Comments on the 4th Ed fact thread

[Sorti]

So, to kill a character with 200 hp I have to deal 300 damage, and if he's at -99 and anyone casts any cure spell on him he goes back to positive???

Looks like. Granted, we don't know how much damage a monster that's suitable to fight 300-hp PCs can dish out in one round, or if there's a coup de grace rule in the works.

If it can kill you in one attack when you're down (150 damage in this example) it means it downs you in two hits from full hp, which seems unlikely. It probably needs two or three hits to bring you from 0 to death, and it's unlikely the monster has time to do it while your companions beat it.

And the rolls to determine whether you bleed to death seem to be a straight 50% chance -- no bonuses or penalties for level, Con, etc -- so a downed PC who's left unattended for three rounds might just be a goner if they roll badly, whether they're 1st level or 30th.

That's a rule in the "try it now" section, so "not quite the 4th Edition system". Anyway, it means that you have at least three rounds (more on average) to heal him, and any healing will do.

We also don't know if resurrection-magic and so on is going to get any more costly, this time around. Perhaps this is an excuse to make raising people from the dead the miraculous rarity it should be, not just "Insert Coin To Continue"? If so, I could probably learn to put up with it.

Let's hope it's like you say! With this reduced PC mortality it's surely easier to have the players accept a "no resurrection in any way" setting, and I'm very favorable to it

I'm also happy the FoS is so optimistic towards 4th edition, so they can Yin my Yang . While I'm quite sure mine is reason's pessimism...
Two days ago my brother DMed a one-shot in the Star Wars SAGA system, which is in many ways a proto-4th edition; in just one evening it happened often that me and the other players freezed on a "the rules say WHAT?" expression...

[Jester of the FoS]

I'm actually not very pro-4E. I won't be buying it. Too soon.

I like alot of the changes though. I'm happy with most of what they zeroed in on to fix.
But there's still too much damn life in 3E for me to switch.

But I do like to call BS on most of the visceral gut reactions to 4E that seen more anti-change then genuine complaints. Mostly on other forums but occasionally here. I do so like being the devil's advocate.

[HuManBing]

What gets me is that the design staff comments are disingenuous. "They're like, ohmygod, like, "Use Rope" is soooooo useless? Y'know? So we sorta like, y'know, ditched it? I mean, like, c'mon, who uses that anyway, amirite? And Prestige Classes? Don't even get me started on those - those are sooooo unbalanced, it's a wonder anybody played using them..."

Nice job, you twazzocks. You were the ones who put that useless mechanic in there, last development cycle, and you didn't seem to complain about it when the consuming public handed money over for it.

Not that Wizards is unique in this respect. Many advertisements touting the latest improved design will feature a spokesperson representing the everyman consumer, and they'll knock the old product or design or whatever.

"Who wants to use a [product here] that doesn't have inner wing nut coagulating fasteners to minimize spillage?" [Like our former design product.] "Gimme a break!"

That should be more than enough for Jester to scoff at while he does exactly the same thing himself.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

You can see that stat bonuses for ability scores are much higher.

No, I do NOT think that's the case! The numbers in parentheses are not ability bonuses probably. The Pit fiend has only a +11 to damage rolls and a +8 to hp/level. So I think the saves are like before.

FWIW, I eventually tracked down the reason the pit fiend's abilities list things like "Str 32 (+24)": he -- like other 4E creatures, PCs included -- gets to add half his level (26th) to his ability checks. (32 - 10)/2 gives him a base +11 bonus, and his level gives him +13, so +24 is his total bonus on Strength checks.

Among other things, this might explain why he doesn't retain most of the 3E pit fiend's skills, as he can probably get by with ordinary ability checks for all but the most critical of activities. For the three skills he did choose to improve upon (Bluff, Intimidate, Religion [= 3E's Knowledge (religion)]), he gained a flat +5 bonus for each.

This is evidently how Star Wars SAGA (a system that test-drove many 4E concepts) does skills, also. Sorry I didn't post a clarification here sooner.

[Ail]

I'm actually not very pro-4E. I won't be buying it. Too soon.

I like alot of the changes though. I'm happy with most of what they zeroed in on to fix.
But there's still too much damn life in 3E for me to switch.

But I do like to call BS on most of the visceral gut reactions to 4E that seen more anti-change then genuine complaints. Mostly on other forums but occasionally here. I do so like being the devil's advocate.

I side with Jester in here almost exactly. And regarding the new dying system, I should say I agree. But I come from a point where I spent so much time helping my players tie their characters with my campaign that I really do not want to see them die. I've had 2 PC deaths in five years, and the second was two sessions ago, and with a PC that was on his third session. So, really, I don't like to kill them. On the other hand, there is no ressurrection, period. Or if they try it, it's either too expensive or incurs a PC with heavy probability.

