The Gaming Den

No, it's not, I fucking hate that rule and it's one of the biggest pieces of evidence people have when they say that 4E is a bad World of Warcraft/Diablo 2 ripoff.

I don't have a problem with warlords being able to yell at people and bring them back from unconsciousness. People do that kind of shit all of the time in action scenes. What I do have a problem with is the idea that certain attacks only work if the person has the 'enemy' flag on them.

Garbage like that pulls you out of the experience of roleplaying a character and reminds you that you're playing a game.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:No, it's not, I fucking hate that rule and it's one of the biggest pieces of evidence people have when they say that 4E is a bad World of Warcraft/Diablo 2 ripoff.

Well, I actually think it's not bad putting in rules that say "If a player tries something cheesy, disallow it."

Especially in a first edition of a game, which 4E actually is, because it's an entirely new game, you expect that you missed some things while designing it, and it's generally a good idea to write out "we, the designers, aren't perfect. Don't let your game be ruined by bad wording on our part. Feel free to disallow some rules combination that breaks the game."

Except that the "Bag o' Rats" clause doesn't do that. All it does is close two loopholes in somewhat awkward ways.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:No, it's not, I fucking hate that rule and it's one of the biggest pieces of evidence people have when they say that 4E is a bad World of Warcraft/Diablo 2 ripoff.

Well, I actually think it's not bad putting in rules that say "If a player tries something cheesy, disallow it."

Especially in a first edition of a game, which 4E actually is, because it's an entirely new game, you expect that you missed some things while designing it, and it's generally a good idea to write out "we, the designers, aren't perfect. Don't let your game be ruined by bad wording on our part. Feel free to disallow some rules combination that breaks the game."

Except of course DnD and many other games, as well as this and many other boards have been over the problem dozens of times and have yet to find an acceptable fix. This is not a new problem and binary enemy-ally marking creates more issues than it solves. Making the game less immersive of course adds insult to injury.

hogarth wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote: I thought the search checks took a lot of out of actual searching. Especially since it now just became a rogue/ranger thing. Before the fighter could have a good idea now and then and decided he wanted to search behind the tapestry to find the secret door.

I never liked that kind of thing. Too often it turned into "guess what Gary Gygax is thinking".

"Oh, you didn't turn the candle holders around 315 degrees? Too bad; rocks fall, everybody dies."

Gygax traps aside, there was a lot more to 1E searching than avoiding "traps." Remember that most adventures were still designed by individual DMS. Description was important. Some secret doors were designed as "elf candy." (Just as some dungeon features were designed as "dwarf candy.") Some ideas were designed based on old sterotypes. (The treasure is hidden in the chimney of the fireplace that you can literally walk into.) Some ideas were designed as a joke on old sterotypes, especially the Monte Haul Dungeon model. (When given the option of two doors and a tapestry, always check behind the tapestry.)

Once things were found, the odds of a poison needle trap in the chest, desk, and so forth was always almost certain, but for routine exploration of interesting things, (especially secret doors) everyone was a knocking and a checking.

tzor wrote:

hogarth wrote:
"Oh, you didn't turn the candle holders around 315 degrees? Too bad; rocks fall, everybody dies."

Gygax traps aside, there was a lot more to 1E searching than avoiding "traps."

Yes, but the point is that if you allow the existence of "you lose (lose your life, lose treasure, etc.) if you don't do complicated thing XYZ" traps, then every search can become a tedious exercise in caution, just in case.

tzor wrote:Remember that most adventures were still designed by individual DMS.

Most of the dungeon crawls (and let's be realistic, you don't do nearly as much searching in wilderness adventures) I played in during my AD&D years were published modules.

hogarth wrote:Yes, but the point is that if you allow the existence of "you lose (lose your life, lose treasure, etc.) if you don't do complicated thing XYZ" traps, then every search can become a tedious exercise in caution, just in case.

It's not tedious. Anyone can look for a suspicious package; once found they call in the bomb squad. The "touch nothing" approach to searching is a common and easy tactic. Indeed the over parinoid nature of players (listening at every door for example) lead to some of the traps and monsters (ear moles) of 1E, which in turn resulted in simple counter measures (the ear trumpet).

