The Gaming Den

Roog wrote:

jadagul wrote:Chamomile: I don't think he's getting it confused at all. In rough outline (hey, I only lived in England for a year) the bowler bowls a ball at the batsman, and the batsman (among other things) needs to make sure that the ball doesn't hit the wicket he's standing in front of. If it does hit the wicket than the top part comes off; the phrase "sticky wicket" comes from defending teams doctoring the wicket so you can't tell the bowler's hit it.

You've got that back to front - a sticky wicket is bad for the defender (batsman), not the attacker (bowler).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_wicket

not to get dragged into this, but isn't the batsman the attacker? I mean, I know the batsman is protecting the wicket, but it is the batsman who is attempting to score points, which is the defining characteristic of offense in a sports context.

Roog wrote:

jadagul wrote:Chamomile: I don't think he's getting it confused at all. In rough outline (hey, I only lived in England for a year) the bowler bowls a ball at the batsman, and the batsman (among other things) needs to make sure that the ball doesn't hit the wicket he's standing in front of. If it does hit the wicket than the top part comes off; the phrase "sticky wicket" comes from defending teams doctoring the wicket so you can't tell the bowler's hit it.

You've got that back to front - a sticky wicket is bad for the defender (batsman), not the attacker (bowler).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_wicket

Whoops. You know, I knew I should have looked it up before saying anything...

I don't know why you guys are drawing analogies to Cricket or American Football, when the sport that tabletop RPGs most closely resemble is clearly Calvinball.

echo

Calvinball is played by younger, fitter, and noisier participants. It also involves far fewer dice.

FrankTrollman wrote:

DMG wrote:For inspiration, check the powers for creatures in the Monster Manual. That book has a list of monsters by level and role, so you can quickly look up other creatures that are similar to your new monster. Then either choose some powers that seem right, modifying them as needed, or create new ones of comparable effect.

So basically there are no rules at all except that there is a list of acceptable damage outputs by character level. That's it. That's the entire "system".

-Username17

I'm not even sure why people have such a hard-on for damage benchmarks. That's actually the easiest part to eyeball and doesn't need rules at all.

It's everything else that is the problem and could really use a good set of rules or guidelines.

tzor wrote:

Fuchs wrote:And the same brazier will do more damage once you push a higher-level monster into it as a higher-level character. Even the brazier levels with you!

It's actually much easier than that; it just tears away the fake veil that is how levels are defined. (And thus hit points and damage dealt as well.) You could say that the hero's heroism fills the brazier. That, of course, would be stupid, but it's as good a thing as anything else.

"I power attack with the table"?

There's two things increasing arbitrarily at the same time - damage expression and target number. For something that makes sense, have a system where you can trade one thing (ease of task) for the other (damage). You could have a swashbuckling system that lets you pull increasingly crazy stunts being as you level up, that then do more damage - either abstractly (the penalty you take to swing on the chandelier adds a bonus to damage) or using some sample stunts with various listed damages and DCs.

K wrote:I'm not even sure why people have such a hard-on for damage benchmarks. That's actually the easiest part to eyeball and doesn't need rules at all.

Simply put because it breaks the level illusion. The level illusion is that people get more powerful over time. The reality is that it is always the same shit but the names are different and everyone just uses more dice. So if you can do level damage with a non standard weapon, why can't you do level damage with a standard weapon (because that is factored in the majoc mojo). The disconnect causes suspension of disbelief.

K wrote: I'm not even sure why people have such a hard-on for damage benchmarks. That's actually the easiest part to eyeball and doesn't need rules at all.

Because some people are stupid and/or lazy.

Hell, just look at all the monsters in 3E like the killer giant crab that are slapped together at random.

K wrote: I'm not even sure why people have such a hard-on for damage benchmarks. That's actually the easiest part to eyeball and doesn't need rules at all.

It's everything else that is the problem and could really use a good set of rules or guidelines.

Benchmarks for numeric values are something every rules set should do. When you're building an adventure you want to know whether DCs or monster stats are going to be easy, challenging or lethal.

And seriously if the designers can't provide you with a "The average CR 8 challenge should have a 25 AC, +15 to hit and deal an average of 30 damage on a hit", then the system is pretty weak. It's great to have benchmarks, because you can extend everything else from those benchmarks. And the easiest most simple benchmark is the nondescript hack and slash monster.

Balancing any special ability based monster is always going to take a bunch of eyeballing, unless your special ability monsters are so cookie cutter as to be boring. But it's a heck of a lot easier to eyeball it if you know a basic guideline for a simple monster of that challenge level.

Swordslinger wrote:

K wrote: I'm not even sure why people have such a hard-on for damage benchmarks. That's actually the easiest part to eyeball and doesn't need rules at all.

It's everything else that is the problem and could really use a good set of rules or guidelines.

Benchmarks for numeric values are something every rules set should do. When you're building an adventure you want to know whether DCs or monster stats are going to be easy, challenging or lethal.

And seriously if the designers can't provide you with a "The average CR 8 challenge should have a 25 AC, +15 to hit and deal an average of 30 damage on a hit", then the system is pretty weak. It's great to have benchmarks, because you can extend everything else from those benchmarks. And the easiest most simple benchmark is the nondescript hack and slash monster.