So, I welcome this new dying rule. I really do. From the text before the mechanics, I had the impression that the dying PC could worsen a random number of negative points each roud, and I think that's still how I would play it. But I don't find it that impossible that magical healing brings you up to full condition no matter how much you've been hacked, judging that we are still in a system where you fight equally better at 10% your hp and 90% your hp (and I think this really is an old question).

[Jester of the FoS]

What gets me is that the design staff comments are disingenuous. "They're like, ohmygod, like, "Use Rope" is soooooo useless? Y'know? So we sorta like, y'know, ditched it? I mean, like, c'mon, who uses that anyway, amirite? And Prestige Classes? Don't even get me started on those - those are sooooo unbalanced, it's a wonder anybody played using them..."

Well, to be fair, there's probably like one guy left on the design team who worked on both 3.0 and 4.0.

On death again...
One thing I like much better than the current rule in that it uses a d20 instead of precentile. So few rules still use % in d20 that when it does show up it seem odd.

[Jakob]

I assume dead characters mean less books sold, no other possible reason...

On the contrary. To sell more books, the system should kill more characters.

I side with Jester with my thoughts on 4thEd. Just as I didn't like the WotC bashing during 3E ("WotC ruined D&D 'cause they want to make money"), I still don't like WotC bashing AFTER 3E.

[Sorti]

I assume dead characters mean less books sold, no other possible reason...

On the contrary. To sell more books, the system should kill more characters.

Care to argumentate (sp?) ?

I side with Jester with my thoughts on 4thEd. Just as I didn't like the WotC bashing during 3E ("WotC ruined D&D 'cause they want to make money"), I still don't like WotC bashing AFTER 3E.

I'm not "WotC bashing" just to, I am analyzing the new rules and giving my opinion. Precious few things of 4th edition sound good to me (less magic items, for instance), many others sound horrible.

I'm open to discussion, if you have something to oppose to my arguments.

Attacking me as a "WotC basher" who hates everything is not an interesting opinion I can discuss.

[Ail]

I assume dead characters mean less books sold, no other possible reason...

On the contrary. To sell more books, the system should kill more characters.

I side with Jester with my thoughts on 4thEd. Just as I didn't like the WotC bashing during 3E ("WotC ruined D&D 'cause they want to make money"), I still don't like WotC bashing AFTER 3E.

One way I see this, is that fresh new characters give you better chances to use all the new things that come in the new accessories. It's hard to retrofit in on-going characters, and DMs not always accept things like retraining (mine in Dragonlance doesn't, for instance).

[HuManBing]

What gets me is that the design staff comments are disingenuous. "They're like, ohmygod, like, "Use Rope" is soooooo useless? Y'know? So we sorta like, y'know, ditched it? I mean, like, c'mon, who uses that anyway, amirite? And Prestige Classes? Don't even get me started on those - those are sooooo unbalanced, it's a wonder anybody played using them..."

Well, to be fair, there's probably like one guy left on the design team who worked on both 3.0 and 4.0.

That's one way of looking at it, and as gamers I fully understand the importance of the individuals contributing to the efforts.

Another way of looking at it is that it's the same corporation that publishes the material (or more broadly, puts a product into the market). As long as the corporation hasn't changed, the inconsistency still applies.

Either way this is academic. Both viewpoints are valid, but there's no question which one I currently hold.

[Jakob]

Care to argumentate (sp?) ?

Ail just did.
More characters death = more characters to be created = more options needed.
I myself will NEVER find use to many options given in the Complete serie.
Sometimes, reading on message boards the many "Help me build a [insert class and race here]" threads, I find myself wondering how many characters do people play and for how long. My campaigns last for at least a year and a half... If not two years! This means usually one character every two years: I'm not a killer DM.

Attacking me as a "WotC basher" who hates everything is not an interesting opinion I can discuss.

Wait, I wasn't referring to you, nor did I attack you. I was referring to the many "lol wotc suxx" or "4E will suck, though I haven't even read anything yet, but will suck 'cause it's not like 3E".
Yours is a motivated and personal criticizing.
Coda di paglia? Scherzo...

[Jester of the FoS]

What gets me is that the design staff comments are disingenuous. "They're like, ohmygod, like, "Use Rope" is soooooo useless? Y'know? So we sorta like, y'know, ditched it? I mean, like, c'mon, who uses that anyway, amirite? And Prestige Classes? Don't even get me started on those - those are sooooo unbalanced, it's a wonder anybody played using them..."

Well, to be fair, there's probably like one guy left on the design team who worked on both 3.0 and 4.0.

That's one way of looking at it, and as gamers I fully understand the importance of the individuals contributing to the efforts.

Another way of looking at it is that it's the same corporation that publishes the material (or more broadly, puts a product into the market). As long as the corporation hasn't changed, the inconsistency still applies.

