remind you that you're a four-color hero whose villains are more like Cobra Commander than Carnage or Violater and guilt-trips you if you decide to behave in any way but a Silver Age/Modern Age sort of manner.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:24 am

He's talking about the d20 version, but that whole parenthetical is a rip on Fuzion.

If you've ever even been near a Fuzion game book that would be patently obvious - the two and a half reasonable hacks made to lessen Champs complexity were completely buried under the shitiness that is R. Tal's base system (Must have max reflexes, always in any genre for any character) , Image-wannbe artists and extra-useless difficulty charts that listed "Phenomonally Megacosmic" as an example difficulty with no further explanation.

It was Bad. Capital B.

M and M is merely a "well since I understand and have players who understand Champions, why would I ever play this?" sort of not-good-enough. If you want to talk Champs hacks, d20 M&M was a lot more reminiscent of the fast-and-easy and open (and balanced until you looked closely at anything) old Mayfair DC Heroes system than the garbage that was Fuzion.

Hey_I_Can_Chan · Post by **Hey_I_Can_Chan** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:25 am

That's me. It was a playtest draft of 1E Green Ronin Mutants and Masterminds. I never bothered with the full version. Did it have power levels? Achingly bad gadget rules (or virtually none at all)? Not enough powers to simulate anyone you really wanted to simulate? Same game. I think I have that playtest docu around here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I'm looking for it--however, the total reliance of your character hinging on repeated d20 rolls, I'm pretty sure was 1 = fail, and 20 = success; initially, anyway.

It was shit. Hulk shit.

Hell, I've glanced through a few of the later books, and when you can make your character the size of an index card, you might as well play Villains and Vigilantes.

Or Tunnels and Trolls. Or classic Traveler. Seriously.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:37 am

To continue to use this thread for locating stuff,

What book is the creature used to initiate chain binding is from? (The one that has limited wish as a spell-like ability and 6- HD?) I've looked through all the books I own and some I don't, and I cannot find one.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:08 pm

Starmaker wrote:To continue to use this thread for locating stuff,

What book is the creature used to initiate chain binding is from? (The one that has limited wish as a spell-like ability and 6- HD?) I've looked through all the books I own and some I don't, and I cannot find one.

Dunno why you would need to do that, seeing as a level 2 character can afford a single Planar Binding scroll, have no chance of failing the CL check with take 10 via Arcane Mastery, and can just go from there.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:21 pm

I think it's the Dao, from either the Planar Handbook or Manual of the Planes.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:30 pm

Since someone bumped it for me...

What are the exact details of 4.Fail Horse archer = win game?

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Koumei wrote:I think it's the Dao, from either the Planar Handbook or Manual of the Planes.

It was Manual of the Planes.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:53 pm

Yeah, but if you want to you can spend a feat to jack the limit up to 8hd, then pull in a Dao and get Chain Binding going without ever visiting a magic item shop.

-Username17

koz · Post by **koz** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:48 pm

Roy wrote:Since someone bumped it for me...

What are the exact details of 4.Fail Horse archer = win game?

Basically, monster ranged attacks in 4E suck a barrel of cocks. As a result, a mounted horse archer wins DnD now.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:31 pm

Mister_Sinister wrote:
Roy wrote:Since someone bumped it for me...

What are the exact details of 4.Fail Horse archer = win game?
Basically, monster ranged attacks in 4E suck a barrel of cocks. As a result, a mounted horse archer wins DnD now.

Pretty much. Most enemies who have a ranged weapon at all have a range of 5 or 10 squares. A bow in the hands of a player character shoots 40 squares. So since most enemies have a move of less than 35 squares, if you can keep up with their move turn after turn you can shell them to pieces regardless of who or what they are. After all, in 4e you never run out of arrows like you were a Gauntlet character.

-Username17

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:09 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:
Roy wrote:Since someone bumped it for me...

What are the exact details of 4.Fail Horse archer = win game?
Basically, monster ranged attacks in 4E suck a barrel of cocks. As a result, a mounted horse archer wins DnD now.
Pretty much. Most enemies who have a ranged weapon at all have a range of 5 or 10 squares. A bow in the hands of a player character shoots 40 squares. So since most enemies have a move of less than 35 squares, if you can keep up with their move turn after turn you can shell them to pieces regardless of who or what they are. After all, in 4e you never run out of arrows like you were a Gauntlet character.

-Username17

I tried presenting this before. They countered with some range 10-12 shit. Hm. There's absolutely nothing that can deal with range 40 + whatever you move?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:32 pm

This thread is relatively pertinent.

Critical failure detected! wrote:IIRC, the 4E DMG recommends to start encounters at a maximum range of 20 squares. And yes, that includes outdoor encounters.

Do DMs who follow the advice in the DMG suck?

Let me tell you a bit about my 3E game in an attempt to answer that question:

I have a ranger player who starts every combat by running away and hiding. He will stay hidden until all of the enemies have been engaged by other pcs. Then he'll start sniping, i.e. releasing a single shot and go back into hiding. Should an enemy get into charging range, he'll retreat to a 'safe' distance again.

