No Magic Thrown Weapons 4th Edition

[ddobard1]

The Players Handbook 1 4th edition says and i quote: "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved." Is reasonable because it's a magic weapon. But what about no magic Thrown Weapons? Ty.

[ddobard1]

Anyone can give a hint? Ty.

[Chai]

In their huge effort to make 4e less complicated for the players than the previous editions by generalizing the way things work, they also made it alot more complicated on DMs and REFs who now have to make more house rulings based apon the lack of coverage for particular situations that used to be covered in previous editions.

In a situational game, 4e tried to make combat absolute, and contradicts itself quite a few times over in doing so. Not only are there situations that have no rules written for them, there are situations that have more than one rule written for them, which contradict eachother.

[rimble]

Haven't played 4th Ed, but it sounds like they're saying "it's assumed any magic thrown weapons are enchanted with what was traditionally called the 'Returning' property, because who would craft one any other way". I don't think that holds any implications or assumptions regarding non-magic thrown weapons (they stay where they land).

[dkyle]

In a situational game, 4e tried to make combat absolute, and contradicts itself quite a few times over in doing so. Not only are there situations that have no rules written for them, there are situations that have more than one rule written for them, which contradict eachother.

Perhaps there are, but I haven't found many in the 2 years I've been DMing. I always find myself highly confused when you say things like this.

The rules are clear. Magic thrown weapons automatically return. Non-magic ones have no such property specified, so they behave the way any other thrown item would be expected to behave. They do not return.

[Calebro]

The Players Handbook 1 4th edition says and i quote: "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved." Is reasonable because it's a magic weapon. But what about no magic Thrown Weapons? Ty.

If you throw a kitchen knife, does it come back to you?
No.

But according to 4e, if it were a magic kitchen knife it would.

[hityawithastick]

Tip: Don't throw 4e magical items at creatures made of/covered with acid, lava, rust monster juice, pasta sauce, etc.
:D

[Talon_Moonshadow]

If you throw a kitchen knife, does it come back to you?
No.

But according to 4e, if it were a magic kitchen knife it would.

Depends on who it lands next to, and how upset they are at the time. :D

[Calebro]

Depends on who it lands next to, and how upset they are at the time. :D

:)

[Chai]

Perhaps there are, but I haven't found many in the 2 years I've been DMing. I always find myself highly confused when you say things like this.

The rules are clear. Magic thrown weapons automatically return. Non-magic ones have no such property specified, so they behave the way any other thrown item would be expected to behave. They do not return.

Its always an entertaining conversation when a player pulls out a splat book for a specific class, race, etc. and shows me a rule for how something works, and I pull out the PHB or DMG and show them a rule for the exact same situation that contradicts what is in the specific book. This is far less common than the next wonderful thing I see happen alot more, which is.....

Its also groin grabbingly hilarious at a session, and this is more common, when someone asks about a specific thing they want to do, and no one can find anything written about it, but we all seem to know exactly where to find material in 2e, 3e, or 3.5e that shows the mechanics that should be followed to conduct that specific action. This is because the reverse engineered MMO on paper that is 4e excludes a huge amount of diversity in hopes to simplify the game to the point where it doesnt take eons to learn how to play it. Things got left out, and this is the first major edition this happened to, to this degree. We either have to go on assumption, or make a house rule, and usually that is based somewhat on the older mechanic in PREVIOUS EDITIONS, heh. :D

[RictrasShard]

Its always an entertaining conversation when a player pulls out a splat book for a specific class, race, etc. and shows me a rule for how something works, and I pull out the PHB or DMG and show them a rule for the exact same situation that contradicts what is in the specific book. This is far less common than the next wonderful thing I see happen alot more, which is.....

Its also groin grabbingly hilarious at a session, and this is more common, when someone asks about a specific thing they want to do, and no one can find anything written about it, but we all seem to know exactly where to find material in 2e, 3e, or 3.5e that shows the mechanics that should be followed to conduct that specific action. This is because the reverse engineered MMO on paper that is 4e excludes a huge amount of diversity in hopes to simplify the game to the point where it doesnt take eons to learn how to play it. Things got left out, and this is the first major edition this happened to, to this degree. We either have to go on assumption, or make a house rule, and usually that is based somewhat on the older mechanic in PREVIOUS EDITIONS, heh. :D

Do you have any specific examples for either of these things?

[dkyle]

Yes, examples please. I don't recall needed rules I couldn't find.

And yes, some rules have changed over time. This is a good thing. People make mistakes, even game designers, and I'm glad WotC cares to make 4E a better game. As opposed to 3.5, where they broke it from the start, then just broke it further and further.

If you look at the rules for Stealth in the PHB, PHB2, and (I think) PHB3 you'll see various versions. The original ones made stealth way too powerful, so they fixed it early on with an online errata. PHB2 printed those rules. There were a few oddities with how those rules worked, and so they later smoothed those over. I believe PHB3 published those new rules.

