Something interesting in the new L&L, given the previous discussion about 'lunch-hour DnD':
Mearls has a series of polls aimed at investigating what how long people play the same character or campaign. In one of the questions, he wants you to assume that you are playing 'by-the-book' DnD for...two hours per week.
Is that...normal, for anyone? Am I the only guy who schedules DnD to last for an afternoon - 5-6 hours, sometimes more if we everyone can swing it?
My group's DnD routine was generally 'meet up, grab lunch, go back to the shop and play DnD until people got hungry, break for dinner then do something else'. My impression has always been that this (or the evening version, where you meet for dinner instead of lunch and then play until people are tired rather than hungry) is pretty much the standard routine - am I mistaken?
Oh I absolutely agree on streamlining the list of powers. And, again, I don't have a problem with, for instance, at-will powers having effects that help you in your role (like the warpriest at-wills, or the mobility effects some striker powers have), but I think if at-will powers have miss effects, the power level of the game escalates. Encounters, again, I don't have a problem with effects, and I don't really have a problem with miss entries, either, but they should be limited.
I couldn't disagree more, because the most fundamentally bad thing about D&D is not doing anything on your turn.
e: and yeah our DnD sessions typically are once or twice a month from like, 6 pm to 2 am
Oh I absolutely agree on streamlining the list of powers. And, again, I don't have a problem with, for instance, at-will powers having effects that help you in your role (like the warpriest at-wills, or the mobility effects some striker powers have), but I think if at-will powers have miss effects, the power level of the game escalates. Encounters, again, I don't have a problem with effects, and I don't really have a problem with miss entries, either, but they should be limited.
I couldn't disagree more, because the most fundamentally bad thing about D&D is not doing anything on your turn.
e: and yeah our DnD sessions typically are once or twice a month from like, 6 pm to 2 am
I'll agree to that point, but there's a difference between not doing anything, and trying to do something and failing. If I have an at-will attack power with an effect, and I use it, I'm doing something on my turn. If I have an encounter power with an effect and a miss, and I use it, I'm doing something on my turn.
Hit or miss, something still happens, so I'm still doing something.
But, I'm curious, what sort of miss effects would you like to see on an at-will attack power? Let's take a full-class Weaponmaster Fighter's MBA.
Hit: W + Str damage
Effect: You mark the target until the end of your next turn.
Drunken Monkey style Miss: you and your target swap positions.
Or maybe
Miss: you may make a bluff check to convince your foe 'you meant to do that'; gain +1 damage next time you hit that foe with this power.
Okay, so what does Drunken Monkey Style do on a hit? And why can't that be added as an effect, instead of a miss entry? Why can't Drunken Monkey Style be "When you use this style while making a melee basic attack, you and the target swap positions." ?
The second one, why does that have to be built into the power? Why can't rogues, for instance, have a utility power that allows them to do that, maybe once per encounter (and instead have it grant a -2 to defenses until the end of your next turn).
I just don't see any reason why a power needs to do two things on a miss, and two things on a hit, plus damage. It smacks of easy mode.
I've always felt like Hit and Effect were better than Hit and Miss, because if you still do something to the enemy when you miss, did you really miss at all? Hit and Effect would be easier to "make sense of" (I know, I know) but more importantly would be easier to balance for. One thing that always happens and one additional thing that happens if you hit would be easier to calculate from a game math perspective.
But, I'm curious, what sort of miss effects would you like to see on an at-will attack power? Let's take a full-class Weaponmaster Fighter's MBA.
Hit: W + Str damage
Effect: You mark the target until the end of your next turn.
What would you add/change?
Wait, why are we talking about an MBA? Especially if we're talking about a fighter he already marks everything he attacks anyway. But I suppose if we're talking about a Weaponmaster; Miss: Str mod damage and/or you push the target one square.
But, I'm curious, what sort of miss effects would you like to see on an at-will attack power? Let's take a full-class Weaponmaster Fighter's MBA.
Hit: W + Str damage
Effect: You mark the target until the end of your next turn.
What would you add/change?
Wait, why are we talking about an MBA? Especially if we're talking about a fighter he already marks everything he attacks anyway. But I suppose if we're talking about a Weaponmaster; Miss: Str mod damage and/or you push the target one square.
I was just using MBA as an example, because it's easy and simple. And that he marks hit or miss is kind of my point. That class feature basically gives the Fighter an Effect: line on all of their attacks that says "you can mark the target."
First, why should he do damage on a miss? Second, it's actually mechanically a bad idea for Fighters to push targets away from them, because that just sets that enemy up to better avoid the defender.
I've always felt like Hit and Effect were better than Hit and Miss, because if you still do something to the enemy when you miss, did you really miss at all? Hit and Effect would be easier to "make sense of" (I know, I know) but more importantly would be easier to balance for. One thing that always happens and one additional thing that happens if you hit would be easier to calculate from a game math perspective.
This is pretty much my point. Let's say I'm a Heavy Blade user. Fighting with a large Sword generally involves a lot of tactical positioning, irl. Now, not to get too simulationist, but there's no reason Fighter's can't/shouldn't have a feature that gives them an additional rider on their MBA that they choose based on the type of weapon they've trained to use.
So, my idea is basically this: Fighter's get two base class features (in addition to others, these are just for this example). One pure defender- you mark the target. The second is specific to the weapon you use. So maybe Heavy Blade users get something like Tide of Iron.
