|
6 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2007 - 3:42PM
#1181
|
|
|
So, if what I am seeing is correct, a saving throw will be static like armor class? A set number instead of a roll, plus a set number?
Yes that is correct. In SW it is 10+armor or level which ever is better + class bonus+ ability mod + size
So again take the wizard 3rd level, no armor we assume, with a 16 dex.
10+3 (level) + 0 (class bonus) + 3 (dex) +0 size=16 reflex AC
Rinse repeat for Fort, and Will.
This of course does not take into account magic items, like a ring of protection +1 which I am sure would be a misc bonus to the number as well.
So a fighter swings his sword and rolls a 14 adds his strength of +2 then the mage in this scenerio takes damage.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2007 - 4:22PM
#1182
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2004
|
So a fighter swings his sword and rolls a 14 adds his strength of +2 then the mage in this scenerio takes damage.
Is this for a Reflex save on a Critical miss by an ally? Otherwise it sounds like a replacement for AC and I thought they were leaving AC alone.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 05, 2007 - 1:31AM
#1183
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2006
|
It would be really wonderful to have just a bit more clarity from WotC. At the moment I'm sure that they have a list of things that WILL be in the new edition, a list of things that they have cut out and probably quite a small list of things that are still in the melting pot.
Trouble is we have no idea what is what and WotC aren't sharing their vision for 4e other than its going to be wonderful and easier/better to play and supported by the marvels of the internet and ehhh... Now every module released seems to have 'New Stat blocks to enable easier reference' or some such thing and all it actually does is change the format yet again and make it harder to find the information you want (** end of rant **)
Please, please Gamer0 (if you read all this!) can we have a place on the site where WotC designers say, in simple tems not marketing-speak, what has been agreed so far on 4e?
I'm sure it would put a lot of minds at rest and we, your public and customers, could concentrate on influencing the bits still subject to change...
Thanks
GH2
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 05, 2007 - 11:27AM
#1184
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
in 3.5, the CR made me sick x)
for example: a lillend (with 7HD of outsider, and we know what this mean) have spells of a bard of 7th level, but she is a CR 6 monster!!! and the bard 7th level is a CR 7! and she had str 20, and nice physical abilities!
i believe THAT basis of CR must change! an NPC with PC class level isn't so powerful than a monster of the same CR.
other example: the "non-associated" class levels in monters. imagine a fire giant (with 15 Hd of giant) with 15 levels in sorcerer class; it'll be CR 18 ('cause his 15 level in "non-associated" class levels!), but think about his combat prowess...it's insane!
in my point of view, this is the worst problem in the math base of the 3.5
i'll be glad if someone know any info about this topic!
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 05, 2007 - 11:36AM
#1185
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2004
|
in 3.5, the CR made me sick x)
for example: a lillend (with 7HD of outsider, and we know what this mean) have spells of a bard of 7th level, but she is a CR 6 monster!!! and the bard 7th level is a CR 7! and she had str 20, and nice physical abilities!
i believe THAT basis of CR must change! an NPC with PC class level isn't so powerful than a monster of the same CR.
other example: the "non-associated" class levels in monters. imagine a fire giant (with 15 Hd of giant) with 15 levels in sorcerer class; it'll be CR 18 ('cause his 15 level in "non-associated" class levels!), but think about his combat prowess...it's insane!
in my point of view, this is the worst problem in the math base of the 3.5
i'll be glad if someone know any info about this topic!
Then you'll be happy to know the idea of CR/EL is gone. More monsters at lower levels and such. ALL the 4E information so far has been compiled by enworld and here is the link:
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
ENJOY!!!!
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 05, 2007 - 12:54PM
#1186
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2004
|
Then you'll be happy to know the idea of CR/EL is gone. More monsters at lower levels and such. ALL the 4E information so far has been compiled by enworld and here is the link:
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
ENJOY!!!!
Nice. I see a lot of nice stuff listed.
smoker
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 05, 2007 - 2:16PM
#1187
|
|
|
I've been playing D&D since 1978. Even DM'd at GENCON 18, when 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana was released. I have been DM'ing first edition and other than the 2nd edition dragons have kept DM'ing 1st edition because it was a product of the imagination! Not a rules war or a lets see how we can creatively stack our feats and skills to make uber characters. I hope that 4th edition lives up to it's promise of returning the simplicity of play. I have a good following of players that enjoy the simplicity and freedom of 1st edition. I truely hope that W.O.C live up to what they have told the gaming world.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 05, 2007 - 4:01PM
#1188
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
Please keep the Players Manual, Dungeon Masters Guide and Monsters Manual SIMPLE.
Overcomplicate and Confuse he rules later ... keep the Core Books for New Gamers !!!
Tony
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2007 - 8:35AM
#1189
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2002
|
Then you'll be happy to know the idea of CR/EL is gone. More monsters at lower levels and such. ALL the 4E information so far has been compiled by enworld and here is the link:
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
ENJOY!!!!
Specifically, here is the quote about CR for those interested:
"We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't).
Third edition gives the illusion of fairness by giving you formulas to rely on, but you can use all the formulas perfectly and easily end up with an unfair or unfun monster. Advancing monsters by hit dice is a great example. Depending on its type and ability scores, the CR raise you give it according to the formulas might work out okay, but just as often the monster ends up too tough for its CR or too weak.
CR is often just a shot in the dark. We usually get it right, but I'm betting you can think of some critters that are way out of their weight class.
For each level of play we're devising a range of numbers for monsters that provide fairness and fun. Those numbers are based on what the PCs bring to the fight in terms of their potency and defenses, and upon the general role in the fight a monster is likely to be in.
Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.
Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2007 - 11:26AM
#1190
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
No, the skills description could be as simple as "Success = You create a high-quality painting." And that would be it. You would write "1 High-Quality Painting" on your character sheet. What can you do with it? Well, since it has no stats, you can do what the DM lets you do with it, and nothing more, just like every other non-mechanical aspect of the game. Maybe you can sell it, and maybe you can't. Maybe getting a good price for it requires a Diplomacy check, or a Bluff check. But successfully creating the item does nothing other than successfully creating the item.
But if they are going to cut the 'fluff' skills from the game mechanics, there will be no dice involved, will there? And *if* it says in the rules (PHB) that each *player* may determine how good their characters are in these 'non-heroic' skills (such as painting), then you, as DM, cannot refute their own 'descriptors', can you? Of course, you could argue with them or even use your DM's authority, but if we look at this issue from a purely *mechanical* point of view, your players would be well within their rights to say that "My guy is so good that he gets automatically 10000 GPs per month for his paintings" or "My guy is so good that his skill modifier in 3.5 Edition would be +100" or "My guy is such a divine painter that even the gods buy his art". All of these are *technically* legal definitions *if* these 'nonheroic' skills become 'non-mechanical' in nature (and thus, no rolls are needed to succeed) *and* may be freely determined by the players themselves. *Techically* speaking, you'd not even need to sell them, if you include some sort of 'automatical reward' in the definition of your character's skill level.
|
|
|