[FlyingTurtle]

Fighter: I got this scroll to permanently enchant one of my weapons by +1. Wizard can you cast it?
Wizard: Ok. Which weapon?
Fighter: I don't care, just any one.
Wizard: Okies. (picks the throwing net, makes it +1)

...the next day

Fighter throws net at kobolds.
Kobolds start to get entangled....
Attack resolved, net returns.
Kobolds are no longer entangled.
They attack the fighter, fighter dies.

Fighter: #$$@# wizard!

[dkyle]

While a cute story, that's not an accurate reflection of 4E. First off, the net only comes from a Dragon article. Dragon articles often have many problems. My policy on those articles is, I need to approve things on a case by case basis.

Secondly, simply wielding a net doesn't enable one to entangle someone with it. Any more than simply wielding a warhammer enables someone to stun with it. All the actual powers that are available for use with a net, do work with a magic net, as written. They don't always make a ton of sense if you treat the rules as a literal representation of what's going on (they apply effects that linger after the net should return), but the actual rules do work. It just takes a little re-flavoring to get them to make more sense (usually it's sufficient to pretend that the net returns when the effects of it end).

[Robi3.0]

Yeah as a DM I would make you walk over and pull your knife out of a body if it was not magic and you wanted it back. Not really a huge issue, unless you wanted to throw it again while still in combat and to that I say, buy a magic weapon.

[Chai]

Do you have any specific examples for either of these things?

Party is walking down a hallway. Someone in the party manages to expose a pit trap that extends for 12 feet, with a low ceiling. Player wants to jump the pit trap. How do you make the determination that they made it or not?

In 3.5e, theres a mechanic for total result with a multiplier where a player can make a roll, and determine exactly how far they jumped according to the total result. Once the calculation is made, its no question if the jumper made it or not. There is also a rule for arc, -vs- jumping straight accross.

In 4e, there is furious debate on what is considered easy -vs- medium -vs- hard in this scenario. Hilarity ensues. At some point, the DM has to pipe up and say, "its hard because I said it is."

You either jumped 12 feet with a low ceiling, or you didnt. Kobolds dont always dig traps in 5 foot squares.

[Chai]

While a cute story, that's not an accurate reflection of 4E. First off, the net only comes from a Dragon article. Dragon articles often have many problems. My policy on those articles is, I need to approve things on a case by case basis.

Secondly, simply wielding a net doesn't enable one to entangle someone with it. Any more than simply wielding a warhammer enables someone to stun with it. All the actual powers that are available for use with a net, do work with a magic net, as written. They don't always make a ton of sense if you treat the rules as a literal representation of what's going on (they apply effects that linger after the net should return), but the actual rules do work. It just takes a little re-flavoring to get them to make more sense (usually it's sufficient to pretend that the net returns when the effects of it end).

In 3.5 this assumption would not need to be made, because the items abilities in question would be clearly defined. Different groups of players will make different rules for this situation in 4e. At the Cons, hilarity ensues when these people get together and they all just assumed their method was the way it always worked because their DM said so, and thats how they were used to playing for months or even years. :p

[dkyle]

In 4e, there is furious debate on what is considered easy -vs- medium -vs- hard in this scenario. Hilarity ensues. At some point, the DM has to pipe up and say, "its hard because I said it is."

Or you use the rules for jumping listed in the Athletics skill. Roll the skill, divide by 5 to get the number of squares cleared (in this case, probably 2). Alternatively, it could make sense to just use the check as the number of feet cleared if this is out of combat. The vertical distance is the horizontal distance divided by 4. In this case, a 12 foot long jump would result in 3 feet of vertical displacement. Assuming a 6 foot tall PC, if the clearance is less than 9 ft, it would make sense to apply a situational penalty to the check (-2 or more).

If the PC comes up slightly short, there are rules for catching one's self in the climb section of the Athletics skill.

I don't believe the rules are any less comprehensive than 3.5's:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

The long jump rules look essentially identical to me. In fact, 3.5's long jump rules even only specify 5 foot intervals!


In 3.5 this assumption would not need to be made, because the items abilities in question would be clearly defined. Different groups of players will make different rules for this situation in 4e.

What assumptions? I specifically stated that the rules are clear. Nets work according to specific and well defined rules. It's just a matter of stretching your imagination a bit if you don't like some of the implications of those rules. Furthermore, wasn't Dragon not RPGA legal in the 3.5 days?

[Chai]

Or you use the rules for jumping listed in the Athletics skill. Roll the skill, divide by 5 to get the number of squares cleared (in this case, probably 2). Alternatively, it could make sense to just use the check as the number of feet cleared if this is out of combat. The vertical distance is the horizontal distance divided by 4. In this case, a 12 foot long jump would result in 3 feet of vertical displacement. Assuming a 6 foot tall PC, if the clearance is less than 9 ft, it would make sense to apply a situational penalty to the check (-2 or more).

If the PC comes up slightly short, there are rules for catching one's self in the climb section of the Athletics skill.

I don't believe the rules are any less comprehensive than 3.5's: [/QUOTE]

They are less precise, and much harder to make adhere to a situation without having to make a ruling which is the EXACT point I have been making all along. In attempting to disagree with me, you are agreeing with your comment about ruling ina situational penalty.

divide by 5? because everyone just makes traps in 5 foot increments....