So basically a Fighter's MBA will look like this:
Target: One Creature
Hit: [w] + Str modifier damage
Effect: You mark the target until the end of your next turn. If you're wielding a Heavy Blade, you also push the target one square, and shift into the square the target vacated.
Why isn't that enough? Why must we also give them a miss entry? The fighter is already doing his job as a defender, hit or miss. Why must we also give them damage, just for trying?
If they chose to specialize in Axes, maybe it looks like this instead:
Target: One Creature
Hit: [w] + Str modifier damage, and one additional target adjacent to you takes damage equal to your Str modifier.
Effect: You mark the target. If you're wielding an Axe, you can also mark an additional creature adjacent to you.
Or a Light Blade
Target: One Creature.
Hit: [w] + Str modifier damage.
Effect: You mark the target. If you're wielding a light blade, you also shift one square and slide the target into the square you left.
Or a flail
Target: One Creature
Hit: [w] + Str modifier damage
Effect: You mark the target. If you're wielding a flail, the target is also slowed until the end of your next turn
Are these options really just not enough? Honestly?
If we're proposing a new system, shouldn't the absolute basic be covered first before we can determine how to implement balance? Like:
What die(dice) will this system use to resolve actions?
What is our baseline average for success? (this one is already covered)
What are our key ability scores?
What number range do we assign to these?
What are our primary defense scores?
How do we determine these scores?
Is it a level-based system or is expend earned points to increase values?
Do we have a "skill" system?
Do we have a "feat" system?
Do we want to include a "defect/flaw" system?
How do we implement a powers system without obviously lifting it from 4e?
We could lift a lot of the answers to these questions by lifting from the SDR and OGL, but the real hitch here is how do we implement powers without getting "cease and desist" letters?
I like a lot of what's happening in here, but I think Mikey is right in bringing it back to basics. There seems to be some confusion around the amount of 4e assumptions that are being carried over, and I think it would be better to start even higher up the decision tree than that.
If we're proposing a new system, shouldn't the absolute basic be covered first before we can determine how to implement balance? Like:
What die(dice) will this system use to resolve actions? What is our baseline average for success? (this one is already covered) What are our key ability scores? What number range do we assign to these? What are our primary defense scores?
How do we determine these scores?
Is it a level-based system or is expend earned points to increase values?
Do we have a "skill" system?
Do we have a "feat" system? Do we want to include a "defect/flaw" system? How do we implement a powers system without obviously lifting it from 4e?
We could lift a lot of the answers to these questions by lifting from the SDR and OGL, but the real hitch here is how do we implement powers without getting "cease and desist" letters?
Struck through items are those I see no reason not to lift directly from 4e. I'm not actually planning to develop a brand new game and sell it or anything. I just want to adjust the mechanics of the existing game in such a way that solves the biggest issues with the system.
The answer to all those questions for what I'm working on is identical to the answers to all those questions wrt 4e.
Concerning the rest...
As for a defect/flaw system, I'm not opposed to it, but I've never really loved them, as they tend to only really help out min/max'ers. I would have to be shown a system and convinced it's adding something meaningful to the game before I was on board.
Ability score range: I see starting scores being either point buy or a standard array, but it really depends on what we do with races. I'm not entirely opposed to throwing out racial ability score bonuses altogether, and just having a standard array of "18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 08." It keeps characters balanced and effective, and immediately improves the performance of a lot of red/purple races (colors refer to the ratings system used by the members of the Character Optimization board on WotC's forums, btw). In effect it levels the playing field of all races, and now you choose a race based more on flavor, because there's less mechanical impact. Other than that, point buy is still perfectly serviceable, but I'd like to see a caveat that prevents starting with a 20 in any ability score.
Here's a random idea I've had before (that I also haven't really thought through yet): get rid of "missing" entirely. Instead, have meeting a defense with an attack roll result in dealing vitality point damage, and failing to meet a defense result in dealing hit point damage (once all a monster's hit points are gone, though, every attack does vitality point damage automatically). Tactical gameplay would thus focus on trying to bypass a monster's hit points all-together. PC's, BTW, would only have hit points.
I agree on the defect / flaw system. I think Savage Worlds handled that best by assuming that all players would take the max number of Hinderances. I don't think it's necessary though if you're not planning to change that much.
So back on the question of balance. Why not just have the character get full-level advancement, just like monsters. This seemed to work out pretty well in Gamma World.
Well, wherever you all take it just let me know because I'm basically doing the equivalent of stalking this discussion with a notebook and pen as it is
I agree on the defect / flaw system. I think Savage Worlds handled that best by assuming that all players would take the max number of Hinderances. I don't think it's necessary though if you're not planning to change that much.
So back on the question of balance. Why not just have the character get full-level advancement, just like monsters. This seemed to work out pretty well in Gamma World.
Two things:
1) It still doesn't create an even-scaling system, because PCs get almost half-level worth of stuff that improves their stats, in addition to half-level. So if you give PCs and monsters full level, PCs rapidly outpace monsters, so the balance issue is only shifted, not removed.
2) If both monsters and PCs scale with level, why have either scale at all? If the only real difference between a level 2 orc and a level 8 orc is how the numbers look, but the overall percentages of attack and damage are roughly equal, then leveling up only creates the illusion of improvement, not actual improvement.
