First...please do not take this post as edition waring or a rant against any specific edition. It is just a recanting of what I feel and what my gaming group felt.
I DMd a 4e campaign for about 1 1/2 years. We played online starting with using WoTC table top. Since we only played 1 or 2 times a month, my players found that having the power cards helped them. Without them, they would forget what their PCs were capable of doing. This is good in one respect, but it sheds light on how the cards/powers became nearly the sum total of what they believed their PCs could do. We tried to roleplay, but ultimately, it seemed that the mechanics were at odds with the concept of roleplaying in my group. The longer combats may have been one factor that contributed to focusing more on mechanics rather than exploration and roleplaying. (Note: All of my players have been playing every edition of D&D from 1e through 4e).
As DM, I wanted to liberate them from their powers. I wanted to allow them to improvise. I wanted to allow different PC classes to try actions that were bound within the rules granted to other PC classes. As the amount of powers grew, as DM, I became overwhelmed with what the rules granted to each different PC/class, and that made it more difficult to improvise because if I allowed even one variation from the rules I felt as if I was taking an exclusive granted power away from someone else. After a while, I could not remember what PCs could do because there were too many dang powers.
There is certainly a lot to like about 4e, but for us, a DM and players who wanted to rely less on rules and more on "feel", story telling/roleplaying, it didn't work as well for us after a while. It was terrific for Encounter type sessions where we focused on a little roleplaying, one combat and some exploration or more roleplaying, but we could not devote enough time per session to make it feel like a story.
I still think that D&DNext can deliver what people like about 4e, but also keep the core simple enough so that people can foreground the story and "feel" and not get bogged down in the mechanics if that's what they like.
Yeah, that's kind of the strength of 4E. The DM can't screw you over with arbitrary fiat decisions that totally invalidate your character. You know what you can do and the DM has to put some effort into making your character a horrible choice rather than doing it by accident.
Well, he could do that on purpose, but it'd be really obvious.
But, it is nice to have a base system that's solid before you start departing from it, rather than one you feel the need to fix or ignore completely in order to get a good result.
First...please do not take this post as edition waring or a rant against any specific edition. It is just a recanting of what I feel and what my gaming group felt.
I DMd a 4e campaign for about 1 1/2 years. We played online starting with using WoTC table top. Since we only played 1 or 2 times a month, my players found that having the power cards helped them. Without them, they would forget what their PCs were capable of doing. This is good in one respect, but it sheds light on how the cards/powers became nearly the sum total of what they believed their PCs could do. We tried to roleplay, but ultimately, it seemed that the mechanics were at odds with the concept of roleplaying in my group. The longer combats may have been one factor that contributed to focusing more on mechanics rather than exploration and roleplaying. (Note: All of my players have been playing every edition of D&D from 1e through 4e).
As DM, I wanted to liberate them from their powers. I wanted to allow them to improvise. I wanted to allow different PC classes to try actions that were bound within the rules granted to other PC classes. As the amount of powers grew, as DM, I became overwhelmed with what the rules granted to each different PC/class, and that made it more difficult to improvise because if I allowed even one variation from the rules I felt as if I was taking an exclusive granted power away from someone else. After a while, I could not remember what PCs could do because there were too many dang powers.
There is certainly a lot to like about 4e, but for us, a DM and players who wanted to rely less on rules and more on "feel", story telling/roleplaying, it didn't work as well for us after a while. It was terrific for Encounter type sessions where we focused on a little roleplaying, one combat and some exploration or more roleplaying, but we could not devote enough time per session to make it feel like a story.
I still think that D&DNext can deliver what people like about 4e, but also keep the core simple enough so that people can foreground the story and "feel" and not get bogged down in the mechanics if that's what they like.