The long jump rules look essentially identical to me. In fact, 3.5's long jump rules even only specify 5 foot intervals!

In 3.5 you can multiply your total result by a factor to determine exactly how far you jumped, when a DM like me, god forbid, makes a trap that isnt a multiple of 5 feet long, with a ceiling that is lower than the multiplier suggests would be needed. Plain, simple.


What assumptions? I specifically stated that the rules are clear. Nets work according to specific and well defined rules. It's just a matter of stretching your imagination a bit if you don't like some of the implications of those rules. Furthermore, wasn't Dragon not RPGA legal in the 3.5 days?

Stretching your imagination in different ways than the people you might be playing with at the cons stretched their imagination. Its always fun to walk around and ask certain designers, players, refs, etc. how they resolve these situations. MOST of the time they will tell you "well, we had to talk about that for a while, and this is how it worked in (insert other edition here) so this is how we made the rule.

I battle tested this stuff as a player for almost a year before it launched, and had quite a few of these lovely conversations in fact....

[Chai]

Yes, examples please. I don't recall needed rules I couldn't find.

And yes, some rules have changed over time. This is a good thing. People make mistakes, even game designers, and I'm glad WotC cares to make 4E a better game. As opposed to 3.5, where they broke it from the start, then just broke it further and further.

If you look at the rules for Stealth in the PHB, PHB2, and (I think) PHB3 you'll see various versions. The original ones made stealth way too powerful, so they fixed it early on with an online errata. PHB2 printed those rules. There were a few oddities with how those rules worked, and so they later smoothed those over. I believe PHB3 published those new rules.

The fact that PHB3 is even needed makes me question if this entire thing is a money sync. I remember when the class books for 2e came out, and people were like "wow, I can spend 500 dollars on this game and still not have all the materials".

4e is just as broke as 3.5 but its broke in different ways. When battle testing a possible module, as a REF, I wiped the entire party out with a warlock 1 level higher than the party was, in a pirate campaign with ship to ship style combat. I dont think that module got a real name or was even released because of all the broken encounters, which are supposed to be well within the partys ability to handle. I remember standing next to the DM going, you mean he can do this as many times as he wants? /points to specific power....

It seems to me that in 3.5, the higher level you got, the more broken things became, where in 4.0 if something is broke its broke from day 1 and if something works well it works well from day 1, and in either case, those things continue to do so throughout the campaign.

I think they are trying to make an "easier" game with 4e. Better is a matter of opinion.

[dkyle]

They are less precise, and much harder to make adhere to a situation without having to make a ruling which is the EXACT point I have been making all along. In attempting to disagree with me, you are agreeing with your comment about ruling ina situational penalty.

No, your initial point was that 4E requires DMs to pull a DC from nowhere, with no guidance. I've have shown that to be wrong. There's a big difference between choosing an arbitrary DC and using rules to determine a baseline DC, then applying penalties or bonuses based on the specifics of the situation. No ruleset can cover every situation with absolute precision. And given that the SRD entry I linked has no rules for required overhead clearance, seems to me 3.5 is no more precise than 4E in this situation.


divide by 5? because everyone just makes traps in 5 foot increments....

And I suppose everything happens in foot increments. Or inch increments. Or centimeter increments. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and 5 foot increments is perfectly reasonable place. Is the difference between 12 feet and 10 feet so important?

And furthermore, the jump rules in the SRD make the exact same assumptions as 4E does. Look at the DC chart. It is only defined for 5 foot multiples. There is no entry for 12 feet. Now, any 3.5 DM with half a brain could look at the chart and extrapolate that number of feet jumped = DC, but a 4E DM can do the exact same thing.


In 3.5 you can multiply your total result by a factor to determine exactly how far you jumped, when a DM like me, god forbid, makes a trap that isnt a multiple of 5 feet long, with a ceiling that is lower than the multiplier suggests would be needed. Plain, simple.

Those are not the rules in the 3.5 SRD. See my link. Are you perhaps suggesting that 3.5 has several different, and heaven forbid, perhaps conflicting rules for jumping?


how they resolve these situations.

As I have said repeatedly, the potential situation described above with the net has precise and inarguable (in any good faith) rules governing it. Any further argument about what happens is tantamount to someone saying their Magic Missile is purple, and triggering a huge game-stopping argument over it. It's irrelevant to any mechanics.


I battle tested this stuff as a player for almost a year before it launched, and had quite a few of these lovely conversations in fact....

So your perceptions are determined by pre-release playtesting? No wonder you don't seem to know what's actually available in the final product.


The fact that PHB3 is even needed makes me question if this entire thing is a money sync. I remember when the class books for 2e came out, and people were like "wow, I can spend 500 dollars on this game and still not have all the materials".

How is PHB3 needed? Any rules changes are available for free on the internet. Of course they're going to charge for a printed version.

How many splat books were there for 3E and 3.5? Remember how 3.5 was an extremely expensive errata of 3E?


4e is just as broke as 3.5 but its broke in different ways. When battle testing a possible module, as a REF, I wiped the entire party out with a warlock 1 level higher than the party was, in a pirate campaign with ship to ship style combat.