I really like the "flat curve" idea they're pushing for Next, and I think it's a good idea. If the difference in attack rolls over the course of six levels is only 5-10%, that makes hugely increases how useful monsters can be, and allows for something like a minion that's not quite. It further produces a meaningful system for multi-hit minions (something that's mostly cannon fodder, but still needs to be hit more than once to go down).
But, I'm curious, what sort of miss effects would you like to see on an at-will attack power? Let's take a full-class Weaponmaster Fighter's MBA.
Hit: W + Str damage
Effect: You mark the target until the end of your next turn.
What would you add/change?
Wait, why are we talking about an MBA? Especially if we're talking about a fighter he already marks everything he attacks anyway. But I suppose if we're talking about a Weaponmaster; Miss: Str mod damage and/or you push the target one square.
I was just using MBA as an example, because it's easy and simple. And that he marks hit or miss is kind of my point. That class feature basically gives the Fighter an Effect: line on all of their attacks that says "you can mark the target."
First, why should he do damage on a miss? Second, it's actually mechanically a bad idea for Fighters to push targets away from them, because that just sets that enemy up to better avoid the defender.
Yeah, I know, I put about 10 seconds in that post (I was between classes at the time). But if you're going to ask the question 'why should he do damage on a miss' then you should also be asking 'why shouldn't he be doing damage on a miss?'. Really, you're missing the point of the argument completely - I don't care whether it's damage on miss or whatever, but we should be doing as much as possible when designing powers and abilities to make sure that players turns aren't wasted even if they roll poorly and there's no reason not to use every part of an attack power in order to get there (hit/miss/effect lines in this case if we're not adding anything additional into it).
In this case it makes sense for a power who's Hit mechanic is damage to provide a smaller amount of damage on a Miss. Just like if some daily ability was dominate on Hit, then you could have stun (or whatever level or power appropriate miss rider) on a miss, with some subsequent effect that occurs regardless of how your dice rolled.
Regarding power curves, you have to remember the psychological aspect of rolling bigger numbers at higher levels. If you're rolling and hitting pretty much the same numbers at level 1 and level 10, most players will be disappointed by that. Players want to feel like their characters are more powerful than they used to be, and increasing numbers is one of the easiest ways to represent that.
When you start talking about flat curves and scaling, you have to think about what leveling means at all, and how you're going to represent increased power and experience.
Yeah, I know, I put about 10 seconds in that post (I was between classes at the time). But if you're going to ask the question 'why should he do damage on a miss' then you should also be asking 'why shouldn't he be doing damage on a miss?'. Really, you're missing the point of the argument completely - I don't care whether it's damage on miss or whatever, but we should be doing as much as possible when designing powers and abilities to make sure that players turns aren't wasted even if they roll poorly and there's no reason not to use every part of an attack power in order to get there (hit/miss/effect lines in this case if we're not adding anything additional into it).
In this case it makes sense for a power who's Hit mechanic is damage to provide a smaller amount of damage on a Miss. Just like if some daily ability was dominate on Hit, then you could have stun (or whatever level or power appropriate miss rider) on a miss, with some subsequent effect that occurs regardless of how your dice rolled.
They shouldn't be doing damage on a miss because they didn't hit. Specifically, their attacks did not bypass the target's defenses, so they did not in any way mechanically injure or wound the opponent. Further, I understand your argument, which is that we should use every option in the power format, but I disagree with that argument. There is reason not to use every part of an attack power, because having every attack, even at-wills, have hit/miss/effect entries introduces more complexity into the game than might be necessary. You can reach a point of diminishing returns, after which things you add to try to improve the experience of the game end up either not really adding much fun, adding in some fun but also some frustration, or not really adding any fun at all, and making the game more complex and hard to understand on top of that. Hit and Effect are sufficient to allow the player to always contribute meaningfully on every attack, while still leaving the elements of combat that d20 RPGs are known for. If the only reason I'm rolling to attack is to add another d8 damage, that takes a huge amount of tension out of the game, which I think would make the game less fun.
Also I'm really only talking about at-will attacks here. I have no issue with Encounter powers doing a bit of damage on a miss. But, really, for me, if the attack does anything on a miss that it doesn't already do on a hit, then the power is awkwardly designed (Lead by Example, Warlord Daily 1, MP1 p 104). If it has effects that it deals hit or miss, then that's better expressed through an Effect entry (Warpriest at-wills). The only reason to use Miss entries is for reduced benefits based on the hit line (less damage, daze instead of stun, etc).
Further, from a system symmetry standpoint, how does all this affect monsters? If all PCs are doing damage hit or miss, shouldn't monsters get the same treatment? Now you have PCs taking damage every single turn, and that could make things less fun for PCs who like to build toward high defenses, or take powers that help them prevent getting hit (like Shield). Now the player says, "wait, he did damage anyway? That sucks." Not to mention the fact that monsters dealing damage on a miss has a disproportional effect on "squishy" characters. Again, look at the Wizard, or the Assassin (not Executioner). Very low HP, but a lot of ways of avoiding hits. Now they're taking damage every turn no matter what, and those classes simply can't deal with that. It creates a slippery slope, because now we have to either reduce monster damage (making the miss effect trivial and not worth keeping around), or give PCs more HP (accomplishing the same thing, only making monster attacks less meaningful overall as well).
