4e Verisimilitude

[Talisman]

1204562644[/unixtime]]No, Talisman. People who claim they wanna play a fantasy leveled cooperative game based in LotR should fvck off and die - and that comes from someone who actually likes the book, but that just doesn't work. If we talk Silmarillion, OTOH (hint: stuff that appears in it is nigh-universally ignored by the alluded-to retards) ...

Okay. I don't completely agree with that, but I can deal with it. This is not, however, what Koumei said.

LotR - the story - is not very compatible with an RPG. Middle-Earth - the world - should work just fine as long as you don't try to re-tell LotR.

[Bigode]

The problem: I'm willing bet my arse (no, I don't use it to gain money ...) that most of the people Koumei referred to are in the "dwarves can't be wizards because Gimli wasn't a wizard" crowd ...

[RandomCasualty]

1204560489[/unixtime]]
Now, for when the bear gives up and goes behind cover or into his cave, how is this any different than dealing with a flier?

Because trees don't fucking move. You can just duck behind cover and your'e safe from someone in a tree, like forever. And if the guy in the tree wants to come after you, he either has to start going from tree to tree tarzan style, or he has to climb down.

A flier can just go chasing you around the whole forest and if you're not near your cave, you're screwed. Not to mention, the bear isn't even remotely a threat to a flier. Assuming most of the time the bear is just going to be an obstacle instead of an objective, flying lets you avoid him outright. Climbing up a tree means you may delay the fight, but the bear can still wait you out for awhile.

Taking away easy flight makes wilderness adventures more viable, since you basically couldn't do wilderness adventures in 3.5 at all since most monsters can't attack ranged. I mean, I'd like to have the possibility of having adventurers travel through the dark forest instead of always being underground as a flight stealth nerf.

The only way I can see wilderness adventures happening is by nerfing flight. As long as they do it right, I think I can live without flight. It's one headache that's a real pain to deal with as a DM.

[Bigode]

First: what's the problem with Tarzan? I think we're talking wilderness-adept people here ...

Second: arced shots.

Third: if low-level threats can fly, low-level flight exists (and thus, a) PCs will eventually get it anyway, and b) flight is possible to counter by low-level tactics). Riddle me this.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1204566181[/unixtime]]First: what's the problem with Tarzan?

For one thing, why doesn't he have a beard?

[Bigode]

I know it's a fvcking racist propaganda book - I mean the abilities involved.

[RandomCasualty]

1204566181[/unixtime]]First: what's the problem with Tarzan? I think we're talking wilderness-adept people here ...

Sure if you're dealing with a bunch of rangers and such, they can manage that. Of course, the average D&D group can't. Good luck branch leaping cleric in full plate. And if you happen to fail, you land right on your face with a dire bear running you down. Not a good spot to be.

Second: arced shots.

I don't really know what you're saying here. D&D doesn't really have arced shots. It's not a FPS. Everything requires line of sight and line of effect, besides tossing fireballs or something. Even if you wanted to toss fireballs, the bear has a lot of area to high in with all the tree cover, so you'd have to be guessing, and you'd probably eventually destroy the forest doing it (and probably get a bunch of other creatures mad at you)

Third: if low-level threats can fly, low-level flight exists (and thus, a) PCs will eventually get it anyway, and b) flight is possible to counter by low-level tactics). Riddle me this.

Well, flight is possible to countered by PC tactics. That's because PCs have a lot more ranged attacks than monsters. A bear just can't think like a PC and countering flight will prove impossible for it.

It's not a safe assumption that PCs are going to have access to low level flight just because monsters do, because that all hinges on PCs being able to control monsters, which they may or may not be able to do. Summoning supposedly is gone from the core rules. As far as I know, there isn't any charm person/monster anymore, and they might just say you can't tame a flying mount unless you're a legendary hero, it may just have a level requirement like rings. And while you may be able to talk intelligent creatures like dragons into giving you a ride from time to time, they're unlikely to serve as permanent mounts.

[Bigode]

Yeah, I needed to re-teach myself to quote ...

1204566854[/unixtime]]Sure if you're dealing with a bunch of rangers and such, they can manage that. Of course, the average D&D group can't. Good luck branch leaping cleric in full plate. And if you happen to fail, you land right on your face with a dire bear running you down. Not a good spot to be.

The cleric might have the insight to avoid full plate in a forest if they still need to worry with the wildlife. And the system might have the insight to avoid heavy armor being mandatory. Also, funny that the editions change, but the character concepts don't - the idiot cleric's always present. Funny note: the iconics' names changed, but Tordek's the same - who says there's more than one dwarf DNA?

I don't really know what you're saying here. D&D doesn't really have arced shots. It's not a FPS. Everything requires line of sight and line of effect, besides tossing fireballs or something. Even if you wanted to toss fireballs, the bear has a lot of area to high in with all the tree cover, so you'd have to be guessing, and you'd probably eventually destroy the forest doing it (and probably get a bunch of other creatures mad at you)

I think we're talking new system/edition design here - it can have what the designers want it to. But besides, arching over cover is default - were you talking about the kind of cover that'd make a dire bear completely invisible? In that case, there's absolutely no chance it can be a threat either.