This means nothing. Monsters in a specific module can have any number of broken abilities, without representing a broken game system. It just means the module designer did a bad job. I suppose Tomb of Horrors proves that original D&D was nothing but death trap after death trap, and no one could possibly survive anything adventure?

Furthermore, expected encounter difficulties assume a level playing field for monsters and PCs. Ship-to-ship combat could easily include terrain that amplifies a powerful caster's abilities in unexpected ways. I suppose you expect a rigorous combat map generator the guarantees balanced combats?

[Missing_Minds]

Perhaps there are, but I haven't found many in the 2 years I've been DMing. I always find myself highly confused when you say things like this.

The rules are clear. Magic thrown weapons automatically return. Non-magic ones have no such property specified, so they behave the way any other thrown item would be expected to behave. They do not return.

So cover the weapon with a magic goo and throw. Does the weapon, the weapon and goo, or just the goo come back?

However, per written, should a "human" throw a magical weapon, the weapon does not come back. But should a "wizard" use magic to throw the weapon, the weapon comes back.
It states "magic thrown weapon" not "magical weapon thrown". And yes I'm teasing, but that is how it is written.

[Chai]

No, your initial point was that 4E requires DMs to pull a DC from nowhere, with no guidance. I've have shown that to be wrong. There's a big difference between choosing an arbitrary DC and using rules to determine a baseline DC, then applying penalties or bonuses based on the specifics of the situation. No ruleset can cover every situation with absolute precision. And given that the SRD entry I linked has no rules for required overhead clearance, seems to me 3.5 is no more precise than 4E in this situation.

Incorrect. I clearly stated that it requires more house ruling and DM ruling.

3.5e covered more situations due to the fact that it was built on top of 3.0 which was built on top of 2e which was built on top of ADnD which was built on top of DnD. 4e is a complete toss out and revamp. Its like they are starting from scratch all over again. In many ways it feels like DMing or REFing ADnD back in the 80s.


And I suppose everything happens in foot increments. Or inch increments. Or centimeter increments. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and 5 foot increments is perfectly reasonable place. Is the difference between 12 feet and 10 feet so important?

It becomes important when I witness hilarity ensue on many more than one occasion over it. Obvious rules lawyers are obvious, and numerous in PnP games, and when there isnt an exact rule, the DM has lay it down. When this happens MORE often in NEWER editions, us old school DMs and REFs dont consider it an improvment.


And furthermore, the jump rules in the SRD make the exact same assumptions as 4E does. Look at the DC chart. It is only defined for 5 foot multiples. There is no entry for 12 feet. Now, any 3.5 DM with half a brain could look at the chart and extrapolate that number of feet jumped = DC, but a 4E DM can do the exact same thing.

Those are not the rules in the 3.5 SRD. See my link. Are you perhaps suggesting that 3.5 has several different, and heaven forbid, perhaps conflicting rules for jumping?

Yeap, theres a rule for 5 foot increments, and theres a rule to determine exactly how far you jump if you want to use it. These dont conflict just because there are two rules. One is more precise than the other. If a DM wants to make all pits in 5 foot increments because the 5 foot tall kobolds who dig 10 foot wide hallways behave that way, so be it.



As I have said repeatedly, the potential situation described above with the net has precise and inarguable (in any good faith) rules governing it. Any further argument about what happens is tantamount to someone saying their Magic Missile is purple, and triggering a huge game-stopping argument over it. It's irrelevant to any mechanics.

Inarguable? LOL

No, lets put it this way. What does the player have to roll to get a minimum total result that clears the trap in the situation I outlined. I will show you how inarguable this is, and I wont even use my own opinion on it. I will use the arguments I heard from other players only. Answer carefully....




So your perceptions are determined by pre-release playtesting? No wonder you don't seem to know what's actually available in the final product.


Nope, I am outlining how I have had quite a few of these wonderful conversations and even after providing the feedback, alot of this stuff still made it into the game.




How is PHB3 needed? Any rules changes are available for free on the internet. Of course they're going to charge for a printed version.

Thats not the question I asked, sorry.


How many splat books were there for 3E and 3.5? Remember how 3.5 was an extremely expensive errata of 3E?

I didnt exclude other editions, and I even made reference to 2e meaning all this multiple book multiple ruleset stuff was occurring well before either edition we are referencing.




This means nothing. Monsters in a specific module can have any number of broken abilities, without representing a broken game system. It just means the module designer did a bad job. I suppose Tomb of Horrors proves that original D&D was nothing but death trap after death trap, and no one could possibly survive anything adventure?

It means nothing? When a game REGRESSES in complexity for the first time ever in 30 plus years it means nothing?

Well then....



Furthermore, expected encounter difficulties assume a level playing field for monsters and PCs. Ship-to-ship combat could easily include terrain that amplifies a powerful caster's abilities in unexpected ways. I suppose you expect a rigorous combat map generator the guarantees balanced combats?