Interestingly, all of the other players think, the ranger player sucks. As a DM I fail to see how the player is contributing to the party's success.

I also sometimes let encounters start at a long range. What will happen is this: The enemies get blasted to smithereens before getting close enough to do any (significant) damage. That's because of the spellcasters, mind you, not because of the ranger. Anyway, the melee combatants don't even bother to try to get closer, since the fight will be over in no time anyway. So basically, the encounter is meaningless and I might as well simply award free xp.

There's a third scenario: The party is attacked from a long range with superior firepower from enemies using hit & run tactics.
The combat took several hours to play out. All of the melee combatants were frustrated. Since the spellcasters were soon the main targets they eventually didn't dare to return fire. Out of sympathy since I wanted to get it over with I finally decided to let the enemies approach, despite their superior position.
I think it's safe to say that all players agreed that the encounter sucked.

My conclusion? The DMG advice is good advice.

Hurf. You're telling me that PCs can kill bears from 100 yards away without engaging them in combat? HOLY SHIT BROKEN. I guess hunting in real life is breaking the game.

Honestly, I'm surprised that there are rules for ammo in 4e. I wouldn't have put it past them to say "infinite ammo" because tracking ammunition isn't "fun."

EDIT: Holy shit, I forgot how much ENWorld fails.

I wouldn't want to play a ranged Ranger in any campaign where I would risk running out of ammo. Because running out of ammo equates to huge nerf that other classes or builds simply never have to face.

Put otherwise, I do not for a second believe ammo requirements to be a parameter that went into the ranged Ranger build design process. (Besides, if it was, it would have been incredibly bad design).

So my belief is that the archer who always has an extra arrow is working at the intended level of power. Any archer that runs out is badly nerfed, with no corresponding counterpart for other classes.

My conclusion is that while the DMG seems to require you to keep track of ammo usage, it doesn't seriously expect you to ever run out.

And with that, I see no reason not to drop any ammo tracking requirements (for mundane ammunition).

Simple as that.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:36 pm

Dude, you have to go INTO THE WATER to stab JAWS, because you shouldn't be able to just poke it to death with a spear from a ship or copter or something. What kinda noob ass game do YOU play?

PS: I R LEETHAXORZ I R PWNIN' UR ASS!!!!!11111111111

...

...

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:50 pm

Roy wrote:I tried presenting this before. They countered with some range 10-12 shit. Hm. There's absolutely nothing that can deal with range 40 + whatever you move?

Not quite nothing. You could face the Elf Archer (level 2 Artillery). It has a ranged attack that goes 40 squares. So does the Hobgoblin Archer (Level 3 Artillery), the Gnoll Archer (Level 5 Artillery), the Satyr Piper (Level 8 Controller), the Medusa Archer (Level 10 Controller), the Medusa Soldier (Level 13 Soldier), the Yuan-Ti Sharpeye (Level 13 Artillery), the War Troll (Level 14 Soldier), the Rakshasa Archer (Level 15 Artillery), the Salamander Archer (Level 15 Artillery).

To say that there is nothing that can match a bow in range is something of an overstatement. There are in fact ten humanoid enemies in the monster manual who themselves have bows. They can match the awesome power of the bow by virtue of having one themselves. There is no ability that any monster has that can compete at that range. And as things currently stand, the fastest thing in the game is a mount that the player characters could be riding on. So anything that isn't an archer can go fuck itself sideways with a cheese grater.

And you may have noticed some things about the demographics of the monsters that can return fire with a bow. I have as well. Here's a couple of doozies: There is not one single Epic monster that can return fire on an archer. And secondly, 4 out of 10 of those enemies who have a bow aren't "artillery" units, which means that their bows are total afterthoughts A Medusa's snake hair + gaze is so much worse than her little poisoned bow that I don't even care. And finally, none of those monsters are solos. The two sample Medusa encounters that have a bow user in them seriously have one enemy with a bow and eight enemies with no ranged attacks worth mentioning. The Elf encounter presents worse odds, with fully two out of five enemies in the encounter equipped with ranged weapons.

-Username17

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:49 am

So, if you give Orcus a bow, can he use it?

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:31 am

Monsters don't use equipment.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:34 am

Explain more. This sounds like it's going to cause me pain.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:47 am

Going by memory here, but if I remember right, 4E monsters simply have stats. A PC fighter's sword might be a Level 12 Flaming Sword or whatever; a monster fighter's sword is part of his sprite, independent of its stats and drops.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:51 am

So he can't use a bow because you'd have to edit the memory to get him to use it? (Meaning that you don't know his attack bonus or damage because 4e monsters are made of Arbitrarium?)

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:32 am

Psychic Robot wrote:So he can't use a bow because you'd have to edit the memory to get him to use it? (Meaning that you don't know his attack bonus or damage because 4e monsters are made of Arbitrarium?)

PR, that's an excellent new use of the word Arbitrarium, bravo sir!