The Gaming Den

virgileso wrote:There is one way to disarm, and that is with a Level 17 Encounter power available to Fighters alone.

Even the [unconscious] condition does not say you drop your held items, that I can see...

Disarm as a near epic manuever... wow... that's pretty lame.

Especially considering that you CAN'T disarm most level-appropriate baddies at that level because they are hydras and dragons and shit (at least that is the case at mid-to-high levels in 2nd, 3.0, and 3.5, haven't read the 4e pdf yet).

Tron Paladin?
And in that vein, I must have also missed how the term Laser Cleric came to be.

sigma999 wrote:Tron Paladin?
And in that vein, I must have also missed how the term Laser Cleric came to be.

The term "Radiant" is really important in 4e. Lots of things do Radiant damage. Characters who should Radiant Damage at people are called "Laser" characters. But the Paladin's powers that shoot Lasers are shitty and it's really hard to optimize for that because you are required by law to go back to hitting things with a beat stick anyway.

But the Paladin has a number of powers that involve hitting enemies with a stick and doing Radiant damage anyway. I can think of no better example than Tron. So those guys are the Tron Paladins.

----

Basically the difficulty with the Paladin is that shooting Lasers at enemies is based on Charisma, but hitting enemies with Lasers is Strength based and the Charisma-based melee attacks aren't Radiant at all. At very high levels, you will eventually want to be Radiant specced, because Holy Avengers count as a holy symbol and a weapon (meaning that they are much kinder to your bank account), and they also give you an extra d10 to any Radiant attack you make. So in long run, you will not want to use attacks that aren't Radiant, but you'll also still be using a lot of at-wills which are all either Strength based or not Radiant.

So a Charisma based Paladin gets screwed out of not getting the Radiant bonus on most of his attacks, after he has spent most of his life having to balance two magic weapons to power his laser attacks and his smites. That all changes at 30th level, when he gets unlimited laser attacks, and isn't much of a problem at 1st level because you don't even have a magic weapon to worry about having to get two of. But from 2nd-29th level, the Charisma Paladin gets fucked.

-Username17

Ah. Thanks, Frank.

Sadly, the "Radiance damage" reminded me of this:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Paladin

wowwiki wrote:...as all of a Paladin's abilities are part of a single magic school (Holy).

(and as a side, check this out for CAN-like mechanic, since I can't remember where the CAN thread is right now: http://www.wowwiki.com/Crushing_blow)

4ed DMG wrote:Some liches know a ritual that sustains them
beyond destruction by tying their essence to a phylactery.
When a lich who has performed this ritual is
reduced to 0 hit points, its body and possessions crumble
into dust, but it is not destroyed. It reappears (along
with its possessions) in 1d10 days within 1 square of
its phylactery, unless the phylactery is also found and
destroyed.

Argh.

I'd like to point out that the amount of radiant stuff a cleric gets is lamesauce. What if I wanted to play... pretty much anything that isn't LG?

Well, 4th edition got a fairly big advert its way. Penny Arcade complimented it on their news site.

Draco_Argentum wrote:I'd like to point out that the amount of radiant stuff a cleric gets is lamesauce. What if I wanted to play... pretty much anything that isn't LG?

Think of it less as holy magic and more as soul blasts or something. I mean, it sounds like it's meant to be holy and pure, but I don't think it has any mechanical link to that.

Koumei wrote:

Draco_Argentum wrote:I'd like to point out that the amount of radiant stuff a cleric gets is lamesauce. What if I wanted to play... pretty much anything that isn't LG?

Think of it less as holy magic and more as soul blasts or something. I mean, it sounds like it's meant to be holy and pure, but I don't think it has any mechanical link to that.

While Beholders and all kinds of other crazy crap do Radiant Damage, the things which are vulnerable to Radiant Damage are undead and demons. So Clerics of Yeenoghu get to shoot lasers at devourers that make them drop their victims.

-Username17

A few small observations...

1) In the DMG (page 40) is a segment on legitimate targets. With encounter powers having so many side benefits, the following rule is very important:
"When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."


2) Looking over the XP tables for target encounters (DMG 57) it surprised me that the new assumed party size is 5. I wonder what caused that to shift from the iconic four-man group? I also wonder if that is supposed to account for part of the perceived disconnect between 4Ed PC's low damage output and the large hp totals of higher level monsters; that you have 5 people pounding on the hydra instead of 4?