This here is clearly a misunderstanding of the rules. If a Rogue tries to stab two creatures at once without a power you as the DM can certainly allow it. If you turn to page 42 in the 4E DMG you will find that it requires a skill check and possibly a second attack roll. So the Rogue can try to do what a Fighter does naturally by making an additional dexterity check against an even level DC to see if they are fast enough to get that second hit in. That is in addition to the normal attack roll and possibly a second attack roll. Then it gives damage for improvisation. So they would be able to do it just not as good as the Fighter. Its really not that hard...
Yeah, that's kind of the strength of 4E. The DM can't screw you over with arbitrary fiat decisions that totally invalidate your character. You know what you can do and the DM has to put some effort into making your character a horrible choice rather than doing it by accident.
Well, he could do that on purpose, but it'd be really obvious.
But, it is nice to have a base system that's solid before you start departing from it, rather than one you feel the need to fix or ignore completely in order to get a good result.
First...please do not take this post as edition waring or a rant against any specific edition. It is just a recanting of what I feel and what my gaming group felt.
I DMd a 4e campaign for about 1 1/2 years. We played online starting with using WoTC table top. Since we only played 1 or 2 times a month, my players found that having the power cards helped them. Without them, they would forget what their PCs were capable of doing. This is good in one respect, but it sheds light on how the cards/powers became nearly the sum total of what they believed their PCs could do. We tried to roleplay, but ultimately, it seemed that the mechanics were at odds with the concept of roleplaying in my group. The longer combats may have been one factor that contributed to focusing more on mechanics rather than exploration and roleplaying. (Note: All of my players have been playing every edition of D&D from 1e through 4e).
As DM, I wanted to liberate them from their powers. I wanted to allow them to improvise. I wanted to allow different PC classes to try actions that were bound within the rules granted to other PC classes. As the amount of powers grew, as DM, I became overwhelmed with what the rules granted to each different PC/class, and that made it more difficult to improvise because if I allowed even one variation from the rules I felt as if I was taking an exclusive granted power away from someone else. After a while, I could not remember what PCs could do because there were too many dang powers.
There is certainly a lot to like about 4e, but for us, a DM and players who wanted to rely less on rules and more on "feel", story telling/roleplaying, it didn't work as well for us after a while. It was terrific for Encounter type sessions where we focused on a little roleplaying, one combat and some exploration or more roleplaying, but we could not devote enough time per session to make it feel like a story.
I still think that D&DNext can deliver what people like about 4e, but also keep the core simple enough so that people can foreground the story and "feel" and not get bogged down in the mechanics if that's what they like.
This here is clearly a misunderstanding of the rules. If a Rogue tries to stab two creatures at once without a power you as the DM can certainly allow it. If you turn to page 42 in the 4E DMG you will find that it requires a skill check and possibly a second attack roll. So the Rogue can try to do what a Fighter does naturally by making an additional dexterity check against an even level DC to see if they are fast enough to get that second hit in. That is in addition to the normal attack roll and possibly a second attack roll. Then it gives damage for improvisation. So they would be able to do it just not as good as the Fighter. Its really not that hard...
Is it a misunderstanding or just a different interpretation of the rules.
P. 42 begins with the bold topic "Actions The Rules Don't Cover." Don't all of the powers become smaller rules that govern the way each PC can act to maintain balance? Powers determine how to push, pull, knock prone, immobilize, stun, etc. It is far from obvious that p. 42 suggests that a rogue (or a cleric or a wizard or a warlord, etc) can try to kick the legs out from under an opponent to attempt to knock it prone. What if my player says he wants to do that? Should I let him roll a Dexterity check vs what? Should it be an attack vs. AC, Reflex or Fortitude? Should it be both? Should it not be allowed because it might imbalance the game? Not so easy to understand. If I allow this in the game, do I need powers at all?
First...please do not take this post as edition waring or a rant against any specific edition. It is just a recanting of what I feel and what my gaming group felt.
