Evil_Reverend > The Wizards Community

Evil_Reverend is now friends with Bronnzai and 4 other people.

darkelf223 voted in the poll, "Feat Choice".

Avoiding Choice Traps

A couple years ago, I started a new 4th Edition campaign for some friends. I...

Show previous 5 comments...

2 / 203

LordOfTheFlies87

Having a feat do work in all three categories seems like a bad idea. I like the idea at the end, feats for combat, mostly, Skills for non-combat scenarios generally. I'm not too picky -- but packing that much design into each feat seems dangerous and potentially lame.

May 12, 2012 6:16 PM

marco9999

I don't know, actually. I'd say, a feat is a feat is a feat. And by that I mean, it depends on the kind of game the players want to run what's useful and what's useless. You can always give more powerful feats special prerequisites like a high enough class level or stat, or divide them into 2 or more feats that together achieve the desired effect...
My line of reasoning is this: if you have feats exclusively dedicated to combat, and then something different for exploration, and then...

View full comment I don't know, actually. I'd say, a feat is a feat is a feat. And by that I mean, it depends on the kind of game the players want to run what's useful and what's useless. You can always give more powerful feats special prerequisites like a high enough class level or stat, or divide them into 2 or more feats that together achieve the desired effect...

My line of reasoning is this: if you have feats exclusively dedicated to combat, and then something different for exploration, and then something else for roleplaying... we will all probably have characters with resources in all 3 pillars. What if I want a character who sucks at fighting? Or one who sucks at social interaction?... I dunno. The same problem arises if you make feats that speak to all 3 pillars simultaneously, with the extra concern of straining disbelief etc etc...

There's something you wrote that jumped out at me while I was reading, I'll quote you:

"My friend Ian, who is not a min-max sort of player, chose for his paladin the Fast Runner feat at 1st level. He never mentioned it. He never talked about it. He just made that choice and played the game. At some point, someone asked him about his feat. He revealed it and earned a lot of gentle (and not-so-gentle) ribbing and laughter from his fellow players. By the rules, there’s nothing wrong with this choice. Nothing at all! In fact, it was a choice that supported his character concept. Sure, he probably would have been better off with some sort of expertise feat or damage booster or something that would let him win D&D. But he didn’t. And that’s great".

Yes it is, but -he never mentioned it. Neither was he encouraged to until -after- character creation, if I get it right. This is a problem. Lack of communication at the table. The players, DM included, should share their expectations and build together. Really, social contract. The problem's the social contract goes -always- unspoken at the table. Nobody ever even thinks about saying, 'Hey, I'd like a sandbox scenario!', or even more important, 'Hey, my character will be so & so, are you folks OK with that?'. Nope, doesn't happen much in D&D. If it did, the game would work better. And although ribbing the player who chose fast running is marginally fun... I don't know, really, maybe the player could've made a different, even more effective choice?

Which leads to the other thing I want to say. "By the rules, there's nothing wrong with this choice". Of course not, but then the player who chose to customize their character with a relatively underpowered feat was gently mocked. Why? Because -it's a relatively underpowered feat. Yet, no D&D book told the player this. The books never give you a look under the hood, they never give you a little advice regarding what could work best in an action-packed dungeon crawl or what would be really valuable in an intrigue-heavy session at a decadent court... there -is- advice, for the DM, in the DMG, period... the players always have to figure stuff out by themselves, at most with their DM, who still might not be sure about some questions.

The books don't give you much in the way of support. They give you all these neat choices and powers and stuff and then, -there, go nuts!- ... yeah but if I choose this, what will it give me? What kind of situation does it help with? Is it a good choice if I want to be the spokesperson? Or the scout? Or the expert? Or the meat-shield? How high should a stat be for me to hit with a decent accuracy?

Advice for players is always so little. I remember reading 4e's Player's Strategy Guide and cursing myself for not having thought of those tactics and ideas before. Yeah, I'm pretty dumb, but... tell us what the options you're giving us can result in. Tell us if something might be a sub-par choice, and if something else would fix that, and... see, there's just not a lot of support. Lots of options, sure, but no communication...

May 15, 2012 8:47 AM

Tone and Edition

A few years ago, I woke up and realized what I thought was fantasy...

2 people like this blog post.

Show previous 5 comments...

