Newsgroup: it.hobby.giochi.gdr.dnd
Titolo: QUARTA edizione 4th - una giocata negativa e osservazioni  chiarificatrici di alcuni problemi

una giocata negativa con le regole parziali che stiamo usando pure noi
la cosa interessante sono le risposte di diversi sviluppatori (visto
che il playtest lo avevano fatto ex dipendenti WotC tra cui Sean K
Reynolds) che chiariscono alcuni problemi che hanno avuto un pò tutti
è lungo e vale la pena leggere tutte le risposte in particolare quelle
di gamescribe (Rodney Thompson) e mearls (Mike Mearls)
tra le altre cose il fatto che la sfida del paladino funziona solo se
il paladino continua ad attaccare il nemico
http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/41107.html
ad ogni modo riporto quelli più interessanti e dense di info
In case you guys decide to give it another stab... (gamescribe)
Just in case you guys decide to give it another go, here are some
responses to comments/questions:
So far, I've used my cleric's "once per encounter" power--and whiffed.
Boy, that blows. (Update: In fact, I whiffed again on my next and only
other use of the power. Sigh.)
I'm curious--is this a complaint about encounter powers, or just
lamenting the bad dice? If it's the former, do you feel any different
than you did in 3.5 when a monster made its saving throw against a
spell, or you failed to penetrate SR, or when you miss with that
paladin smite?
Monsters running in to join the encounter makes sense--especially
given a) the scenario and b) recent 3.5 adventures--but it still feels
like drawing aggro in an MMO. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I believe this is part of the adventure design, as it's not anything
hard-coded into the rules of 4E.
The "55% save" against effects (like the glue pot) just seems odd--
like they really wanted to just make it a coin toss, but decided that
that was too obvious, so they made it a "10 or better on a d20.
Well, it does add some granularity to the roll, and allows you to have
monsters that have "+4 to saves" or allow an ally to let you make
another save at +2, for example. If it was a simple coin toss, it's so
binary you can't do anything with it. Also, it may help you to think
of saves not as "I avoid taking damage" so much as this edition's
version of duration rolls.
We are finding the "passive Perception" thing a bit off-putting. The
short version is that, instead of rolling a Perception check against
someone's Stealth check, you just add 10 to both.
Stealth still has to be rolled; there's no "Passive Stealth."
Likewise, Passive Perception is only used when you're not actively
looking for someone, as you probably already figured out. It's a way
for the DM to determine whether you notice something without usingthe
metagame-inspiring "OK, everyone give me a Perception check."
Despite the dragon being twice our "EL" (yes, I'm using a 3.X term
here), and despite us taking huge amounts of damage right off the bat,
we survived for several rounds into the fight.
The dragon fight is in there to showcase exactly how the higher-level
solo monster interacts with a party of 4. Also, I believe the defenses
are all 2 points too high on the stats that are floating around the
interwebs.
We're curious as to why the 5-foot-adjustment was in need of a
fix ...
Because the importance of movement as a whole has been altered in 4E.
I moved around behind Sean's unconscious paladin to heal him--despite
Sean's protestations that he only had one "strike" against him on his
stabilization rolls--and took a dragon bite, a dragon tail, and some
dragon spit. On my next action, I dropped to -2 hit points.
That seems like an awful lot of actions for the dragon to take as a
result of you going to heal someone. It may be that your GM misplayed
it...but then again, that dragon is way too tough for most 1st-level
parties.
It could be that 4E suffers from the "designer in the box" syndrome--
the idea that a game seems a lot cooler when it's being demoed by the
people who designed it, but less so when it's demoed by someone who
doesn't have the same enthusiasm for the game.
I'm curious, were you at WotC when 3E debuted? If not...how did your
first experiences with 3E stack up to this? 3E is a much more radical
departure from 2E than 4E is from 3E in my opinion, so I'd be
interested to know why you felt this wasn't D&D.
Why couldn't they have posted their demo adventures and cheat sheets
and sample characters as PDFs on their website on Monday morning after
the show ended?
The sample characters and cheat sheets are available on the WotC
website. The adventures are not, because all of the DMs who ran the
adventures at D&D XP had access to the 4th Edition PHB, and so the
adventures do not include the necessary information to run the game.
Now, should those adventures be posted? Maybe so. But the Raiders of
Oakhurst adventure is NOT one of the D&D Experience modules; it's fan-
made using secondhand knowledge of 4E.
Re: Examples (mearls)
"Mike Mearls actually said that they'd spotted the problem with the
Paladin Mark before the convention, but for some reason hadn't fixed
the character sheets. Go figure."
Because the change to the paladin's ability was my personal Helm's
Deep! I do not kid - it was me, sitting at my desk, surrounding by
five or so people, all telling me that I was wrong to change the
paladin's ability. The really, really funny thing is that all the
playtesters were abusing the rule, but they *liked* abusing it, so
they never reported it as a bug. All we received were non-specific
complaints from people that the paladin was clearly better than the
fighter.
Noonan was the first one to specifically point out the issue in a
playtest. From there, it was a matter of convincing people that gamers
would indeed play against the spirit of the rule - sometimes, theme