3) I can't find any codified rules on diplomacy. The skill's description basically says the target DC is up to the DM. That's saddening. Has anyone found some table or rule tucked away elsewhere to help guide diplomacy?
...
Actually, there is a segment on general check difficulties (DMG 61) which gives a table of DCs which are easy, moderate or hard for characters of a given level. Later on (pages 76 and 79) it talks about non-combat challenges the party could face, including an interrogation and a negotiation scene. There it gives rough guidelines to what skills could be used, what the DCs should be (easy, moderate, hard) and what the results of success and failure are. From this rather scattered information you can piece together a social interaction mechanic. Hmm...

Except that the DCs are self-scaling, meaning that convincing the local village mayor your Sword of Howling Vengeance is under control is just as hard at level 3 as it is at level 28.

I love how encounter powers don't activate on minor threats, but you still gain XP from killing them...

Draco_Argentum wrote:I'd like to point out that the amount of radiant stuff a cleric gets is lamesauce. What if I wanted to play... pretty much anything that isn't LG?

Yeah, it's heavily slanted towards good clerics. You'd think evil clerics should be tossing out necrotic damage. I'm okay with paladins doing a lot of radiant stuff, but clerics really need a mix based on alignment and deity. Fire clerics should be doing fire damage, evil clerics should be doing necrotic and so on. For cleric direct damage, they should have just had a "select your damage type based on god" thing, whee you just substitute the type that your god uses.

Magic Item Economics
Items are either purchased by merchants at 1/5 their stated price (DMG 155) or disenchanted through the Disenchant Magic Item ritual (PHB 304) resulting in an amount of Residuum equal to 1/5 the item's stated price (minus the inane 25gp ritual component cost). If the players attempt to purchase an item from a merchant it costs them the full price plus an additional 10 - 40% markup (DMG 155). The party can create magic items through the Enchant Magic Item ritual, costing them the base price of the item.

Everyone seemed fine selling for 1/2 the item's market price and buying at 100% the item's market price. Why is changing that base assumption to 1/5 pissing me off so much? Also, what purpose does it serve to make converting items to money such an inefficient process? It seems like making the conversion rate so poor encourages players NOT to sell their items. Furthermore it encourages players not to pay for items, either by getting them as treasure from monsters (good) or mugging the smug magic item merchants who are charging them as much as 1,400gp for the +1 barkskin armor they got 200gp for selling (bad).

Just as 3.5 required some re-imaginings to explain how the economy worked (the Wish Economy), the same must be true for 4E. What are these assumptions other than the fact that the item merchants must be HEAVILY defended at all times?

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Draco_Argentum wrote:I'd like to point out that the amount of radiant stuff a cleric gets is lamesauce. What if I wanted to play... pretty much anything that isn't LG?

Yeah, it's heavily slanted towards good clerics. You'd think evil clerics should be tossing out necrotic damage. I'm okay with paladins doing a lot of radiant stuff, but clerics really need a mix based on alignment and deity. Fire clerics should be doing fire damage, evil clerics should be doing necrotic and so on. For cleric direct damage, they should have just had a "select your damage type based on god" thing, whee you just substitute the type that your god uses.

I have no problem with fire clerics blasting people with light and fire. What really gets me is clerics of The Raven and other gods of darkness.

Furthermore, it appears that being small sucks now. I don't see anywhere stating benefits (bonus to attack or AC) but it does explicitly make you unable to wield certain weapons or bullrush, push, pull, etc. large creatures (PHB 44 - Being Small). Can anyone find anything that refutes this observation?

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Draco_Argentum wrote:I'd like to point out that the amount of radiant stuff a cleric gets is lamesauce. What if I wanted to play... pretty much anything that isn't LG?

Yeah, it's heavily slanted towards good clerics. You'd think evil clerics should be tossing out necrotic damage. I'm okay with paladins doing a lot of radiant stuff, but clerics really need a mix based on alignment and deity. Fire clerics should be doing fire damage, evil clerics should be doing necrotic and so on. For cleric direct damage, they should have just had a "select your damage type based on god" thing, whee you just substitute the type that your god uses.

I have no problem with fire clerics blasting people with light and fire. What really gets me is clerics of The Raven and other gods of darkness.

There is a paragraph on DMG 163 that encourages the DM to swap out radiant for necrotic damage for evil clerics. Presumably the same could be done with other damage types but there doesn't seem to be a God of Fire or a God of Thunder or what-have-you.