No, on the contrary, I expect the designers to realize that D&D is unbalanced, and live with it, rather than tossing the entire ruleset out, and building a new one that was reverse engineered using video game-esque cool downs and encounter mechanics, and doesnt even come closer to balancing the game than the previous editions. 4e has alot of the same issues an MMO does because of this, and uses the same tools to attempt to correct those issues. Encounters are just a huge DPS grind off, and if things get too easy, you add stats and HP. Sound familiar?

Level playing field? This rarely happens, if ever. Making this assumption is part of what breaks the game, regardless of edition references. I could have wiped that party on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere with a very similar action by action replay.

I was pointing out how something is furiously broken beyond repair, not what I expect in order to fix it, which is btw not what you would assume it to be. I was asked to provide my list of things that were broken in specific situations and broken all around, and I did.

[dkyle]

So cover the weapon with a magic goo and throw. Does the weapon, the weapon and goo, or just the goo come back?

"Magic goo" is not a magic thrown weapon, because goo is not a thrown weapon, and is not a valid target for the enchant magic item ritual. If a DM decides to house-rule otherwise, it's up to them to decide how it behaves.


It states "magic thrown weapon" not "magical weapon thrown". And yes I'm teasing, but that is how it is written.

That's a pretty big stretch. There is no actual grammatical ambiguity there. "Magic thrown weapon" does not mean "magically thrown weapon". "Magic" may be a noun, adjective, or even a verb, but it is not an adverb. It means a weapon that is meant for throwing that is itself magical.

[dkyle]

It becomes important when I witness hilarity ensue on many more than one occasion over it. Obvious rules lawyers are obvious, and numerous in PnP games, and when there isnt an exact rule, the DM has lay it down.

So then where are the rules for determining jump distance down to the planck length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length)? Because anything less precise is obviously subject to rules lawyer. God forbid a DM have to have a brain, and not mindlessly follow programming set down by WotC.

4E standardizes on 5 foot increments for all mechanically significant lengths. If a DM chooses to houserule and use other lengths, the rules can be easily and obviously applied.


Inarguable? LOL

I was referring to the net situation, for which there are specific powers that govern what happens. Arguing with them would be like arguing that a sword should do +1000 damage just because.

The trap example requires some DM decisions, but I don't see how that's a terrible thing, and how 3.5's rules handles it any better. Again, head room is not factored in to the jumping rules in 3.5 either.


Thats not the question I asked, sorry.

Your statement that "this entire thing is a money sync" is based on the false premise that the PHB3 is necessary. So, what did you ask? In fact, I don't even see a question in the quote I responded to.


I didnt exclude other editions, and I even made reference to 2e meaning all this multiple book multiple ruleset stuff was occurring well before either edition we are referencing.

So you're saying 4E is bad because it's just like 3.5? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.


It means nothing? When a game REGRESSES in complexity for the first time ever in 30 plus years it means nothing?

What you call regression I call progression from a needless complicated, and horribly broken, game, to a well designed, and as well balanced as can be expected for an RPG, game with a coherent rules set that still allows for wide variety of builds and tactics. I see 4E as an improvement on 3.5 in nearly every way.


I was pointing out how something is furiously broken beyond repair, not what I expect inorder to fix it, which is btw not what you would assume it to be.

OK, take that mob, remove that power, or limit it. Problem fixed! Somehow I've managed to DM for 2 years without wiping my player's party, but while killing some, and coming close a number of times.

[Chai]

So cover the weapon with a magic goo and throw. Does the weapon, the weapon and goo, or just the goo come back?

However, per written, should a "human" throw a magical weapon, the weapon does not come back. But should a "wizard" use magic to throw the weapon, the weapon comes back.
It states "magic thrown weapon" not "magical weapon thrown". And yes I'm teasing, but that is how it is written.

How about if a caster casts a temporary enchantment on the weapon, which in terms defines it as magical and enchanted for the purpose of hitting certain creatures....

[dkyle]

How about if a caster casts a temporary enchantment on the weapon, which in terms defines it as magical and enchanted for the purpose of hitting certain creatures....

No such "temporary enchantment" exists in 4E.

[Chai]

So then where are the rules for determining jump distance down to the planck length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length)? Because anything less precise is obviously subject to rules lawyer. God forbid a DM have to have a brain, and not mindlessly follow programming set down by WotC.

In 3.5 I could tell you what the minimum DC is. I at least have a reasonable request, using a number that is not a factor of 5. You are making your arguement based on 10 to the negative thirty fifth power?

/dries the tears of laughter.


4E standardizes on 5 foot increments for all mechanically significant lengths. If a DM chooses to houserule and use other lengths, the rules can be easily and obviously applied.

You asked me for a situation. I asked for the DC. What is it.

I provided one situation. There are ~300 of these in our feedback list alone. There were ALOT of test groups. :D

This discussion we are having is a microcosm of a microcosm of a microcosm of the issue at hand. You are already experiencing a teeny tiny glimpse of the hilarity that can ensue when trying to break down the ruleset into something tangible for a specific situation.


I was referring to the net situation, for which there are specific powers that govern what happens. Arguing with them would be like arguing that a sword should do +1000 damage just because.