2 / 278

marco9999

No, no, no. You're putting labels where there's no need for them, Evil_Reverend. Put all the races you want and manage to fit into the core product(s), starting from the core ones, who'll always be the core ones, and spreading out to dragonborn, tieflings, etc. Don't lump them together in arbitrary definitions of what should be common and what should be rare, they're not MtG cards. Just write in bold bright letters -these are some races you could use. All of them are absolutely optional. Your...

View full comment

May 13, 2012 7:19 AM

andyc

I'd like to answer the last question. No, this sort of thing does not keep me up at night!!
I think we agonise far too much about what IS and ISN'T D&D. The ruleset should be able to accommodate all types of fantasy that people want to play. Just because it is published doesn't mean you have to use it or play it. I don't like the shardmind or the wilden, so they don't exist as character race options in my world. I do however, like the story elements that the 4E dragonborn and tiefling...

View full comment

May 15, 2012 4:51 PM

Backgrounds and Themes: A Closer Look

A little while ago, I pulled back the curtain so I could show you what we...

Show previous 5 comments...

2 / 166

MuddlingMage

If skills are unhooked for classes and tied more closely to attributes as the devs have suggested, I think it could work quite well. Players will pay attention to their characters' personal strengths and weaknesses when planning out skills rather than being nearly locked in by career path. I'd love to see built-in support for the diplomatic fighter, the sneaky wizard, and practically anything else without needing supplemental materials.

May 1, 2012 7:54 AM

marco9999

Yes! Do that. Don't have the class be the only thing that delivers flavour and crunch. Spread them out. Exactly like that. Very cool!
Also give us options if we don't want to have another theme at 6th level etc. Like, "You can select another theme or simply x feats". Which the sys you're delineating already does, because themes and backgrounds are optional and we can just choose their fiddly bits ourselves, or build our own, right? (I dearly hope so! It should be like that if I read...

View full comment

May 13, 2012 6:26 AM

kay007 voted in the poll, "Even more crazy or new stuff (elaborate in the comments)".

1 person likes this poll.

kay007 voted in the poll, "Gain noncombat bonuses in the pursuit of evil or the protection of others ".

1 person likes this poll.

When 3rd Edition hit the shelves, the morale rules disappeared. I can only...

1 person likes this blog post.

Show previous 5 comments...

2 / 113

Authw8

I like the idea of having morale be a part of strategy, for instance rewarding more complex tactics than kill them with focus fire. It would be cool too if classes even had abilities based on this, for instance a dark psion could create an aura that lowers his enemy's morale, or a particularly brutal blow from a fighter might lower the enemy morale more than normal.
The problem with this, though, is it could advantage or disadvantage certain characters depending on the enemies they face....

View full comment

April 27, 2012 4:05 PM

marco9999

No, morale rules are not really needed. I would ignore them. If you wanna make them an optional system, do so, of course -but optional, so we can choose to discard it.
Instead, tell players that people run away. All the time. Or surrender. Or ask for a parley. It's true. Make it clear for everyone. Teach the DMs that no one really wants to die, unless they're mindless automatons or they're crazy or there's some other reason. I -always- think about having the opponents run away. Give us...

View full comment

May 12, 2012 5:01 AM

Beyond Class and Race

I want to play a fighter. I want to play a dwarf. I want to kick the crap...

Show previous 5 comments...

2 / 242

Dougan_Axehammer

I'm looking forward to seeing these ideas in the play test. It's the type of customization and flexibility I've been looking for. Although, I am wondering if there will be race-specific backgrounds and themes as well. (Or perhaps these could be found in racial splatbooks.)

May 4, 2012 3:37 PM

marco9999

Sounds great. Remember to emphasize that themes and backgrounds are just packets of skills and feats and thus you can just do without them and choose whatever the heck you like. If you wanna keep "races" simple (and I don't know why you should with -all- of them, but OK) you might also want to have "racial" backgrounds and themes.
BTW, once in a while you could revolutionize some aspects of the game with a new rules module. Who wants to use it does, who doesn't leaves it alone. Better than...

View full comment

May 12, 2012 2:42 AM

verglaze voted in the poll, "Raise Dead".

1 person likes this poll.

Bow_Seat voted in the poll, "Do you like Rob’s proposal?".

1 person likes this poll.

Sneak Attack and Backstab

Last time I talked about sneak attack, I asked whether people felt the whole...

Show previous 5 comments...

2 / 171

Aviose

I'm not sure whether I misread this, or many others did, but the way I read what you said, the players aren't trading an accuracy modifier of their own for the sneak attack, but rather offering the opportunity for the enemy to have advantage on you (and thus return a sneak attack).
The way I read it, it was more giving the enemy an advantage because you dared to try to aim for a vital point that specifically. In this respect it might be worth the small trade-off. You lower your defenses...

