Maybe it's time to throw the Fighters a bone, give them a "Battle Lore" class ability that might give them a chance of knowing a monster's strength and/or weaknesses... just throwing that out there for the Developers. Since all the other classes have some good out of combat skills, so too should a straight fighter. Caveat: Rangers & Paladins probably already will. I just hate to see Joe Fighter be a "one trick pony" as the saying goes...
Actually, that's an excellent suggestion. Consider me onboard with your proposal.
So in a nutshell, EnerlaNet, is there some reason a game can't be immersive, tactical, role-playing intensive, & sometimes 'dungeon-crawly' all at once?
It can be in exactly one case. It is what D&D Next should achieve.
But for this it needs 3 things
Everything makes sense from IC sense should be possible in the system as well.
When you build tactical situations, you keep personality of character in mind, so staying IC would still let you achieve victory
Everything in your game should be explainable from terms of setting, and should be natural in the setting
A game that meets all 3 requiremets is a solid middle ground for everyones D&D.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Actually, I'm hoping that the developers have kept that in mind all along. Sure, there are still going to be a fair amount of more casual players who want the "kill the monsters & take their stuff/hack n slash" game where there is little role-playing and IC (In Character) stuff. I only very rarely ever participated in a game like that. The story & over-riding narrative were what mattered... or more to the point, how the characters fit into it, changed it, affected it, etc. Many times over the years I have been surprised and impresses with industrious players and the unique ideas they came up with to face and overcome some of my challenges.
One of my favorite ones was back in the day of AD&D (I was a player, not DM for this one): we were fleeing from some Fire Giants, having entered their tower and were getting our butts kicked. We were headed past an unrailed balcony & down a long flight of stairs; our dwarf cleric was in the rear and smashed an Oil of Slipperyness potion on the balcony right before the stairs where the giant would have to pass through. As we retreated, not one but TWO fire giants slipped off the top ledge and fell down the 100 foot drop to their deaths below. And the rest were slowed down enough that we got away. Sadly, one beloved NPC of ours lost his life as a giant's axe that had come loose during its fall landed on him, finishing him off. But we got away and brought him back.
One of my favorite ones was back in the day of AD&D (I was a player, not DM for this one): we were fleeing from some Fire Giants, having entered their tower and were getting our butts kicked. We were headed past an unrailed balcony & down a long flight of stairs; our dwarf cleric was in the rear and smashed an Oil of Slipperyness potion on the balcony right before the stairs where the giant would have to pass through. As we retreated, not one but TWO fire giants slipped off the top ledge and fell down the 100 foot drop to their deaths below. And the rest were slowed down enough that we got away. Sadly, one beloved NPC of ours lost his life as a giant's axe that had come loose during its fall landed on him, finishing him off. But we got away and brought him back.
Heh. Awesome stuff, Aehrlon.
I really hope they do a good job (and I expect they will based on previous versions) of making it clear that DMs should always strive for ways to say "yes" and encourage creativity and roleplaying solutions.
One of the most valuable skills a DM can acquire is the realization that the game isn't just about hardfast rules, but the ability to be able to adapt to the players and make-it-up on the fly.
Before I upset the "but the book says!" types, I will conceed that I haven't always been a "perfect DM" when it comes to adhering to the letter of the law.
And, honestly, looking back at my formative years (started DMing at 13), man, I made a lot of mistakes in how I even applied the rules I intended to use as written. lol. No regrets, though, because us bunch of 10-13 year olds at that time were have a blast playing D&D in some of our free time. I am not going to apologize for having fun with the game. It's one of the reasons I still play it so many years later. They give us a great basis to live out fantastic lives or narrate wonder-filled worlds. How we apply the rest of it to suit our needs doesn't really matter as long as we are enjoying the product.
Sadly beholder is an iconic monster, and a beholder can kill someone instantly. I would consider to give options to protect party members from such spells fully and perfectly. That is, actual immunites the PCs can get, and if they do their legwork and know they should prepare against some attacks, they should be protected. This way the said iconic powers can stay in hands of the player characters.
A rogue sees an ooze, what would he think?
"I would go behind it, and stab it in a vulnerable spot"
Behind? You don't know what is the front of an Ooze! Vulnerable spot? In an Ooze?
If you say a rogue gets sneak attack damage if the player doesn't roleplay his character, breaks immersion for tactical advantage, but gets no bonus if he tries to roleplay, we get in a scenario where we feel people aren't expected to roleplay, in fact they are expected to go out of charater to get higher bonuses.
Your assumption that players wouldn't be able to role play an appropriate sneak attack against an ooze, or role play a sneak attack as anything other than sneaking around the back and hitting a vulnerable point is insulting to players, but unfortunately not uncommon of DM's
Also, yes the beholder is iconic, but in 4e, he couldn't one shot somebody instantly, and it still worked just fine. In-fact it took the beholder from something I had to never include in my campaigns, and find an excuse to write out of lore, to something that could exist. Improved the fun of the game, perhaps at the cost of a bit of "realism." Well worth it in my oppinion.