For the record, I'm not saying this is 100% how it should be all the time every time always. I'm saying that if every power, even every at-will, is designed to have a hit/miss/effect entry as a general rule it will make the game needlessly complex, and tie the system into a set of rules that makes power design more complicated. Maybe Fighters can have an at-will that does Str mod damage on a miss, but has no other effects (aside from marking). Maybe something like Scorching Burst (a now maligned wizard at-will because it has no effects) could do half damage on a miss (because fireball). But those I think work better as exceptions, not the rule.
Further, on a system-wide scale, why should a controller always deal damage on a miss? Again, does that suit the purpose the Controller role is designed for? I don't think it does. I think a better idea is something like the Druid's Swarming Locusts power. It has an Effect entry that creates a zone the causes enemies in it to grant Combat Advantage. From a control standpoint, that's a good idea, because, hit or miss, that power still contributes meaningfully to the controller's job in an encounter.
TL;DR: Basically my point is that dealing damage on a miss is a bad idea because it waters down the game and takes away elements that make it fun. Further, if PCs deal damage on a miss, monsters should too, and that will similarly make the game less fun. In addition, the idea of being able to contribute to the encounter no matter what is better expressed by using the Effect entry, as every combat role has non-damage-dealing mechanics that help it contribute to the encounter.
Regarding power curves, you have to remember the psychological aspect of rolling bigger numbers at higher levels. If you're rolling and hitting pretty much the same numbers at level 1 and level 10, most players will be disappointed by that. Players want to feel like their characters are more powerful than they used to be, and increasing numbers is one of the easiest ways to represent that.
When you start talking about flat curves and scaling, you have to think about what leveling means at all, and how you're going to represent increased power and experience.
This is where I'm at, too. It almost sounds like 'flattening the curve' means "we're going to fix epic by not letting characters get that powerful ever again."
Regarding power curves, you have to remember the psychological aspect of rolling bigger numbers at higher levels. If you're rolling and hitting pretty much the same numbers at level 1 and level 10, most players will be disappointed by that. Players want to feel like their characters are more powerful than they used to be, and increasing numbers is one of the easiest ways to represent that.
When you start talking about flat curves and scaling, you have to think about what leveling means at all, and how you're going to represent increased power and experience.
This is where I'm at, too. It almost sounds like 'flattening the curve' means "we're going to fix epic by not letting characters get that powerful ever again."
I will agree with this completely. I don't think the answer is to drop scaling at all, but I do think the game would benefit from a slightly flatter curve. As it stands, in my games (anecdotal), an enemy more than 2 levels below the PCs is little more than free XP.
I do think there should be a curve. I also think that as you cross from one tier to the next there should be a bump. A level 7 monster should be more of a threat to a level 10 PC than a level 8 monster is to a level 11 PC. Mostly because that makes attaining each new tier a significant thing, and helps differentiate the tiers from one another. I just think the curve over the course of each tier should be a bit flatter, so that monsters can still be more than a fly on a windshield once the PCs are more than 2 levels above them.
well if you want to keep the psychology of big numbers while keeping the curve somewhat flat, you could keep armor class and attack bonuses static while inflating hp and damage
better armor would perhaps provide damage reduction. warhammer already does this
It can be highly frustrating, especially in a larger group, where it might take 10 min or more to get back to your turn, only to have some spectacularly bad rolls mean you whiff and spend another 10-20-30+ minutes staring at the map, hoping your next daring plan isn't foiled by an inexcusable number of 1's rolled.
I'm not saying all attacks should deal damage (though it would be a way to avoid a string of bad luck extending an encounter significantly beyond the expected time allotted), but being able to guarantee 'something' happening on your turn would be appreciated.
Note; I'm aware that many DM's (especially good ones) will account for this by shifting the battle (knocking off 50 hp, whatever) if the players are getting tired/bored/restless, but while any system should strive to help DM's at all ends to be better at what they do, I don't think it's entirely a bad idea to bake in either.
What if that was a common rider for Striker at wills (assuming a similar Role system was kept)? Half damage or mod damage or something, so that even when they miss it's more of a graze than a complete whiffing of nothing but air? Of course, I'm not in love with the idea of players who can never fail to do damage either, I'm sure someone would break that wide open. Just thinking out loud.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Defenders - Mark / get cumalitve +1 to AC, resets when something misses.
Strikers - cumalitive +1 tohit, resets when they hit / slide
Leaders - small heal / give teammate a chance to save vs an effect
Controllers - shift target / minor debuff target
Something interesting in the new L&L, given the previous discussion about 'lunch-hour DnD':
Mearls has a series of polls aimed at investigating what how long people play the same character or campaign. In one of the questions, he wants you to assume that you are playing 'by-the-book' DnD for...two hours per week.
Is that...normal, for anyone? Am I the only guy who schedules DnD to last for an afternoon - 5-6 hours, sometimes more if we everyone can swing it?
My group's DnD routine was generally 'meet up, grab lunch, go back to the shop and play DnD until people got hungry, break for dinner then do something else'. My impression has always been that this (or the evening version, where you meet for dinner instead of lunch and then play until people are tired rather than hungry) is pretty much the standard routine - am I mistaken?
Two hours is normal for what they've been focusing on for the past couple years, that being Encounters and other such con/store events. Whether or not they're obsessed with that because that's where the money is, or because they're just plain obsessed, is to be determined.
Maybe on average that's about right, because my campaign, my friend's series of Dungeon adventures, etc. don't run every week, but when they do... yeah. Way longer than two hours, and that's even with my friends being adults with kids and grad school and shit.