At RPI, designing dungeons wasn't just a hobby, it was the real reason why grid paper existed in the first place; to be filled with as much detail as you put into your freshman physics crib sheet (and just as much a work of art). I still have a whole ring bound notebook full of them.

tzor wrote: It's not tedious.

Yes, it is.

(Your turn now.)

tzor wrote:... for routine exploration of interesting things, (especially secret doors) everyone was a knocking and a checking.

...

It's not tedious.

How is this not the very definition of tedium?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:No, it's not, I fucking hate that rule and it's one of the biggest pieces of evidence people have when they say that 4E is a bad World of Warcraft/Diablo 2 ripoff.

How would you suggest solving the "bag o' rats" dilemma, then?

Perhaps by having mechanics that are not broken by carrying a bag of rats?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:What I do have a problem with is the idea that certain attacks only work if the person has the 'enemy' flag on them.

It's ok for powers granted by patrons, such as Divine powers or Warlock powers. Bahamut doesn't grant extra healing for smiting rats, and that's fine. For other classes it's an issue.

As a player, I suggest getting around the "bag of rats" clause by concentrating on "meaningful" target objects - such as locked doors, trapped chests or prisoners your buddies are Cheneying.

As a DM, I encourage either accepting that allowing Divine Power material makes surge-based healing obsolete or banning such material from your games.

As a student of game design I wonder how the fuck something so major could possibly be an unintended consequence when the whole issue would have been avoided if the power granted Temp HP instead of healing. Either the authors really did mean it to work that way, or they are bigger morons that I had previously thought.

JK wrote: As a student of game design I wonder how the fuck something so major could possibly be an unintended consequence when the whole issue would have been avoided if the power granted Temp HP instead of healing. Either the authors really did mean it to work that way, or they are bigger morons that I had previously thought.

Because there is already a power that grants temporary healing.

The game devs are getting really fucking desperate here. They already have cleric powers that grant saving throws, temporary hit points, AC bonuses, and attack bonuses... so what's left? Shifting and granting extra attacks isn't really a cleric thing. There's no point in printing a cleric at-Will that provides a bonus to damage because Righteous Brand does a much better job than will ever be allowed by the design team. So. Looks like curing hit points is the last rabbit in their hat of tricks.

NineInchNall wrote:

tzor wrote:... for routine exploration of interesting things, (especially secret doors) everyone was a knocking and a checking.

...

It's not tedious.

How is this not the very definition of tedium?

Well it was only tedious if your DM gave you no clues, but hid stuff anyway, so your characters were constantly checking everything.

Routinely though, you didn't do this at each room and juncture.

I mean, in a poorly designed quest, it could be pretty bad though, similar to those 3.5 quests where you have to take 20 searching every room.

Because there is already a power that grants temporary healing.

Yes, but

Target takes Radiant Damage + chosen ally gets Temp HP or a save

is notably different than

Target takes Penalty to Defenses + next ally to attack target gets Temp HP

Psychic Robot wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:No, it's not, I fucking hate that rule and it's one of the biggest pieces of evidence people have when they say that 4E is a bad World of Warcraft/Diablo 2 ripoff.

How would you suggest solving the "bag o' rats" dilemma, then?

By defining "enemy" or "target" in such a way as to scale with a character's level. (If necessary, by creating a derivative of the term "worthy enemy" or "worthy target" to describe this condition.)

tzor wrote:By defining "enemy" or "target" in such a way as to scale with a character's level. (If necessary, by creating a derivative of the term "worthy enemy" or "worthy target" to describe this condition.)

That's precisely what the 4e DMG rule does. The term is "legitimate target" rather than "worthy target", and it's defined as a target that is a "meaningful threat" in the judgement of the DM. Is your complaint that the rule uses DM judgement rather than level difference and "conning grey"?

tzor wrote:By defining "enemy" or "target" in such a way as to scale with a character's level. (If necessary, by creating a derivative of the term "worthy enemy" or "worthy target" to describe this condition.)