One question I have for you; can't much if not all of what you're describing be done by a really good DM? And yes, in some cases, Optional or House rules. In any game I ran, I always had a great level of immersion for my players. Good descriptions of places, memorable events, recurring enemies, cliff-hanger endings, parts of the storyline & side adventures focused on each one of the PCs, etc. ALL of which helped the immersion. Tactically, I used a grid and miniatures whenever there was a combat that involved more than a handfull of foes... I didn't always strictly adhere to some of the 3.x rules (such as charging in my game need not necessarily be in a straight line, it can curve & you didn't have to target the nearest foe).
While this argument is true, I must contest its validity. Any game, I repeat ANY GAME can be made fun by a good DM/GM, no matter how broken, unbalanced, unimmersive, unrealistic, unfantastic, untactical, and confusing its mechanics are. This is a function of a good GM, not the game. The goal should be to make a good game, that nurtures new and novice DM/GM's into fruition so tha every group doesn't have that groaning match about who has to be stuck with the GM role, adn so players don't quit because they've only experienced unexperienced or just piss-poor gm's
"A perfect summation of the argument at hand that I totally agree with up until the point"
That is only half the issue, though: what about players? In this case, you'd either have to take SoD out of players' hands altogether (which many won't like), or make SoD more like the "boss" monster situation: i.e. very rare. This could be accomplished with a very high resource cost (using the awful "per day" scenario, maybe all SoDs are 1/day, and you can't have more than a few of them). It could also be handled with limited effectiveness: i.e. SoDs only work on certain types of monsters, and those types are nothing as broad as "humanoids." You could do both of these. There are probably other options as well.
Re: sneak attack, I prefer to abstract sneak attacks much further. Why talk about "puncturing a kidney" or something - especially when HP is more about wounds/fatigue - when you can just say you found an opening that lead you to a more damaging attack? Maybe you caught the skeleton off-guard or the ooze over-extended part of itself and you cut off a pseudopod. There's no reason to deny sneak attack as a mechanic just because of a narrow lore-based definition.
1: I still contest that giving SoD to any player, and not giving it to every other class, at comprable levels is inherintly unballanced to unacceptable levels of lack of ballance (and yes there ara acceptable levels.) This is because SoD is so much better than any other option, that if you give it to one character, and not to another, the seccon character becomes completely irrelevant in combat, no matter what else you give him outside of SoD. Sure he can be useful out of combat, and that might arguably make for a "ballancing mechanic" but one of the strengths of 4th (and I'm not saying it didn't have weaknesses) that sould be endeavored to be carried into next is the fact that the combat, in-and-of-itself was ballanced, and fun without any additions from a good GM. This doesn't mean I don't support good GM's, I'm just saying not every player has access to a truly good GM, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to a good time.
Theone way I could see SoD being balanced in a world where it is relegated to the rare and occasional boss monster were if every character at a certain level (let's say 11th, or maybey 8th idk) got a "finnishing move" that could be performed on a verry limited basis (personally once a day is too much for me, and I'd say once a game session, but many players and GM's don't like dramatically defined cooldowns rather than time defined cooldowns, so maybey 1/2days,) and had a scaling SoD dc, based on their character or class level. The rogue headshots, the wizard charms, or uses phantasmal killer, the fighter chops his enemies head off, the cleric converts the enemy to the light of their deity, or whatever the player wants to define their personal "finishing move" as. But SoD is so much better than evey other option immaginible, that you have to give it to everyone or no one.
Finally, what you said about sneak attacks, is EXACTLY what I've been since a few months after 3rd was released. It works wonders, and makes the game more fun every time. And it actually requires more role-playing and immersion from the players. If they want to sneak attack something, you say "allright, go ahead, but how do you do it: describe it" This forces the players to be creative, and makes not only their character's mechanics feel relevant, but the player's creativity and ingenuity feel relevant.
Also, yes the beholder is iconic, but in 4e, he couldn't one shot somebody instantly, and it still worked just fine.
I'd just like to know if your players or you, as a player were afraid to go near one? If not I'd like to point out that the monster didn't work just fine. It became a woosie monster with little ability to harm your party and merely became yet another meaningless(?) source of experience points.
Taking out a creatures teath before using them in game cheapens them. Being afraid to use them because they might disintegrate a party member or two seems to me to mean that before they were neutered they were dangerous and scary to the point that the mere name would cause players to shudder. (And that's with the knowledge that by the time a party was high enough level to have a reasonable chance of beating one, their saving throws would be so low as to make the death attack moot anyway.)
Arguing against death attacks without admitting that for the most part those death attacks are rendered nearly harmless by dint of martial prowess or magical fortitude and pure luck seems to me to be an indication of lack of intestinal fortitude.
D&D was, and should have always been, about survival and daring. There's nothing heroic about a campaign fulled with a constant stream of easy or slightly difficult victories for 20 odd levels. Where's the fun in that?