I DMd a 4e campaign for about 1 1/2 years. We played online starting with using WoTC table top. Since we only played 1 or 2 times a month, my players found that having the power cards helped them. Without them, they would forget what their PCs were capable of doing. This is good in one respect, but it sheds light on how the cards/powers became nearly the sum total of what they believed their PCs could do. We tried to roleplay, but ultimately, it seemed that the mechanics were at odds with the concept of roleplaying in my group. The longer combats may have been one factor that contributed to focusing more on mechanics rather than exploration and roleplaying. (Note: All of my players have been playing every edition of D&D from 1e through 4e).
As DM, I wanted to liberate them from their powers. I wanted to allow them to improvise. I wanted to allow different PC classes to try actions that were bound within the rules granted to other PC classes. As the amount of powers grew, as DM, I became overwhelmed with what the rules granted to each different PC/class, and that made it more difficult to improvise because if I allowed even one variation from the rules I felt as if I was taking an exclusive granted power away from someone else. After a while, I could not remember what PCs could do because there were too many dang powers.
There is certainly a lot to like about 4e, but for us, a DM and players who wanted to rely less on rules and more on "feel", story telling/roleplaying, it didn't work as well for us after a while. It was terrific for Encounter type sessions where we focused on a little roleplaying, one combat and some exploration or more roleplaying, but we could not devote enough time per session to make it feel like a story.
I still think that D&DNext can deliver what people like about 4e, but also keep the core simple enough so that people can foreground the story and "feel" and not get bogged down in the mechanics if that's what they like.
This here is clearly a misunderstanding of the rules. If a Rogue tries to stab two creatures at once without a power you as the DM can certainly allow it. If you turn to page 42 in the 4E DMG you will find that it requires a skill check and possibly a second attack roll. So the Rogue can try to do what a Fighter does naturally by making an additional dexterity check against an even level DC to see if they are fast enough to get that second hit in. That is in addition to the normal attack roll and possibly a second attack roll. Then it gives damage for improvisation. So they would be able to do it just not as good as the Fighter. Its really not that hard...
Is it a misunderstanding or just a different interpretation of the rules.
P. 42 begins with the bold topic "Actions The Rules Don't Cover." Don't all of the powers become smaller rules that govern the way each PC can act to maintain balance? Powers determine how to push, pull, knock prone, immobilize, stun, etc. It is far from obvious that p. 42 suggests that a rogue (or a cleric or a wizard or a warlord, etc) can try to kick the legs out from under an opponent to attempt to knock it prone. What if my player says he wants to do that? Should I let him roll a Dexterity check vs what? Should it be an attack vs. AC, Reflex or Fortitude? Should it be both? Should it not be allowed because it might imbalance the game? Not so easy to understand. If I allow this in the game, do I need powers at all?
Powers are more reliable and on a general situation, more powerful than improvise, you improvise as plan B, not as plan A.
First...please do not take this post as edition waring or a rant against any specific edition. It is just a recanting of what I feel and what my gaming group felt.
I DMd a 4e campaign for about 1 1/2 years. We played online starting with using WoTC table top. Since we only played 1 or 2 times a month, my players found that having the power cards helped them. Without them, they would forget what their PCs were capable of doing. This is good in one respect, but it sheds light on how the cards/powers became nearly the sum total of what they believed their PCs could do. We tried to roleplay, but ultimately, it seemed that the mechanics were at odds with the concept of roleplaying in my group. The longer combats may have been one factor that contributed to focusing more on mechanics rather than exploration and roleplaying. (Note: All of my players have been playing every edition of D&D from 1e through 4e).
As DM, I wanted to liberate them from their powers. I wanted to allow them to improvise. I wanted to allow different PC classes to try actions that were bound within the rules granted to other PC classes. As the amount of powers grew, as DM, I became overwhelmed with what the rules granted to each different PC/class, and that made it more difficult to improvise because if I allowed even one variation from the rules I felt as if I was taking an exclusive granted power away from someone else. After a while, I could not remember what PCs could do because there were too many dang powers.