Having read this entire thread I'm pretty tempted to make a site that is dedicated to conserving/refining the 4th edition system, offering cool 4th edition adventures and populating the epic tier.
I'm on board with the original idea of preserving/supporting 4e further, and while I'm not a char-op guy or anything I have internets skills if they're necessary. To be honest the idea of improving 4e is only interesting to me if it's along the level of "replace this table in the DM screen" or "adjust monster hit points and defenses to blah". Changes affecting PCs sound prohibitive and more like a new edition. Really though I think there's enough meat for a fan production in the original spec. Especially since one of these years my campaign will hit epic tier.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
There's very little in 4e that needs changing, or at least that needs changing badly enough that a bunch of dudes fucking around in their spare time would be able to improve too much.
Your best bet for fixing the math probably goes like this: Characters get Versatile Expertise for free at level 5, and Improved Defenses for free at level 8.
You could probably also profitably errata Twin Strike so that the second attack does STR or DEX mod damage instead of the die, so that it's not a die roll so that you can't use it to double-dip on static mods.
The bonus feats fix the hard math errors, and the twin strike bit shuts down most of the really stupid striker builds. You could/should probably also give the Rain of Blows treatment to all the multiattack powers, so that they get the stat mod stripped out and do only weapon die damage.
That's really all the system needs that we can reasonably consider ourselves legitimately capable of.
There's very little in 4e that needs changing, or at least that needs changing badly enough that a bunch of dudes fucking around in their spare time would be able to improve too much.
Your best bet for fixing the math probably goes like this: Characters get Versatile Expertise for free at level 5, and Improved Defenses for free at level 8.
You could probably also profitably errata Twin Strike so that the second attack does STR or DEX mod damage instead of the die, so that it's not a die roll so that you can't use it to double-dip on static mods.
The bonus feats fix the hard math errors, and the twin strike bit shuts down most of the really stupid striker builds. You could/should probably also give the Rain of Blows treatment to all the multiattack powers, so that they get the stat mod stripped out and do only weapon die damage.
That's really all the system needs that we can reasonably consider ourselves legitimately capable of.
Well, plus additional epic monsters, actually utilizing the item rarity feature, tweaking certain troublesome or undersupported classes (seeker, runepriest, shaman, ardent come to mind), etc. Cleaning out the few trap feats that exist. Hell, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to bolt-on a more granular skill system.
Before anything else, I would focus on cleaning 4E up, rather than rewriting it. 4E could certainly use a range of OPTIONS, but you don't need to eradicate 90% of it to do so.
Just fix the math problem, fill out the missing pieces, standardize the rarity system (Really, you should often have Common->Uncommon->Rare(->Artifact?) versions of the same core concept). Add in scaled versions of as many powers as humanly possible (Lesser Fireball, Fireball, Greater FIreball) so people can keep the same power concepts if they want. Give proper compensation to powers that use neither weapons nor implements. Finish statting the freaking generic monster races.
TL;DR: Basically my point is that dealing damage on a miss is a bad idea because it waters down the game and takes away elements that make it fun. Further, if PCs deal damage on a miss, monsters should too, and that will similarly make the game less fun. In addition, the idea of being able to contribute to the encounter no matter what is better expressed by using the Effect entry, as every combat role has non-damage-dealing mechanics that help it contribute to the encounter.
You couldn't be more wrong. The only thing that's not fun is not doing things, which is exactly what happens on a miss, and more often than not that is true even when a power has an effect rider (the not fun part, that is). Having miss effects be commonplace doesn't water the game down at all, it brings the game to a point where you're fully utilizing all of the design space that's available to you and leveraging it for your goals. Effect and miss entries can further delineate between power choices by having different powers emphasize one over the other or use them to accomplish different goals from the beginning for a particular role or class, bringing a level of fidelity to powers that doesn't exist as it stands right now.
Also, I want to emphasize this line here
Specifically, their attacks did not bypass the target's defenses, so they did not in any way mechanically injure or wound the opponent.
Because this is a terrible thing to say as far as design is concerned. First of all, 'Mechanically injuring or wounding' an opponent is something that needs to be explicitly defined and affect how you want your game to play out, which is a foundational design issue that needs to be addressed if you're taking this little theoretical at all seriously. And one way or the other, since we're using a lot of 4e design as our standard operating point, it is literally a thing that already happens with a variety of powers, and lots of them, too. Specifically, 4e operates from the viewpoint that injuries and wounds do not need to be the result of actually hitting an opponent with anything, because HP is not a direct representation of how much damage you have taken.
The only thing that's not fun is not doing things,
If you take that to the extreme and make the miss effect the same strength as the hit, then you've got a broken, boring game. I think you have to balance your idea with something along the lines of "the roll has to mean something". And I think a lot of players are going to find a penny-ante miss effect as 'consolation' more annoyance than anything.
For people who like miss effects, there can be powers for that, sure. But I think making them universal is over-applying the idea.
Except that I never said it would be the same strength as the hit, or ever suggested that the miss riders would cause the rolls of the game to not mean anything? You're implying things that I haven't even commented on.
Posts
Mearls has a series of polls aimed at investigating what how long people play the same character or campaign. In one of the questions, he wants you to assume that you are playing 'by-the-book' DnD for...two hours per week.