Either way this is academic. Both viewpoints are valid, but there's no question which one I currently hold.

But to say it's disingenuous is also a little harsh. Use Rope and such were added seven years ago when making a fairly radical game update to D&D. Since then they've learned making it a separate skill was rather silly.
So if they leave it they're keeping in a silly mechanic and doing a poor job of game design.
But if they take it out they're disingenuous.

You live, you learn. Would you rather they not admit mistakes or try to fix them?

[HuManBing]

So if they leave it they're keeping in a silly mechanic and doing a poor job of game design.
But if they take it out they're disingenuous.

You live, you learn. Would you rather they not admit mistakes or try to fix them?

Maybe I'm not expressing myself well. At risk of turning this thread into Media Advertising 101, allow me to clarify. I'm against the whole "well, we think it's a stupid idea, god, what were they thinking, we're right behind you (the consumer) one hundred percent, I mean get a life, why would you even use that?" mentality on the part of the seller, which to me is clearly calculated to create a false sense of camaraderie between seller and buyer. Note that this is not the only advertising tactic I consider to be logically inconsistent - it's merely one tool the admen use to sway public perception.

I have no problem with the team (whether it's Wizards, Johnson & Johnson, or Microsoft) admitting an error. But when they do it in a sophomoric way that's internally inconsistent with their prior portrayals of the whole thing working cohesively, it rankles on me. To paraphrase Rosemary Sutcliffe: It's not what they do, it's the way they do it.

As another example of product incongruity, consider the announcements of 4E, while many 3.5 products are still coming out. That puts people like me in an irrational situation. Do we buy the new 3.5 product, hoping to add it to our game? Or do we face the fact that it'll be obsolete and unsupported in a short while? What does that say about WotC if they'll put me in a situation where I have to make that call? Perhaps their dev teams aren't communicating to each other (the incompetent corp theory). Or perhaps they internally know what's going to happen but they don't care anyway (the malevolent corp theory).

This in a nutshell are the broad strokes of my opposition to WotC's move. You probably don't agree, and that doesn't offend me. You probably don't care, and that doesn't offend me either. Like Tom Lehrer and his subversive songs, I'm doing this not to sway those who disagree, but to find those who share my views and maybe find a happy common ground with them.

[alhoon]

So, to kill a character with 200 hp I have to deal 300 damage, and if he's at -99 and anyone casts any cure spell on him he goes back to positive???

If you're down, you're down.
If you're healed, you're back in the fight.
If you're down you have as few as three rounds before death.

Finally! I steal the rule for my 3.75 system. What I like more in the system is that:

- Really serious attacks could still kill you outright.
- I can finally blow out the raise/ressurection spells, or as Roti said the "insert coin to continue" spells! ! !
- No more: "the Red dragon goes all out on Gregdar the dwarf, dealing blow after massive blow (150 hp). Gredgar is baddly bloodied but still in the fight, 3 hp remaining. Cok, the kobold rogue (4-5th level) that used to cook for the dragon gets out of the pot he has been hidding and sneak attacks Gredgar with a crossbow for 13 damage. Gredgar is dead."
-Yes, no more "Pheww he's at -2, let's deal with the monster. He'll either stabilize or we have 7 more rounds."
- At least as far as we saw from the paladin, healing took some serious blows out there. If a 20+level paladin can cure for about 15-20hp, counting negatives is silly.

What I would prefer different:

Low levels can still be killed easily though. In 4th edition, even the 1st level char is supposed to be a hero of some kind, even if only of his local village. Fighter: 3d10+3xcon starting hp. Let's assume 25 hp. You die at -12. So If the big bad orc leader drops the fighter at -6hp, the orc lackey can drop him to -11 with a single action...
Second note: poor mage. 3d4+3xcon, and con won't probably be high. 12 hp, dies at -6. You better invest in con or toughness.

I believe there will be an improvement of the death from massive damage system too. Also I hope there will probably be a Coup de Grace though I guess it won't be so easily applied to fallen characters. Perhaps it takes 2 full round actions now? Perhaps the save is easier? Perhaps now it's only just a critical?

Note to Jester: It's not 3 rounds to die. It's 3 failed rolls, average about 6 rounds.

[Jester of the FoS]

Note to Jester: It's not 3 rounds to die. It's 3 failed rolls, average about 6 rounds.

You'll notice I said "as few as three rounds". I just had a game two weeks ago with the house rule of surviving to -con where I rolled 13 stabilize rolls before I stopped bleeding out, so I know sometimes the odds don't work.

Hitpoints in 4E shape up to be less random, following a trend. Point buy for stats and likely a straight # each level. Likely less than average rolls in 3E but with a higher starting total.
So it might be 30 + 4/level for fighters and something like 15+2/level for wizards.