Its not that absolute, nor is it that rediculous. The example I provided was fairly mundane. You dont want me to copy and paste the paragraphs and paragraphs some of these examples encompass. :D


The trap example requires some DM decisions, but I don't see how that's a terrible thing, and how 3.5's rules handles it any better. Again, head room is not factored in to the jumping rules in 3.5 either.

This is EXACTLY what I stated, it requires some DM decisions. It wouldnt be a terrible thing if other editions had not hammered it out more specifically...


Your statement that "this entire thing is a money sync" is based on the false premise that the PHB3 is necessary. So, what did you ask? In fact, I don't even see a question in the quote I responded to.

False premise? The fact that there is a PHB3 makes it true :D

Why, in an attempt to make things easier, do they print MORE books for the_same_things? Its a fairly legit question to those people who want to play but dont make 90k a year, heh.


So you're saying 4E is bad because it's just like 3.5? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

No, because its the first edition that is less complex than the others, and threw away rules for situations that were already hammered out to replace them with ones a DM needs to make a house rule or on the spot rule for.

As I previously stated, DMing 4e at times seems like we are playing ADnD (1e) for the number of situations where we have to go "this is how this is going to work" and then proceed to outline the method by which we will make the determination, all the while speaking using the comic book guys voice....



What you call regression I call progression from a needless complicated, and horribly broken, game, to a well designed, and as well balanced as can be expected for an RPG, game with a coherent rules set that still allows for wide variety of builds and tactics. I see 4E as an improvement on 3.5 in nearly every way.

Yeap, this is the same popular opinion I hear from just about everyone who was first educated on RPGs via MMOs first, because the game is just a reverse engineered MMO.

Needless complicated, and horribly broken, game -vs- needless oversimplified equally horribly broken game?

Like I said, I wish the designers would just come to terms with the fact that DnD is unbalanced, and live with it, write a song about it, or do whatever they do to cope with this fact.


OK, take that mob, remove that power, or limit it. Problem fixed! Somehow I've managed to DM for 2 years without wiping my player's party, but while killing some, and coming close a number of times.

Assuming the entire situation was broken due to one power, maybe....

But then does that removal make it too easy?

We were asked to play the game as is when testing so we could base our opinions on what was written and already made, and not to alter the game based on our perceptions to make the play experience more agreeable to our own desires. We did provide alot of positive feedback, but there was alot of negative as well.

In fixing this, this and this, you broke this, this, and this. And in other news....

[dkyle]

In 3.5 I could tell you what the minimum DC is. I at least have a reasonable request, using a number that is not a factor of 5. You are making your arguement based on 10 to the negative thirty fifth power?


What is the DC in 3.5 for a 12 foot 6 inch jump? As a DM, I find such information just as useful as a 12 foot vs. 10 foot jump. As in, irrelevant.


You asked me for a situation. I asked for the DC. What is it.

There is no DC defined in the official rules, as that situation should not be represented mechanically. If a DM wishes to play by the official, they should round to the nearest 5 foot square. Just as a DM playing 3.5 should round to the nearest foot. It's a simplification that has no impact on story or gameplay.


I provided one situation.

And as far as I'm concerned, 4E handles it just fine. Next?


This discussion we are having is a microcosm of a microcosm of a microcosm of the issue at hand. You are already experiencing a teeny tiny glimpse of the hilarity that can ensue when trying to break down the ruleset into something tangible for a specific situation.

Then perhaps you should post something important, as opposed to this silliness of a 12 foot vs 10 foot pit. I mean, how have I managed to play with such a broken system.


This is EXACTLY what I stated, it requires some DM decisions. It wouldnt be a terrible thing if other editions had not hammered it out more specifically...

It isn't a terrible thing at all either way, because it is completely unneccessary for the rules to handle jumps in such detail. Just as unnecessary as handling them in terms of inches.


False premise? The fact that there is a PHB3 makes it true :D

Why, in an attempt to make things easier, do they print MORE books for the_same_things? Its a fairly legit question to those people who want to play but dont make 90k a year, heh.

Because maybe some people want to play Psions? The are coming out with more options to play. Just as every other edition has done.


Assuming the entire situation was broken due to one power, maybe....

But then does that removal make it too easy?

We were asked to play the game as is when testing so we could base our opinions on what was written and already made, and not to alter the game based on our perceptions to make the play experience more agreeable to our own desires. We did provide alot of positive feedback, but there was alot of negative as well.

In fixing this, this and this, you broke this, this, and this. And in other news....

I don't know, I wasn't there. But one broken encounter in one module says nothing about the overall system design. A creature's powers are not an integral part of the rules. They can be changed without impacting anything else.

Would you believe that I regularly play other RPG's with far less precise rules? Where the enemies we fight are created from scratch? And that it is a very enjoyable game? Not everything has to be spelled out for a functional campaign.

[Chai]

What is the DC in 3.5 for a 12 foot 6 inch jump? As a DM, I find such information just as useful as a 12 foot vs. 10 foot jump. As in, irrelevant.