Is that...normal, for anyone? Am I the only guy who schedules DnD to last for an afternoon - 5-6 hours, sometimes more if we everyone can swing it?
My group's DnD routine was generally 'meet up, grab lunch, go back to the shop and play DnD until people got hungry, break for dinner then do something else'. My impression has always been that this (or the evening version, where you meet for dinner instead of lunch and then play until people are tired rather than hungry) is pretty much the standard routine - am I mistaken?
I couldn't disagree more, because the most fundamentally bad thing about D&D is not doing anything on your turn.
e: and yeah our DnD sessions typically are once or twice a month from like, 6 pm to 2 am
I'll agree to that point, but there's a difference between not doing anything, and trying to do something and failing. If I have an at-will attack power with an effect, and I use it, I'm doing something on my turn. If I have an encounter power with an effect and a miss, and I use it, I'm doing something on my turn.
Hit or miss, something still happens, so I'm still doing something.
But, I'm curious, what sort of miss effects would you like to see on an at-will attack power? Let's take a full-class Weaponmaster Fighter's MBA.
What would you add/change?
Or maybe
Miss: you may make a bluff check to convince your foe 'you meant to do that'; gain +1 damage next time you hit that foe with this power.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Okay, so what does Drunken Monkey Style do on a hit? And why can't that be added as an effect, instead of a miss entry? Why can't Drunken Monkey Style be "When you use this style while making a melee basic attack, you and the target swap positions." ?
The second one, why does that have to be built into the power? Why can't rogues, for instance, have a utility power that allows them to do that, maybe once per encounter (and instead have it grant a -2 to defenses until the end of your next turn).
I just don't see any reason why a power needs to do two things on a miss, and two things on a hit, plus damage. It smacks of easy mode.
Wait, why are we talking about an MBA? Especially if we're talking about a fighter he already marks everything he attacks anyway. But I suppose if we're talking about a Weaponmaster; Miss: Str mod damage and/or you push the target one square.
I was just using MBA as an example, because it's easy and simple. And that he marks hit or miss is kind of my point. That class feature basically gives the Fighter an Effect: line on all of their attacks that says "you can mark the target."
First, why should he do damage on a miss? Second, it's actually mechanically a bad idea for Fighters to push targets away from them, because that just sets that enemy up to better avoid the defender.
This is pretty much my point. Let's say I'm a Heavy Blade user. Fighting with a large Sword generally involves a lot of tactical positioning, irl. Now, not to get too simulationist, but there's no reason Fighter's can't/shouldn't have a feature that gives them an additional rider on their MBA that they choose based on the type of weapon they've trained to use.
So, my idea is basically this: Fighter's get two base class features (in addition to others, these are just for this example). One pure defender- you mark the target. The second is specific to the weapon you use. So maybe Heavy Blade users get something like Tide of Iron.
So basically a Fighter's MBA will look like this:
Why isn't that enough? Why must we also give them a miss entry? The fighter is already doing his job as a defender, hit or miss. Why must we also give them damage, just for trying?
Or a Light Blade
Or a flail
Are these options really just not enough? Honestly?
What die(dice) will this system use to resolve actions?
What is our baseline average for success? (this one is already covered)
What are our key ability scores?
What number range do we assign to these?
What are our primary defense scores?
How do we determine these scores?
Is it a level-based system or is expend earned points to increase values?
Do we have a "skill" system?
Do we have a "feat" system?
Do we want to include a "defect/flaw" system?
How do we implement a powers system without obviously lifting it from 4e?
We could lift a lot of the answers to these questions by lifting from the SDR and OGL, but the real hitch here is how do we implement powers without getting "cease and desist" letters?
Struck through items are those I see no reason not to lift directly from 4e. I'm not actually planning to develop a brand new game and sell it or anything. I just want to adjust the mechanics of the existing game in such a way that solves the biggest issues with the system.
The answer to all those questions for what I'm working on is identical to the answers to all those questions wrt 4e.
Concerning the rest...
As for a defect/flaw system, I'm not opposed to it, but I've never really loved them, as they tend to only really help out min/max'ers. I would have to be shown a system and convinced it's adding something meaningful to the game before I was on board.
Ability score range: I see starting scores being either point buy or a standard array, but it really depends on what we do with races. I'm not entirely opposed to throwing out racial ability score bonuses altogether, and just having a standard array of "18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 08." It keeps characters balanced and effective, and immediately improves the performance of a lot of red/purple races (colors refer to the ratings system used by the members of the Character Optimization board on WotC's forums, btw). In effect it levels the playing field of all races, and now you choose a race based more on flavor, because there's less mechanical impact. Other than that, point buy is still perfectly serviceable, but I'd like to see a caveat that prevents starting with a 20 in any ability score.
So back on the question of balance. Why not just have the character get full-level advancement, just like monsters. This seemed to work out pretty well in Gamma World.
Two things:
1) It still doesn't create an even-scaling system, because PCs get almost half-level worth of stuff that improves their stats, in addition to half-level. So if you give PCs and monsters full level, PCs rapidly outpace monsters, so the balance issue is only shifted, not removed.
2) If both monsters and PCs scale with level, why have either scale at all? If the only real difference between a level 2 orc and a level 8 orc is how the numbers look, but the overall percentages of attack and damage are roughly equal, then leveling up only creates the illusion of improvement, not actual improvement.
