|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:10PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
Rule of Three: 6/19/12 by Rodney Thompson You've got questions—we've got answers! Here's how it works—each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever questions you're asking. Talk about this article here. 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:16PM
#2
|
|
|
Clerics could be interesting this time around. Obviously, it will depend on what the sphere/domain packages look like, but spell+attack has piqued my interest (as will how they balance a fighter and wizard with that, not to mention the lowly rogue).
I'm surprised by the advantage/disadvantage. I expected that it would be a series of cancellations, where 5 advantage and 4 disadvantage equalled advantage. However, this will definitely streamline it. I don't see buff spells being -nearly- as ubiquitous with this being true, as a single debuff (so long as they're all based on A/D) cancels them out.
The tactical thing doesn't interest me, but I'm glad our 4E players are getting it. It sounds somewhat interesting for what it is, especially if facing works out as nicely as described.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:28PM
#3
|
|
|
I really hope the facing thing interfaces with the Stealth rules. Nothing confuses me more than the idea that a trained rogue is incapable of sneaking up on people while their back is turned in an otherwise empty corridor unless they bring a bush or cardboard box with them.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:29PM
#4
|
|
|
I don't like the answer about Adv/Disadv. Ok, it streamlines the game (if you have a single Adv. and a single Disadv., you can just call it a day and roll the die), but it challenges my sense of realism way too much. So, you may be drunk, blind-folded and terrified when trying to make a ranged attack against a prone enemy who is beyond the normal range of your weapon (5 conditions who give you disadvantage), but, if the prone foe is either unconscious or stunned, you have a fair chance of hitting it (like, about 50%)? Sorry, but this makes no sense at all, and is the first house rule I'll implement if it stays this way. I'm all for the net gain (more advantages than disadvantages = advantage; the other way around = disadvantage).
About the facing rules... Hm... They read a little too complex, but I'll reserve judgment for when I see them.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:04PM
#5
|
|
|
Seriously, facing rules? Since when have people been demanding that? Seems unnecessary, and unless you have minis for every character, difficult to work with. Just bring back the usual flanking rules instead.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:08PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I really hope the facing thing interfaces with the Stealth rules. Nothing confuses me more than the idea that a trained rogue is incapable of sneaking up on people while their back is turned in an otherwise empty corridor unless they bring a bush or cardboard box with them.
Look at the rules again the facing thing only matters in the case of ties.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:20PM
#7
|
|
|
I really hope the facing thing interfaces with the Stealth rules. Nothing confuses me more than the idea that a trained rogue is incapable of sneaking up on people while their back is turned in an otherwise empty corridor unless they bring a bush or cardboard box with them.
Look at the rules again the facing thing only matters in the case of ties.
I'm looking at the How to Play document..."If the creature might see you, you need to keep behind cover or stay in heavily obscured areas to remain hidden...in order to avoid detection, you need some way to hide...something must conceal you...the thing must cover your body for you to hide...if you lose the conditions needed to remain hidden, you are automatically spotted."
Now I agree that there's ambiguity here. "As long as a creature is looking in your direction" implies facing, and the real confusing thing is whether "can't possibly see you" means "creature is Blind or you are Invisible" as opposed to "has their back to you."
Maybe it's just that I'm struggling with my built-up annoyances from 3.X when you needed cover/concealment to even attempt.
Is there a consensus out there?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:21PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
I just think it's funny that I just got out of a discussion a few days ago about the Cleric of Pelor and Cleric of Moradin. My point was basically that domains may, and I did stress may, dictate armor and other functions due to the marked difference. The other person was advocating a typo.
I guess this resolves it.
And I'm not crazy after all!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:23PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
General disapproval for facing rules. Do not like.
That said...eh, we'll see what he comes up with. Not particularly enthusiastic about the idea, not at all.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:24PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2003
|
Seriously, facing rules? Since when have people been demanding that? Seems unnecessary, and unless you have minis for every character, difficult to work with. Just bring back the usual flanking rules instead.
People have been demanding mini-based grid combat for a while now. Facing Rules are something that seems can be layered in to that. This is a module for the 4e crowd. And, frankly, I'd kinda like to have facing rules my own self so I can know whether a rogue can sneak up on a creature that's unaware of them or not.
What I find most frustrating about 4E is that I can see it includes the D&D game I've always wanted to play, but the game is so lathered in tatical combat rules that I have thus far been unable to coax the game I want out.
When the Cat's a Stray, the Mice will Pray
|
|
|