I'd really love for the devs to give the teeth back to all of the monsters that lost them over the years. Even the lowly giant spider should be able to kill you with it's bite the very first time it hits you and every time after as well. The same goes for medusa's and poison traps on locks and that ten ton block of granite hanging over your head in that dark cavern. All of these attacks come with a perfectly good method of avoiding the effects, it's called a saving throw.
Lately it seems that D&D has become a role playing game for pampered so and so's. In my games we play for keeps.
Also, yes the beholder is iconic, but in 4e, he couldn't one shot somebody instantly, and it still worked just fine.
I'd just like to know if your players or you, as a player were afraid to go near one? If not I'd like to point out that the monster didn't work just fine. It became a woosie monster with little ability to harm your party and merely became yet another meaningless(?) source of experience points.
Taking out a creatures teath before using them in game cheapens them. Being afraid to use them because they might disintegrate a party member or two seems to me to mean that before they were neutered they were dangerous and scary to the point that the mere name would cause players to shudder. (And that's with the knowledge that by the time a party was high enough level to have a reasonable chance of beating one, their saving throws would be so low as to make the death attack moot anyway.)
Arguing against death attacks without admitting that for the most part those death attacks are rendered nearly harmless by dint of martial prowess or magical fortitude and pure luck seems to me to be an indication of lack of intestinal fortitude.
D&D was, and should have always been, about survival and daring. There's nothing heroic about a campaign fulled with a constant stream of easy or slightly difficult victories for 20 odd levels. Where's the fun in that? .
1: Please , explain to me how "martial prowess" can in any way make a death attack "meaningless." Seaiously, after 5th level, "martial prowess" is the most meaningless thing ever in any edition 3rd and before. Anyone who played a non-caster on 3rd, who wanted to feel relevant beyond the 5th-7th level plateau of ballance killed themselves so they could create new characters, because swinging a sword doesn't mean anything when everyone else is playing rocket tag.
2: Removing the possibility of death after a single roll of a single d20 does NOT mean removing the possibility of death. Just because something can't kill you instantly doesn't mean it can't kill you. Death should be an ever present threat, but MEANINGLESS INSTANT death shouldn't. If a fantasy action movie had a revolving cast of functionally nameless supposed "main characters," a half of whom died every eppisode, only to be replaced by another "main character" who is almost certainly going to die before you learn their character motivation, you see any character growth, or you even bother to remember their name, would that be engaging and immersive, or boring and patronizing to the audience?
The threat of death leads to a more exciting gaming experience, the statistical certainty of meaningless instant death within the next three sessions makes it feel like you're just exploring a nihilistic wasteland devoid of meaning... and if players wanted to do that they wouldn't need a fantasy game, they'd only need legs... or a wheelchair... even a telescope would do... I'm saying we live in a nihilistic wasteland devoid of meaning and that's why we need fantasy games to escape. It'd be like an NFL team playing fantasy football... why even bother?
believe me, I know what you are waxing nostalgic about, I started with 2nd as well, and felt disenfranchized by the "Newbification" of 3rd, and the making everything "like Magic Cards," but in the long run, I realized that having an immersive heroic game was actually more fun for both the GM and the players. If you wanted to play the game you are describing, honestly you don't even need rules, you just need a stack of character sheets with descriptions, and a die with the same numbe of sides as their are players. Every few minutes roll a die, and that person dies and is handed a new character off of the stack. GM power trip: yes, fun for all involved: no.
To illustrate my point, have you ever played the original tomb of elemental evil? Think back, did your character have any impact on... well... anything. I'll give you a hint: one of my friends started replacing the PC's in TOEE with girl scouts who are trying to sell the dread lich cookies and started running "Girl Scouts in the Tomb of Elemental Evil" at cons... and nothing changed... the statistical survival rating was identical. Heroic adventurers having the same survivability as girl scouts=not heroic... arguably less heroic than a tothless world where death isn't possible (Which is not what a higher survivability game with a good GM is.)
Good points, Mjorkk (if somewhat exaggerated at times). SoD was always handled with a careful touch by me, with almost always some sort of "out" for roleplayed or intelligent handling of the situation.
I must, though, admit to still employing some of the horrors of old editions of D&D that did include some of these one-shot mechanisms (not all cause death, but they all essentially removed that character from play for some period of time).
Flashing forward, I guess I DMed them similar to Boss Fights in modern MMOs. Don't Stand in the Fire! Don't Move during Wreath. Swap Tanks when x happens. Etc.
Give some sort of descriptive point of reference as to how to defeat a creature with awful powers. Lore from that old hermit. A special elixir you have to trick/roleplay from the blind hag in the swamp. The Oath of Fealty given to the Magus Lord to earn a protective boon.
But, as I said before, it was nice to have 4E's condition tracker for progressing ailments... but not sure if that's too... mechanical... for Next, where less tracking and smoother play is the theme.