And thats exactly what 4e does. In an attempt to save time by simplifying the game it makes things that used to be relevant now irrelevant. I bet there are quite a few people who would look at a 10 foot pit and jump it and look at a 12 foot pit and either not jump it or try to get more of a running start.




There is no DC defined in the official rules, as that situation should not be represented mechanically. If a DM wishes to play by the official, they should round to the nearest 5 foot square. Just as a DM playing 3.5 should round to the nearest foot. It's a simplification that has no impact on story or gameplay..

Incorrect. There are modules printed with areas that arent exactly 5 feet by 5 feet or multiples threreof.

It has impact when the rule used to cover the situation and now it doesnt.




And as far as I'm concerned, 4E handles it just fine. Next? ..

Handeling it just fine to me would be attaining the goal 4e set out to do, which was to make combat simulation more simple so it takes less time. The amount of time combat rounds are lessened is quite made up by the amount of discussion time stuff like this takes.




Then perhaps you should post something important, as opposed to this silliness of a 12 foot vs 10 foot pit. I mean, how have I managed to play with such a broken system. ..

Silliness? Like trying to banter measurements in x10 -35th power you mean?

You do know there are modules that have terrain that isnt always in multiple of 5s right? This is why there was even a mechanic to handle that type of stuff in the first place.....Oh wait, that got waived off, just like a ton of other stuff.

This is the kind of furious debate that ensues when people pick 4e apart. I dont have issues with people saying any edition is broken, because there are many examples in all of them that show this, but the minute I even mention 4e being equally as broken, the fact that this type of hilarity ensues tells me I hit the nail right on the head, each time. By furiously trying to defend it, you are showing us exactly_what_I_stated.


It isn't a terrible thing at all either way, because it is completely unneccessary for the rules to handle jumps in such detail. Just as unnecessary as handling them in terms of inches...

If it was completely unnecessary, the designers would not have put the mechanic for handeling it into the game, and carried it over through multiple editions.


Because maybe some people want to play Psions? The are coming out with more options to play. Just as every other edition has done. ...

We already went over this, and I already stated that this all went overboard in 2e.


I don't know, I wasn't there. But one broken encounter in one module says nothing about the overall system design. A creature's powers are not an integral part of the rules. They can be changed without impacting anything else. ...

We provided over 300 examples in our feedback alone, and there were many test groups. We were told we were one of the most tame lol. You wanted an example, I gave you one.


Would you believe that I regularly play other RPG's with far less precise rules? Where the enemies we fight are created from scratch? And that it is a very enjoyable game? Not everything has to be spelled out for a functional campaign.

Im not saying everything does. I am saying why delete rules that worked in favor of the goal, which is to save time, and not have another rule in its place of the same level of specification? Too much got waved off, and the time saved in combat due to less combat mechanics gets spent in discussion for how to handle situations that used_to_be_defined anyhow. Net result is usually no time saved, and that was the major feedback that 3.5 players were providing before 4e was cranked out. Give us something that doesnt take hours at a time to simulate a few minutes of combat. 4e fixed a bunch of stuff that was broke, then attempted to fix a bunch of stuff that wasnt broke, and in doing so, broke the game in other ways, but its equally as broke nonetheless.

[RictrasShard]

Its like they are starting from scratch all over again. In many ways it feels like DMing or REFing ADnD back in the 80s.

Yes it does, and that is a good thing.

[Chai]

Yes it does, and that is a good thing.

I'm not so sure. I think 2.0e is when it all started to come together as far as combat simulation is concerned. ADnD left alot of things wide open.

I think if they fixed the stuff that was broken, and left the stuff that was not broken alone, it would be a heck of a game. They would also have saved themselves alot of person-hours they spent to drum up new rules for things that worked just fine.

I think if what I stated came true however, they would not have been able to make the game MMO-on-paper like, in an attempt to attract the new crowd whose first exposure to fantasy genre is MMO video games. In order to do this, they had to toss alot of good working game mechanics out the window.

[KKDragonLord]

Not sure if it was mentioned, but it bears repeating.

This is NOT 4E.
Wonderfully so.

[dkyle]

I'm not so sure. I think 2.0e is when it all started to come together as far as combat simulation is concerned. ADnD left alot of things wide open.

I thought we were talking about a table top RPG. I don't care about how well a system works in computer simulation. I will readily admit that 3.5 is a far better system to base a computer game on (I must like DDO, or I wouldn't be here, right?). But I think it makes for a lousy table top game.


They would also have saved themselves alot of person-hours they spent to drum up new rules for things that worked just fine.

I can't imagine taking "hours" to come up with logical houserules for foot-precise jumps in 4E based on the official ones presented. I also can't imagine actually requiring such a thing in an actual game. 5-foot intervals are sufficient to represent any lengths of jumps of any story or gameplay significance.


I think if what I stated came true however, they would not have been able to make the game MMO-on-paper like, in an attempt to attract the new crowd whose first exposure to fantasy genre is MMO video games. In order to do this, they had to toss alot of good working game mechanics out the window.

I disagree with this premise. I played 3.5, and 4E long before playing any MMO (DDO is my first). I found 4E a profound improvement on 3.5. I also think 4E would make for a lousy MMO. I have seen no reason to believe 4E was designed to represent an MMO-on-paper.