Try it. I doubt there is a solution outside of computer-game-style outright flagging. Just a few problematic examples:

a) A fighter is surrounded by orcs. The wizard centers a fireball on the fighter, the fighter is damaged, the orcs are dead. Is the wizard the fighters enemy?
b) see a), but instead of the fighter there is a rogue, who, thanks to evasion, suffers no damage at all.
c) see b) but the rogue is hidden from the wizard.
d) see a), but instead of Fireball the wizard casts solid fog.
e) a wizard summons a monster and tells it to attack the fighter. Is the wizard the fighters enemy?
f) see e), but the wizard is hidden to the fighter.
g) wizard and fighter are ambushed by a monster far above their CR. the wizard casts A Wall of Stone, saving himself but dooming the fighter. Is the wizard the fighters enemy?
h) as g), but the wizard dooms the fighter on purpose.
i) You fight several creatures who are just one level from being worthy opponents. You are hit with a level drain effect. Are they now worthy opponents?
j) As i), but this time their number doubles from a summoning effect.
k) as i) but this time they ambush you from a favorable position (+2CR)
l) as k), but an ally gives you flight, negating their advantage

MartinHarper wrote: That's precisely what the 4e DMG rule does. The term is "legitimate target" rather than "worthy target", and it's defined as a target that is a "meaningful threat" in the judgement of the DM.

While it's very hard to codify the meaning of those terms, it's really easy for a human arbiter to handle that. Spotting someone cheesing the enemy/ally rules is really easy, it's just hard to filter it out using rules, so I don't really see a problem with using the DM in this way. The game has a human arbiter, not a computer arbiter, so there's no shame in taking advantage of stuff that humans do well.

MartinHarper wrote:it's defined as a target that is a "meaningful threat" in the judgement of the DM

...and yields experience or honor when killed.
Mass targeting options other than "everyone" or "whoever I say" are retarded. I was tired of players insisting on solving mysteries with Bless seven fucking years ago.

Alternatively, get rid of the whole "encounter/at will" crap, and change it to "hourly/quarter-hourly", or at least "hourly/at-will", with at-willls being a whole lot less powerful than Seal.

The real issue is it's way too good for at-will...but putting more things on cool-downs does put a bit more 'realism' in than trying to figure out what's good enough to be an enemy. I also rather wish alot less powers distinguished between friends and foes, but that's another topic.

Doom314 wrote:Alternatively, get rid of the whole "encounter/at will" crap, and change it to "hourly/quarter-hourly", or at least "hourly/at-will", with at-willls being a whole lot less powerful than Seal.

No, you definitely don't want to do that. If anything we want to move the timer away from real world time units and more towards story/cinematic time.

The reason for this is that you don't know how long an hour takes in game time, and neither does your DM, or anyone at the table. In fact, I guarantee you that if you were to estimate how long has passed, your guess would most likely be way off from everyone elses. Has it been 10 minutes, 30 minutes? Who the fuck knows.

Real-time cooldown timers are fine for real-time computer games. They seriously suck for table top games though.

It's why mechanically you're better off with mechanics like short rest or extended rest, so that everyone knows when you're getting your powers back.

I dunno, has it been 5 minutes? 3 minutes? 9 minutes? I think your concern doesn't work any better than with what we have now. We already have a sucky real-time aspect, along with a sucky gamist aspect that makes characters abominations once they start using their powers outside of combat--I'm not just talking about using powers for mechanical benefit, but just the sheer spewing out of magical thunder/ice/clouds of daggers, along with those encounter powers that are flat out goofy outside of combat.

I'm not saying my way is necessarily better, but DnD4.0 did a fine job of catching the worst of both worlds here.

Doom314 wrote:I dunno, has it been 5 minutes? 3 minutes? 9 minutes? I think your concern doesn't work any better than with what we have now.

Well really, the 4E paradigm isn't so bad. It's pretty much designed such that your buffs go away at each short rest. Now really, the game should have just ditched the 5 minute duration thing and just said that. The 5 minute thing is mostly there so you don't have PCs trying to not rest while their allies rest.