I really like the "flat curve" idea they're pushing for Next, and I think it's a good idea. If the difference in attack rolls over the course of six levels is only 5-10%, that makes hugely increases how useful monsters can be, and allows for something like a minion that's not quite. It further produces a meaningful system for multi-hit minions (something that's mostly cannon fodder, but still needs to be hit more than once to go down).
Yeah, I know, I put about 10 seconds in that post (I was between classes at the time). But if you're going to ask the question 'why should he do damage on a miss' then you should also be asking 'why shouldn't he be doing damage on a miss?'. Really, you're missing the point of the argument completely - I don't care whether it's damage on miss or whatever, but we should be doing as much as possible when designing powers and abilities to make sure that players turns aren't wasted even if they roll poorly and there's no reason not to use every part of an attack power in order to get there (hit/miss/effect lines in this case if we're not adding anything additional into it).
In this case it makes sense for a power who's Hit mechanic is damage to provide a smaller amount of damage on a Miss. Just like if some daily ability was dominate on Hit, then you could have stun (or whatever level or power appropriate miss rider) on a miss, with some subsequent effect that occurs regardless of how your dice rolled.
When you start talking about flat curves and scaling, you have to think about what leveling means at all, and how you're going to represent increased power and experience.
They shouldn't be doing damage on a miss because they didn't hit. Specifically, their attacks did not bypass the target's defenses, so they did not in any way mechanically injure or wound the opponent. Further, I understand your argument, which is that we should use every option in the power format, but I disagree with that argument. There is reason not to use every part of an attack power, because having every attack, even at-wills, have hit/miss/effect entries introduces more complexity into the game than might be necessary. You can reach a point of diminishing returns, after which things you add to try to improve the experience of the game end up either not really adding much fun, adding in some fun but also some frustration, or not really adding any fun at all, and making the game more complex and hard to understand on top of that. Hit and Effect are sufficient to allow the player to always contribute meaningfully on every attack, while still leaving the elements of combat that d20 RPGs are known for. If the only reason I'm rolling to attack is to add another d8 damage, that takes a huge amount of tension out of the game, which I think would make the game less fun.
Also I'm really only talking about at-will attacks here. I have no issue with Encounter powers doing a bit of damage on a miss. But, really, for me, if the attack does anything on a miss that it doesn't already do on a hit, then the power is awkwardly designed (Lead by Example, Warlord Daily 1, MP1 p 104). If it has effects that it deals hit or miss, then that's better expressed through an Effect entry (Warpriest at-wills). The only reason to use Miss entries is for reduced benefits based on the hit line (less damage, daze instead of stun, etc).
Further, from a system symmetry standpoint, how does all this affect monsters? If all PCs are doing damage hit or miss, shouldn't monsters get the same treatment? Now you have PCs taking damage every single turn, and that could make things less fun for PCs who like to build toward high defenses, or take powers that help them prevent getting hit (like Shield). Now the player says, "wait, he did damage anyway? That sucks." Not to mention the fact that monsters dealing damage on a miss has a disproportional effect on "squishy" characters. Again, look at the Wizard, or the Assassin (not Executioner). Very low HP, but a lot of ways of avoiding hits. Now they're taking damage every turn no matter what, and those classes simply can't deal with that. It creates a slippery slope, because now we have to either reduce monster damage (making the miss effect trivial and not worth keeping around), or give PCs more HP (accomplishing the same thing, only making monster attacks less meaningful overall as well).
For the record, I'm not saying this is 100% how it should be all the time every time always. I'm saying that if every power, even every at-will, is designed to have a hit/miss/effect entry as a general rule it will make the game needlessly complex, and tie the system into a set of rules that makes power design more complicated. Maybe Fighters can have an at-will that does Str mod damage on a miss, but has no other effects (aside from marking). Maybe something like Scorching Burst (a now maligned wizard at-will because it has no effects) could do half damage on a miss (because fireball). But those I think work better as exceptions, not the rule.
Further, on a system-wide scale, why should a controller always deal damage on a miss? Again, does that suit the purpose the Controller role is designed for? I don't think it does. I think a better idea is something like the Druid's Swarming Locusts power. It has an Effect entry that creates a zone the causes enemies in it to grant Combat Advantage. From a control standpoint, that's a good idea, because, hit or miss, that power still contributes meaningfully to the controller's job in an encounter.
TL;DR: Basically my point is that dealing damage on a miss is a bad idea because it waters down the game and takes away elements that make it fun. Further, if PCs deal damage on a miss, monsters should too, and that will similarly make the game less fun. In addition, the idea of being able to contribute to the encounter no matter what is better expressed by using the Effect entry, as every combat role has non-damage-dealing mechanics that help it contribute to the encounter.
This is where I'm at, too. It almost sounds like 'flattening the curve' means "we're going to fix epic by not letting characters get that powerful ever again."
I will agree with this completely. I don't think the answer is to drop scaling at all, but I do think the game would benefit from a slightly flatter curve. As it stands, in my games (anecdotal), an enemy more than 2 levels below the PCs is little more than free XP.
I do think there should be a curve. I also think that as you cross from one tier to the next there should be a bump. A level 7 monster should be more of a threat to a level 10 PC than a level 8 monster is to a level 11 PC. Mostly because that makes attaining each new tier a significant thing, and helps differentiate the tiers from one another. I just think the curve over the course of each tier should be a bit flatter, so that monsters can still be more than a fly on a windshield once the PCs are more than 2 levels above them.
better armor would perhaps provide damage reduction. warhammer already does this
I'm aware that it could make combat very busy and confusing, but I would still like to see it tested.