View full comment

May 4, 2012 2:35 AM

marco9999

No no no no. Combat maneuvers and weapon specialization are fighter stuff. You can make them accessible to any class if you want (and you should) but since you got classes, it makes sense that fighters pay less for them (like a feats special offer at the local mall, whatever). Widgets are good stuff for rogues, though, way to go.
And you got it right when you said -everybody can sneak attack. That's exactly the point. Let me rephrase it though -everybody can hit vulnerable spots.
...

View full comment No no no no. Combat maneuvers and weapon specialization are fighter stuff. You can make them accessible to any class if you want (and you should) but since you got classes, it makes sense that fighters pay less for them (like a feats special offer at the local mall, whatever). Widgets are good stuff for rogues, though, way to go.

And you got it right when you said -everybody can sneak attack. That's exactly the point. Let me rephrase it though -everybody can hit vulnerable spots.

There.

Everybody can. Yes. Even wizards and, whatever, peasants too, could get lucky, take a horrible penalty to their attack roll and smash a head, pierce a lung, slash open a belly. It's the same exact thing as a crit actually, you know?

And a crit should be ugly. Oh yes. Otherwise, what's the point?

Now, take a penalty to hit the soft underbelly of whatever you're fighting. You're a fighter? You got a big attack bonus with your weapon, right? You probably also used a feat or two to decrease the penalty to aim at a precise body area, yes? Go ahead and try. If you feint first (which is not a bluff check!!) or anyways if the defenses of your foes are down, it'll be even easier. Well, it's never really easy, but you can totally do it. You hit? Here, double damage. Or triple, or x4, or whatever, depending on the target you hit and a little luck.

OK now, so you're not a fighter. You're a rogue. You silently, rapidly sneak out from the shadows and strike. Now, your attack roll ain't as good as the fighter's of course, and you probably haven't specialized in hitting vulnerable spots -but heck, the enemy didn't even know you were there a fraction of a second ago! Surprise surprise. Essentially, the enemy's defenses are down, indeed, as above for the feinting fighter. So you can play it safe and just attack for normal damage and be quite sure you'll hit -something- , or try your luck and see if you can strike a vital location. If you manage that, well, kudos, you enjoy the same damage multipliers as the fighter.

Now, does this make sense or what? No really, you folks tell me.

The rogues' weapon isn't incredible fighting skill. It's stealth and underhanded tactics and dirty tricks and avoiding fair fights. The rogue is essentially -unfair. In everything. Fairness is the enemy of the rogue. The rogue fast-talks you and then sucker-punches you. The rogue robs your reagent pouch while you're busy defending from the fighter. The rogue jumps down on you from the ceiling. The rogue tosses you a ball -knowing- you'll try to catch it and when you lift your eyes they're somewhere else entirely -maybe with a knee firmly planted in your family jewels.

Rogues don't deal megadamage. Rogues hit you while your defenses are down. And against a rogue, your defenses are down pretty much all the damn time...

May 9, 2012 10:47 AM

verglaze voted in the poll, "Iconic Cleric Poll".

verglaze voted in the poll, "Sneak Attack".

1 person likes this poll.

Community

Profile

Activity Feed

Evil_Reverend is now friends with Bronnzai and 4 other people.

darkelf223 voted in the poll, "Feat Choice".

kay007 voted in the poll, "Even more crazy or new stuff (elaborate in the comments)".

kay007 voted in the poll, "Gain noncombat bonuses in the pursuit of evil or the protection of others ".

kay007 voted in the poll, "Resist damage from evil foes ".

kay007 voted in the poll, "Smite evil foes ".

kay007 voted in the poll, "Protect his or her allies ".

kay007 voted in the poll, "Be an expert at mounted combat ".

Chris24601 voted in the poll, "Simulating Combat".

strider13x voted in the poll, "Morale".

verglaze voted in the poll, "Raise Dead".

Bow_Seat voted in the poll, "Do you like Rob’s proposal?".

verglaze voted in the poll, "Iconic Cleric Poll".

verglaze voted in the poll, "Sneak Attack".

My Profile

About Me

D&D

Magic

Axis & Allies

Star Wars

Blog Posts

Comments

Post Comment

My Characters

Lair Assault

Vitals

Calendar

Calendar Events

Friends

My Groups

Photos

Corporate

Wizards.com Sites