Is anyone else disgusted by the lack of customizability of pretty much anything? Want to make a new monster? You can't; there's no HD or anything. Want to make a new magic item? You can't; there aren't any rules or anything. Want to have a familiar? LAWL NOOB THAT COULD BREAK TEH GAME.

Shatner wrote:Furthermore, it appears that being small sucks now. I don't see anywhere stating benefits (bonus to attack or AC) but it does explicitly make you unable to wield certain weapons or bullrush, push, pull, etc. large creatures (PHB 44 - Being Small). Can anyone find anything that refutes this observation?

I am pretty sure that being small is now a bad thing - although the halfling does get access to a feat that lets you hide behind your larger enemies' backs for bonus AC...

Shatner wrote:A few small observations...

1) In the DMG (page 40) is a segment on legitimate targets. With encounter powers having so many side benefits, the following rule is very important:
"When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."

Yes, sack of rats doesn't work because it's easy to patch fix it rather than dealing with the problem that having any ability that keys off hitting a guy to affect a second target is lame design.

Note that this doesn't deal at all with minions now that they have 1 HP.

Shatner wrote:A few small observations...


2) Looking over the XP tables for target encounters (DMG 57) it surprised me that the new assumed party size is 5. I wonder what caused that to shift from the iconic four-man group? I also wonder if that is supposed to account for part of the perceived disconnect between 4Ed PC's low damage output and the large hp totals of higher level monsters; that you have 5 people pounding on the hydra instead of 4?

Well... WoW and a bunch of other mmogs use 5 as their party size But it's probably has to do with roles of healers and casters geting changed around.

I'd assume not ever Leader class is going to have healing so if you have a non healer leader you also might need a second leader class that can do it. That means five people instead of four if you still want to have all the roles filled.

Or, since the wizard is no longer suppose to really fill the role of striker and controller like in 3ed, that means you'd need an extra caster to fill the magic based striker role.

But yeah, it's probably more to make D&D groups more like mmog's standard 'Tank, Healer, Physical DPS, Magic DPS, Oddball' group make up.



What are the other classes going to be anyway?

Druid: I heard somewhere that Druid was going to have its spells removed and made into a shapeshifting striker.
Bard: leader of course
Sorcerer: not a clue, they might just ditch the entire class now that it doesn't really have a reason to exist
Psion: controller, suposedly getting all the mind control/illusion stuff that was removed from the wizard.
Swordmage': is going to be a defender apparently, so expect an arcane version of a pally instead of a gish.
Barbarian: no idea, will probably be fill the str based physical striker role
Monk and Psychic Warrior: I fear these two will just be ditched completly.

Psychic Robot wrote:Is anyone else disgusted by the lack of customizability of pretty much anything? Want to make a new monster? You can't; there's no HD or anything. Want to make a new magic item? You can't; there aren't any rules or anything. Want to have a familiar? LAWL NOOB THAT COULD BREAK TEH GAME.

Actually there are rules for making new monsters in the DMG. And they make a bit more sense than the clumsy 3.5 system. In 4E you start with the monster's level (which is equivalent to its CR) and go from there. Instead of 3.5 where you pretty muhc have no easy way of creating a monster of a given CR aside from fucking around with numbers until it looks right. Even still, you've got no real guidelines.

As far as magic items, magic item tables for cost never worked right, so the rule is simply to compare em to existing items and figure out their level. It's really all you can do.

As for familiars, that is pretty lame. They were determined to take out every possibility of extra allies that PCs could get. Even your mounts can no longer take actions.

Ah, yes, I did manage to find the tables. I suppose that's okay, but I still prefer hitpoints based off of race to hitpoints based off of "role."

Psychic Robot wrote:Ah, yes, I did manage to find the tables. I suppose that's okay, but I still prefer hitpoints based off of race to hitpoints based off of "role."

I like the 4E system a bit better, since it focuses on what the monster actually does instead of something arbitrary like creature type. I mean, creature type was for the most part meaningless in 3.5. You had some aberrations that were effectively controllers, like mind flayers, others that were designed for combat, like an otyugh and others that were blasters, like beholders. It was dumb in my opinion that they all used the same set of hit points and BaB.

It makes more sense for a monster to fit more toward it's role in combat in terms of numbers.

I always though the creature type as monster classes was an example of unnecessary complexity in the 3.5 rules set. There was really no need for it.