needs a stout wooden stick to back up its promises.
Anyway, we made the change, and then D&D XP served up a big old salad
bar of Mike was right. I love it when that happens!
Anyway, it's always interesting to read actual play reports. Thanks
for posting this, JD.
Re: Examples (mearls)
The change requires the paladin to "paladin up" and actually fight the
guy.
The paladin's mark is generally better if you fight one big, tough
guy. He can force that one opponent to focus on him or take damage.
The fighter's mark is a little less reliable in that it keys off
making attacks. However, the fighter is much better at handling groups
of enemies. The fighter puts the risk of extra attacks on foes, and
while he might miss he might also crit, or he might carry a big axe
and do more damage on average than the paladin.
BTW, both the fighter's and the paladin's abilities are different in
the final game. I don't think a week went by in the past 6 months
where they didn't change, or we had to spend time talking about a
potential change. Both classes figure prominently in Mike's anxiety
nightmares about 4e's utter failure. =)
Re: Examples (mearls)
Yeah, the ranger suffered from a math error in PC correction. I think
someone added a bonus twice and then added a slice of bonus damage to
Accurate Attack that wasn't supposed to be there.
Yup, that's us, putting our best foot forward, right into our mouths.
Anyway, glad you enjoyed the game.
Re: Examples (gamescribe)
At least two characters had an at-will power that was obviously worse
than another one of their at-will powers. You'd look at your character
sheet and say, "why would I ever X when I can Y, because Y is simply
better?" Keri's is the best example, she has two at-will attacks that
deal damage, but one deals more damage than the other at the same
attack value.
Kerri was playing the warlock, right? IIRC, she has eldritch blast
which is the big damage-dealer, but she also has eyebite which does
less damage, it's true, but also makes you invisible to the target for
a round. That's pretty good, as it's a great way for the less-than-
hearty warlock to avoid taking damage from a bad guy. Likewise, her
ray of frost was a wizard multiclass power, and it also has a slowing
effect on it. The damage may be different, but a difference in damage
usually comes with other effects.
The paladin has the ability to mark a target with a taunt-like
ability, so the target has an attack penalty against everyone but you
AND takes damage every time it attacks someone other than you. And
players realized at D&D Experience that there's no duration to the
ability, so the paladin can mark someone, run away, and that target is
marked FOREVER, always taking damage against any target other than the
paladin.
As Merric pointed out, that was actually a result of Organized Play
using an old draft of the rules. Similarly, you're jumping to a lot of
conclusions about the duration of the paladin's challenge, since those
D&D XP character sheets had a limited amount of space on them.
Healing surges/second wind are nice, it takes a little bit of the
burden off the cleric character. Which is good, because the cleric's
ability to heal just plain sucks. JD's cleric could heal people in
combat TWICE per encounter. Any more than that, it's second wind and
hope for the best.
Also keep in mind that you're playing a first-level character, which
is going to have more limited options. And I completely disagree about
the cleric healing sucking. A cleric with a good relevant ability
score can more than double your healing surge value on a good roll.
Our 5th level cleric in my Wednesday night campaign regularly adds 11
points onto my healing surges...and I only get back 11 hp per surge.
That's as good as using 2 uses of lay on hands right there, and it
doesn't even take into account the cleric's other powers, like his
daily that increases the amount he heals someone by even more.
Re: Examples (gamescribe)
Eldritch Blast does 1d10+4 damage, and Eyebite does 1d6+4. Clearly,
Eldritch Blast is better.
From a pure damage perspective? Sure. It's an average of 2 points of
damage per attack.
Does that mean any time I attack with my bow (or whatever a basic
ranged attack is) I can invoke Eldritch Blast and do EXTRA damage? I
don't know enough about the rules to know if that's how this works.
No. Sometimes you get to make a basic attack as a result of a
situation or power (opportunity attacks and charges use basic melee
attacks, for example). The warlord, for example, has some abilities
that let him do X, and then let an ally within Y squares make a basic
attack. That's one case where you'd be able to use that particular
aspect of eldritch blast, but otherwise it doesn't come into play.
Well, that's kind of neat, but since it expires at the start of my
turn, that really limits its usefulness. And if I moved prior to using
Eyebite and therefore can't move invisibly after using it, then aside
from probably preventing me from being attacked directly (which I
never was anyway), it's totally useless.
Against a solo monster? Probably so. But remember that the typical 4E
encounter is going to have at least one monster per hero, sometimes
more if there are minions involved, so being invisible to someone
close to you on their turn is big. It's basically "you can't attack
me" insurance. Similarly, if you spend an action point to take another
action, you could use that action to move and gain the benefits of
that invisibility. Is eyebite more situational? Sure. But...it's an
option you wouldn't even HAVE under the previous versions of the game.
Also, it's important to note that the warlock is much squishier than
the ranger, who gets the benefit of tougher armors, so he needs the
occasional attack avoidance/deterrence ability to compensate for lower
AC.
_________________
ciao, Fabio