Well, flight is possible to countered by PC tactics. That's because PCs have a lot more ranged attacks than monsters. A bear just can't think like a PC and countering flight will prove impossible for it.

And that makes bears retarded opposition that shouldn't appear alone, as per Mr. Trollman.

It's not a safe assumption that PCs are going to have access to low level flight just because monsters do, because that all hinges on PCs being able to control monsters, which they may or may not be able to do. Summoning supposedly is gone from the core rules. As far as I know, there isn't any charm person/monster anymore, and they might just say you can't tame a flying mount unless you're a legendary hero, it may just have a level requirement like rings. And while you may be able to talk intelligent creatures like dragons into giving you a ride from time to time, they're unlikely to serve as permanent mounts.

No more reduce + common animal? I'm afraid that a "fantasy" game without such simple effects will suck (wait, I'm sure of it for other reasons, but there's one more now).

[Fwib]

1204566362[/unixtime]]

1204566181[/unixtime]]First: what's the problem with Tarzan?

For one thing, why doesn't he have a beard?

I seem to recall that he shaves, from reading the books, some ~20 years ago.

[Talisman]

1204565706[/unixtime]]The problem: I'm willing bet my arse (no, I don't use it to gain money ...) that most of the people Koumei referred to are in the "dwarves can't be wizards because Gimli wasn't a wizard" crowd ...

Amusingly enough, by that logic, NO ONE can be a wizard. The wizards in LotR aren't human; they're angels.
Also, there are no clerics, bards or druids. None. At all.
Ya gotta love selective logic.

1204567795[/unixtime]]Funny note: the iconics' names changed, but Tordek's the same - who says there's more than one dwarf DNA?

I thought everyone knew that dwarves only have one helix.

[Bigode]

Gimli's a literal quote from some older edition, IIRC. Also, the elves were wizards. (Disregarding that D&D magic looks nothing like Middle-Earth magic - gotta love selective logic indeed.)

[virgil]

Wow, talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees (pun intended). I'm not going to bother arguing how to use one specific strategy against apparently a specific opponent, a dire bear.

The gist of it is that if you have a low mobility, low-to-nil ranged opponent, then those with superior mobility and ranged capability are going to win unless you change the terrain or goals to negate the mobility. And it's always going to be this way, unless you do more than remove just flight.

[K]

One of the reasons I don't consider Dire Animals a threat is not just the flying problem, but the overall tactical simplicity of the build.

Take these situations with your basic CR 7 Dire Bear and a level 5 party:

A. You enter a cave, and see a dire bear as you turn a corner. He roars and charges someone and most likely hits for 15 points of damage and grapples. This is the best set of circumstances for the DB. Chances are that he'll be able to full attack next round.

However, if you get an illusion, Grease, Color Spray, AoO like a Trip, toss a Net, or just have a Fighter hiding behind a Tower shield then he's not going to pass. The fighters can then wail on him with ranged or reach weapons and he dies.

Total losses: up to 15 points of damage(no crit assumed) and a few 1st level spells. Potentially zero damage and no spells.

B. You are walking in the woods and spot a Dire bear, its angry and attacks. You get a full round of actions before it can get to you as it smashes through the underbrush.

You have horses, so it dies without ever making an attack.

Total losses: A quiver of arrows.

-------------
Now, a classic mid level bruiser like a Troll on the other hand has my respect. They Regen, they cause PCs to explode when they get full attacks, they are smart and might have class levels or magical equipment or just have bows of their own.

[Bigode]

Summary of the 2 prior posts: dire bears suck, trolls better built than the example ranger in the MM can be impressive even at higher levels. One should be taken into account, the other shouldn't. And RC loves using the tactically flattest possible monsters as examples.

P.S.: I don't consider this ad-hominem, just the statement of what I see as a rather huge difference in taste from, it seems, most others on the forum. Sorry if it looks like the former.

[RandomCasualty]

Well, there's a lot of monsters that behave like a dire animal. Trolls, hydras, giants, minotaurs, dinosaurs, Giant Vermin, big skeletons, big zombies, golems, most elementals, displacer beasts... I could go on and on.

The point is, that's a large and significant part of the encounters you'll face.

I mean really, aside from fighting a band of archers or wizards, or winged creatures, I can't think of anything that can compete with a flying party. You cast protection from arrows and fly, you're basically able to beat any wilderness encounter.

It's not that you can't beat flight indoors, you totally can. It's just that outdoors it completely limits whatever encounters you want to throw at your PCs. There really aren't many things you can throw at your PCs in an outdoor battle, and that's almost totally due to the influence of flight.

Flight is okay in Shadowrun where all your foes get guns. But in D&D, ground + melee only is a classic archetype of lots of beasts, monsters, etc. And no one spell should be able to render them completely useless.