It can be highly frustrating, especially in a larger group, where it might take 10 min or more to get back to your turn, only to have some spectacularly bad rolls mean you whiff and spend another 10-20-30+ minutes staring at the map, hoping your next daring plan isn't foiled by an inexcusable number of 1's rolled.
I'm not saying all attacks should deal damage (though it would be a way to avoid a string of bad luck extending an encounter significantly beyond the expected time allotted), but being able to guarantee 'something' happening on your turn would be appreciated.
Note; I'm aware that many DM's (especially good ones) will account for this by shifting the battle (knocking off 50 hp, whatever) if the players are getting tired/bored/restless, but while any system should strive to help DM's at all ends to be better at what they do, I don't think it's entirely a bad idea to bake in either.
What if that was a common rider for Striker at wills (assuming a similar Role system was kept)? Half damage or mod damage or something, so that even when they miss it's more of a graze than a complete whiffing of nothing but air? Of course, I'm not in love with the idea of players who can never fail to do damage either, I'm sure someone would break that wide open. Just thinking out loud.
Strikers - cumalitive +1 tohit, resets when they hit / slide
Leaders - small heal / give teammate a chance to save vs an effect
Controllers - shift target / minor debuff target
Two hours is normal for what they've been focusing on for the past couple years, that being Encounters and other such con/store events. Whether or not they're obsessed with that because that's where the money is, or because they're just plain obsessed, is to be determined.
Maybe on average that's about right, because my campaign, my friend's series of Dungeon adventures, etc. don't run every week, but when they do... yeah. Way longer than two hours, and that's even with my friends being adults with kids and grad school and shit.
---
I'm on board with the original idea of preserving/supporting 4e further, and while I'm not a char-op guy or anything I have internets skills if they're necessary. To be honest the idea of improving 4e is only interesting to me if it's along the level of "replace this table in the DM screen" or "adjust monster hit points and defenses to blah". Changes affecting PCs sound prohibitive and more like a new edition. Really though I think there's enough meat for a fan production in the original spec. Especially since one of these years my campaign will hit epic tier.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Your best bet for fixing the math probably goes like this: Characters get Versatile Expertise for free at level 5, and Improved Defenses for free at level 8.
You could probably also profitably errata Twin Strike so that the second attack does STR or DEX mod damage instead of the die, so that it's not a die roll so that you can't use it to double-dip on static mods.
The bonus feats fix the hard math errors, and the twin strike bit shuts down most of the really stupid striker builds. You could/should probably also give the Rain of Blows treatment to all the multiattack powers, so that they get the stat mod stripped out and do only weapon die damage.
That's really all the system needs that we can reasonably consider ourselves legitimately capable of.
Well, plus additional epic monsters, actually utilizing the item rarity feature, tweaking certain troublesome or undersupported classes (seeker, runepriest, shaman, ardent come to mind), etc. Cleaning out the few trap feats that exist. Hell, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to bolt-on a more granular skill system.
Just fix the math problem, fill out the missing pieces, standardize the rarity system (Really, you should often have Common->Uncommon->Rare(->Artifact?) versions of the same core concept). Add in scaled versions of as many powers as humanly possible (Lesser Fireball, Fireball, Greater FIreball) so people can keep the same power concepts if they want. Give proper compensation to powers that use neither weapons nor implements. Finish statting the freaking generic monster races.
So much basic tidying up to do first.
You couldn't be more wrong. The only thing that's not fun is not doing things, which is exactly what happens on a miss, and more often than not that is true even when a power has an effect rider (the not fun part, that is). Having miss effects be commonplace doesn't water the game down at all, it brings the game to a point where you're fully utilizing all of the design space that's available to you and leveraging it for your goals. Effect and miss entries can further delineate between power choices by having different powers emphasize one over the other or use them to accomplish different goals from the beginning for a particular role or class, bringing a level of fidelity to powers that doesn't exist as it stands right now.
Also, I want to emphasize this line here
Because this is a terrible thing to say as far as design is concerned. First of all, 'Mechanically injuring or wounding' an opponent is something that needs to be explicitly defined and affect how you want your game to play out, which is a foundational design issue that needs to be addressed if you're taking this little theoretical at all seriously. And one way or the other, since we're using a lot of 4e design as our standard operating point, it is literally a thing that already happens with a variety of powers, and lots of them, too. Specifically, 4e operates from the viewpoint that injuries and wounds do not need to be the result of actually hitting an opponent with anything, because HP is not a direct representation of how much damage you have taken.
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
If you take that to the extreme and make the miss effect the same strength as the hit, then you've got a broken, boring game. I think you have to balance your idea with something along the lines of "the roll has to mean something". And I think a lot of players are going to find a penny-ante miss effect as 'consolation' more annoyance than anything.
For people who like miss effects, there can be powers for that, sure. But I think making them universal is over-applying the idea.
If it is large compared to the hit, then the roll becomes less and less important.
How you would balance between those two tensions is unclear to me.
perhaps some sort of middle ground
or an ability that doesn't directly mirror the hit effect to some lesser or greater degree
hmm
perhaps we can then use math to find some way to scale these effects appropriately
Ok, I'm done.
With blackjack.
And hookers.
In fact forget the 4E.
Think maybe a seperate thread is in order?