 Reynolds) che chiariscono alcuni problemi che hanno avuto un pò tutti
Mah, mi fa specie che in un gruppo con Reynolds, Stan! e JD Wiker
siano riusciti a fraintendere "Healing Word" e a non notare che Ray of
Frost è utile non solo perchè rallenta l'avversario, ma soprattutto
perchè è più facile colpire maghi avversari (ad esempio il PG mago di
test è molto più vulnerabile al Ray of Frost che agli altri attacchi
del PG warlock).
GP

 del PG warlock).
vero, ma secondo me SKR sta gufando per cazzimma sua
--
Fabio

 wrote:
<snippolo>
l'impressione č che sia tutto piů immediato, piů fast-packed e piů...
governabile (scusate ma non riesco a trovare un termine piů adatto)
dal giocatore. Si riesce sempre ad avere sotto controllo senza
perdersi in tabelle, pagine, tiri assortiti ecc.
L'altro effetto č quello di rendere le scene piů cinematiche, piů
d'impatto, dove anche giocatori con scarsa inventiva riescono a tirar
fuori belle trovate.
Spero venga tutto confermato quando metterň le mie avide manine
sull'edizione originale e italiana della 4ed.
ciau

perchč č piů facile colpire maghi avversari
Devo ammettere che l'opportunita' di colpire una difesa diversa non
salta subito all'occhio. Poi bisogna vedere che tipi di mostri
presenta l'avventura - una cosa che in teoria non dovrei sapere, visto
che giochiamo proprio quella nel nostro playtest - ma ti posso dire
che nell'incontro iniziale per esempio abbiamo affrontato degli
hobgoblin che avevano tutte le difese piuttosto alte.
Parvati V
-- 
"Cosa e' celvello? Pai non ha cosa del genele" - Pai, 3x3 occhi
UnaMoleDiDadi (TreEmme Torino): 
http://umdd.altervista.org/
http://parvatiquinta.blogspot.com/

 salta subito all'occhio.
Ok, ma loro fanno di professione i game designer, eh!
GP

 sull'edizione originale e italiana della 4ed.
Sottoscrivo. Sono in fervida attesa :) 

Ok, ma loro fanno di professione i game designer, eh!
Beh, quelle schede erano pensate per essere "chiarite" dai DM della
cnovention. Ma se il tuo DM ha in mano le tue stesse regole incomplete
e ne sa piu' o meno quanto te...