There is certainly a lot to like about 4e, but for us, a DM and players who wanted to rely less on rules and more on "feel", story telling/roleplaying, it didn't work as well for us after a while. It was terrific for Encounter type sessions where we focused on a little roleplaying, one combat and some exploration or more roleplaying, but we could not devote enough time per session to make it feel like a story.
I still think that D&DNext can deliver what people like about 4e, but also keep the core simple enough so that people can foreground the story and "feel" and not get bogged down in the mechanics if that's what they like.
This here is clearly a misunderstanding of the rules. If a Rogue tries to stab two creatures at once without a power you as the DM can certainly allow it. If you turn to page 42 in the 4E DMG you will find that it requires a skill check and possibly a second attack roll. So the Rogue can try to do what a Fighter does naturally by making an additional dexterity check against an even level DC to see if they are fast enough to get that second hit in. That is in addition to the normal attack roll and possibly a second attack roll. Then it gives damage for improvisation. So they would be able to do it just not as good as the Fighter. Its really not that hard...
Is it a misunderstanding or just a different interpretation of the rules.
P. 42 begins with the bold topic "Actions The Rules Don't Cover." Don't all of the powers become smaller rules that govern the way each PC can act to maintain balance? Powers determine how to push, pull, knock prone, immobilize, stun, etc. It is far from obvious that p. 42 suggests that a rogue (or a cleric or a wizard or a warlord, etc) can try to kick the legs out from under an opponent to attempt to knock it prone. What if my player says he wants to do that? Should I let him roll a Dexterity check vs what? Should it be an attack vs. AC, Reflex or Fortitude? Should it be both? Should it not be allowed because it might imbalance the game? Not so easy to understand. If I allow this in the game, do I need powers at all?
Powers are more reliable and on a general situation, more powerful than improvise, you improvise as plan B, not as plan A.
Do I need to copy and paste the relevant parts for you Rhenny or are you going to actually read the page. By the way a class trying to mimic a power is definitely something the rules don't cover. No where does it say you can't try to do something that is in a power of another class...
This here is clearly a misunderstanding of the rules. If a Rogue tries to stab two creatures at once without a power you as the DM can certainly allow it. If you turn to page 42 in the 4E DMG you will find that it requires a skill check and possibly a second attack roll. So the Rogue can try to do what a Fighter does naturally by making an additional dexterity check against an even level DC to see if they are fast enough to get that second hit in. That is in addition to the normal attack roll and possibly a second attack roll. Then it gives damage for improvisation. So they would be able to do it just not as good as the Fighter. Its really not that hard...
Is it a misunderstanding or just a different interpretation of the rules.
P. 42 begins with the bold topic "Actions The Rules Don't Cover." Don't all of the powers become smaller rules that govern the way each PC can act to maintain balance? Powers determine how to push, pull, knock prone, immobilize, stun, etc. It is far from obvious that p. 42 suggests that a rogue (or a cleric or a wizard or a warlord, etc) can try to kick the legs out from under an opponent to attempt to knock it prone. What if my player says he wants to do that? Should I let him roll a Dexterity check vs what? Should it be an attack vs. AC, Reflex or Fortitude? Should it be both? Should it not be allowed because it might imbalance the game? Not so easy to understand. If I allow this in the game, do I need powers at all?
Powers are more reliable and on a general situation, more powerful than improvise, you improvise as plan B, not as plan A.
Do I need to copy and paste the relevant parts for you Rhenny or are you going to actually read the page. By the way a class trying to mimic a power is definitely something the rules don't cover. No where does it say you can't try to do something that is in a power of another class...
Lokiare has a very real point here. Nothing in the book says that you can't use a power that you don't have. For example, a fighter that doesn't have tide of iron could certainly try to improvise it, and that's equally true of the powers of other class. Just about the only place where you run into difficulty is when you try to improvise magical abilities, and even then the difficulties (or lack thereof) are more about the fluff of the world than the rules in question.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