Your biggest problem with 4E seems to be that it requires and encourages more DM discretion. I consider this a feature, not a bug. But, how does that make it resemble MMOs, where all the rules need to be carried out by programming that cannot provide a DM's discretion?


This is NOT 4E.
Wonderfully so.

If by "this", you mean DDO, I agree. It's also not 3E or 3.5, and all things considered, wonderfully so.

[RictrasShard]

I'm not so sure. I think 2.0e is when it all started to come together as far as combat simulation is concerned. ADnD left alot of things wide open.

In my opinion, second edition is when it all started falling apart, until 4E.


I think if they fixed the stuff that was broken, and left the stuff that was not broken alone, it would be a heck of a game. They would also have saved themselves alot of person-hours they spent to drum up new rules for things that worked just fine.

I think if what I stated came true however, they would not have been able to make the game MMO-on-paper like, in an attempt to attract the new crowd whose first exposure to fantasy genre is MMO video games. In order to do this, they had to toss alot of good working game mechanics out the window.

Much of what was introduced in 3 and 3.5 was very far removed from good working game mechanics, as far as I'm concerned.

[Chai]

I thought we were talking about a table top RPG. I don't care about how well a system works in computer simulation. I will readily admit that 3.5 is a far better system to base a computer game on (I must like DDO, or I wouldn't be here, right?). But I think it makes for a lousy table top game.

No one said anything about a computer simulation. In tabletop DnD, you are simulating combat using a turn based mechanic and rules to cover how things are done.



I can't imagine taking "hours" to come up with logical houserules for foot-precise jumps in 4E based on the official ones presented. I also can't imagine actually requiring such a thing in an actual game. 5-foot intervals are sufficient to represent any lengths of jumps of any story or gameplay significance.

Naaaa, because like I said before, if the original designers didnt feel the rule was needed, they wouldnt have put it into the game in the first place. The fact that they did, eons ago, and the fact that it worked well enough for said eons, is exactly why people ask the question: Why fix what aint broke?



I disagree with this premise. I played 3.5, and 4E long before playing any MMO (DDO is my first). I found 4E a profound improvement on 3.5. I also think 4E would make for a lousy MMO. I have seen no reason to believe 4E was designed to represent an MMO-on-paper.

4e does make for a lousy MMO. Its called WOW. Played it for a few years, and when I began DMing and REFing 4e, the similarities were unmistakable. The way the cooldowns are designed to be the same or very similar from class to class is a concept that was borrowed from MMOs for sure.

It was designed to appeal to people whose first exposure to fantasy genre gaming is MMOs, which is more and more the case. There are 15 year olds right now who cant remember a time when there were no MMOs, heh. The first ones came out when they were 3.


Your biggest problem with 4E seems to be that it requires and encourages more DM discretion. I consider this a feature, not a bug. But, how does that make it resemble MMOs, where all the rules need to be carried out by programming that cannot provide a DM's discretion?

Nope. Thats not my issue.

My single largest issue is that in order to change who the game appealed to, they created an entire edition almost from scratch. Every single previous edition was built on the last one before it. You could see where the designers tried to fix what was broken, and leave alone what worked. 4e tossed-it-all-out and rebuilt. We now have to hammer out all the kinks and dents, all over again from scratch due to this. When 2e went to 3e, I was already aware of 80% of all the flaws in the system, because the new system was built on top of the old, and not in place of it.

Its like a car company building cars with 50s technology all over again, and tossing out everything they learned in the past. Forget about all that R&D, and all those issues we hammered out in the past few decades, we're going back to engines that get 8 miles to the gallon again, with cars that weigh a ton on slick bald tires. Wooooo weeeee, yeee haaaaaw. We should disregard decades of perfectly good history and research more often.


If by "this", you mean DDO, I agree. It's also not 3E or 3.5, and all things considered, wonderfully so.

I consider DDO its own entity. Loosely based on 3.5 is the best way to describe it. If its someones first time playing and they have years of DnD experience, that knowledge still applies, but it wont make their first few toons the most effective they can possibly be.

If someone played 2.0, then 3.0, then delved into 3.5, took a year or two off, then tried to get into 4e, they might as well start the learning process all over again. 80% of the game mechanics will not be familiar to them.

[Chai]

In my opinion, second edition is when it all started falling apart, until 4E.

Second edition was the best combat system, and the worst class system IMO.

The combat system kept casters more honest. They were still alot more powerful than their melee counterparts at level to be sure, but simply ensuring no entity on the table playing against you has a readied action before casting = casting without fail is the single biggest overpowering thing about casters. 2.0e dealt with this very well with segmented combat, and when 3.0 tossed that out, failure occurred. Dont get me started, heh. Oh wait... :p



Much of what was introduced in 3 and 3.5 was very far removed from good working game mechanics, as far as I'm concerned.

The whole AC thing not being capped, armor bonus and to hit bonus system was the best DnD has ever seen.

Previously, an 11th or 12th level fighter could hit -10 AC with no fail, which in and of itself is fail enough.