[Talisman]

1204571076[/unixtime]]Gimli's a literal quote from some older edition, IIRC. Also, the elves were wizards. (Disregarding that D&D magic looks nothing like Middle-Earth magic - gotta love selective logic indeed.)

Techincally, although elves used magic, no elves were Wizards - there were only ever 5 Wizards in all of LotR (I know I'm splitting hairs, but this is the kind of logic "Gimli-wasn't-a-wizard-so-dawrves-can't-be-wizards" people use).

Don'tcha love how we've got two entirely separate things going on in this thread - without either derailing the other? We're great:thumb:.

[JonSetanta]

It's as if elves, dwarves, hobbits, and other non-humans each had a class unto their own.
Sort of like 1e D&D. OH SHIT!

[virgil]

Trolls, giants, and other melee-scary humanoids all have the whole intelligence factor behind them; which changes everything, because they can use tactics of their own (that, and giants are explicitly given a ranged attack).

Only a quarter of the elementals are actually going to have a concern over flying archers, the fire ones. The earth & water ones can swim through their material, which means they don't actually have a mobility disadvantage.

You honestly think that a large portion of a party's challenge should be mindless closet-trolls with all the tactical wherewithal of King Kong? And why do you continue to believe that flight is the only culprit of your worries? Go ahead and take it out, and watch players start using spider climb, jump, & expeditious retreat. Or they'll just make damn sure they have a spare horse apiece for when the camera starts panning over New Zealand.

Do you know what a wilderness encounter is? It's a montage sequence, maybe even a cut scene. Mindless melee monsters are generally a threat only when they ambush the party, where they don't have the time to get in a mobile position (be it through climbing, flying, mounting, or even running) for whatever reason; or when they're used in conjunction with a real villain.

[Talisman]

1204580107[/unixtime]]Do you know what a wilderness encounter is? It's a montage sequence, maybe even a cut scene.

I don't agree, but this is a matter of differing play styles. Whatever's fun for your group, right?

Now, if we're taliking about random encounters, I frikkin' hate those things. An encounter should (1) have some relevence to the plot, (2) be interesting enough to stand on its own, or (3) be something the players brought on themselves.

"As you travel through the woods, you are attacked by..."
(rattle rattle)
"...1d3 dire bears..."
(rattle)
"..two dire bears. Roll initiative."

LAME

[Crissa]

Well, if the challenge is 'you chose the forest of above your challenge rating', sure.

...But in Real Life, Bears generally only attack camps at night or single people. Maybe your group is strung out across a few narrow switchbacks, and (roll, roll) the third member on the highest switchback has to roll initiative as the bear rolls down the hill, not following the trail...

But that's an encounter no matter how tough the bear, a level 1 adventurer can survive. You have to realize that.

And flight... There's many reasons flight may or may not work. Maneuverability was just poorly used in 3e. Weather. Altitude. Ceilings. Visibility. Forests have limited maneuverability and visibility!

-Crissa

[virgil]

Talisman, I actually do agree with you for the most part. My statement was intended to be used in the context of what it feels RC considers a wilderness encounter. Now, I might've misread RC's own stance a bit in my response, which means we're playing a game of telephone with the internet.

Low mobility melee brutes (especially the non-stealthy ones) just aren't challenging or intimidating when they're meandering in the great outdoors; and flight isn't the only ability that can show this.

[Talisman]

1204588121[/unixtime]]
Low mobility melee brutes (especially the non-stealthy ones) just aren't challenging or intimidating when they're meandering in the great outdoors; and flight isn't the only ability that can show this.

Agreed, and that's why they should pop up when they're relevant to the plot.

- You have to kill the albino dire bear to win the aid of the elves. Good luck: he lives in a big, twisty cave complex.

- The Forest Pool of Magic Stuff is guarded by a pair of magically-empowered dire bears.

- The evil druid's back...and he's got backup.

These could be interesting dire bear encounters. "You meet a dire beat in the forest" lacks something, both tactically and storywise.

[JonSetanta]

Then there's always templates.
Could create some type of half-fiend template that doesn't suck... as in, add bat wings, teleporting, and fire breath, and you have yourself a stew goin'. (as-is, half-fiend is just for the stat boosts and resistances, really)

Were-something dire animals are more of the same, but when the were-form flies or can swim fast or shoot spines out its butt or what have you, the threat increases just a bit.

[Draco_Argentum]

Thing is guy who melees with a sword is a common character archetype. Flight totally kills it. Either by having enemies that the PC can't hurt at all or by having enemies where the best tactic is far and away the melee guy does zero while the rest of the group plinks it to death.

I don't see why people have such a problem with other people wanting this to work a little longer than it does in 3.x

[Crissa]

...They they obviously don't want a world with gryphons, dragons, pegasus, rocs, harpies, sprites, heck, a guy with a sword is going to have problems with actually giant giants and ents, too, aren't they?

-Crissa