Balancing any special ability based monster is always going to take a bunch of eyeballing, unless your special ability monsters are so cookie cutter as to be boring. But it's a heck of a lot easier to eyeball it if you know a basic guideline for a simple monster of that challenge level.

My point is that stat benchmarks are really easy. I can flip through the MM and figure out a range in under a minute or two. That's why I don't see 4e's improv system as much of an accomplishment.

The special abilities are the crux of the matter. 4e is very light on anything that isn't a damaging attack, so deriving the range of an ability is actually harder than in other editions.

K wrote: My point is that stat benchmarks are really easy. I can flip through the MM and figure out a range in under a minute or two. That's why I don't see 4e's improv system as much of an accomplishment.

The special abilities are the crux of the matter. 4e is very light on anything that isn't a damaging attack, so deriving the range of an ability is actually harder than in other editions.

It's an accomplishment only because 3E didn't do. 3E's numbers were off to the point that HP based attacks became crap past a certain level and everyone was tossing save or dies.

And you had such blatant violations like high level monsters with 12 AC, and attack bonuses off the scale to the point that you shouldn't even bother rolling. 4E (with a few exceptions) kept things on the RNG pretty well. That's why having the guidelines and benchmarks as part of the system is a big deal.

Swordslinger wrote:It's an accomplishment only because 3E didn't do. 3E's numbers were off to the point that HP based attacks became crap past a certain level and everyone was tossing save or dies.

This is the kind of stupid shit that pisses me off from 4e whiners. They always have to compare the stupid game favorably to a game they don't understand. If you don't know anything about the game, stop talking about it.

The most broken attacks Wizards could make involved HP damage. Every HP based damage character has attacks that are far more potent than getting hit with a Finger of Death. People don't do those things because they are fucking boring, or because it's hard to ever get a chance to attack some enemies, not because they are too weak.

Swordslinger wrote:
It's an accomplishment only because 3E didn't do. 3E's numbers were off to the point that HP based attacks became crap past a certain level and everyone was tossing save or dies.

You really know nothing about 3E, aren't you? The only metagame where SoDs dominated was where PCs had a degree of optimization, and their opponents did not. And, while somehow popular on this forum, it is atypical. And even in it there were uberchargers and shit. (In no-optimization metagame it is univerally better to throw SoLs and battlefield control, because they have more targets and better chance of working, then do HP damage.)

Swordslinger wrote: And you had such blatant violations like high level monsters with 12 AC, and attack bonuses off the scale to the point that you shouldn't even bother rolling. 4E (with a few exceptions) kept things on the RNG pretty well.

And why then they had to rewrite every fucking monster in MM I?

K wrote:My point is that stat benchmarks are really easy. I can flip through the MM and figure out a range in under a minute or two. That's why I don't see 4e's improv system as much of an accomplishment.

this is simply endemic of just about everything 4e. they seem to have written the whole thing for dull, unimaginative 10-year-olds.
it's all quite condescending, really.

Well, yeah. Have you seen the new HoS necromancer? It's "dark fire, dark fire, dark fire, get 1 skeleton, dark fire, dark fire, dark fire, and more dark fire". Maybe some minion undead too.

Because when I think "necromancer", I think "dark fire."

FatR wrote: You really know nothing about 3E, aren't you? The only metagame where SoDs dominated was where PCs had a degree of optimization, and their opponents did not. And, while somehow popular on this forum, it is atypical. And even in it there were uberchargers and shit. (In no-optimization metagame it is univerally better to throw SoLs and battlefield control, because they have more targets and better chance of working, then do HP damage.)

I consider a SoL to be basically the same as a save or die, sorry if the terminology was off. But my point was you're not tossing damaging attacks at higher level, and monsters that do damage are a joke at higher levels.

Swordslinger wrote: And why then they had to rewrite every fucking monster in MM I?

Well the ACs, attack bonuses and similar were pretty good in 4E, though pre-essentials the damage calculations were off, which forced a rewrite for essentials as well as some minor tweaks to monster types (soldiers got nerfed and brutes got buffed).

And that's still better than 3E which didn't get monster damage right in 3E or 3.5, and monster attack bonuses/ACs were never on the RNG.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Well, yeah. Have you seen the new HoS necromancer? It's "dark fire, dark fire, dark fire, get 1 skeleton, dark fire, dark fire, dark fire, and more dark fire". Maybe some minion undead too.

Because when I think "necromancer", I think "dark fire."

"dark fire"? They have a encounter power called Darking Flame, but no at will power that does what you are suggesting here.

When I looked through the book, it seemed every other power was some kind of necrotic blast. As most of the ones I recall from the book were fluffed as some sort of dark fire attack (as well as all the necromancy powers we've seen outside the HoS book) that's where I got that from.

Sorry, what does SoL mean? I assume it's "save or" something.

Save or lose.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Save or lose.

This.

Web, Color Spray, Black Tentacles, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud etc.

It's a save-or-die that takes a little more effort to make stick.

Shit Out of Luck - much like this thread.

I for one am eagerly anticipating more 4e trolls

Josh_Kablack wrote:Shit Out of Luck - much like this thread.

I knew about this one, but it didn't really seem relevant to the mechanics being discussed.