4E Preview

[GawainBS]

Have you ever played RPGA? If you did, you wouldn't be so certain of the saneness of Wizards...

[Kheros]

HaHA, no, I haven't played in the RPGA

[GawainBS]

Heed these words of Wisdom 42: Never do.

[Uller]

I agree with you all on the hitpoint theory but like I said before this makes the game more of a "plan your build from the outset" kind of game rather than a "see what the dice gods deal you" game which to me is still the point of a dice game over that of a PC game. But hey I am not saying any of you are wrong I think you are all right in fact just that I think maybe there needs to be the option then built into the character advancement that allows the player to either A) take a chance and roll the d10 for hitpoints or B) take the 6 points on offer and continue.

As much as the logic leads the game to it making sense not to roll a dice for hitpoints I still think you need that option. And yes it is sucky to roll a 1 or 2 on the hitpoint dice but then again it forces you to "look outside the square" and come up with something different rather than the "planned build" from the outset.

But like I said I think your points are all valid and good but I just think there needs to be that flexibility in some of the "improvements".

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by Uller

I agree with you all on the hitpoint theory but like I said before this makes the game more of a "plan your build from the outset" kind of game rather than a "see what the dice gods deal you" game which to me is still the point of a dice game over that of a PC game. But hey I am not saying any of you are wrong I think you are all right in fact just that I think maybe there needs to be the option then built into the character advancement that allows the player to either A) take a chance and roll the d10 for hitpoints or B) take the 6 points on offer and continue.

As much as the logic leads the game to it making sense not to roll a dice for hitpoints I still think you need that option. And yes it is sucky to roll a 1 or 2 on the hitpoint dice but then again it forces you to "look outside the square" and come up with something different rather than the "planned build" from the outset.

But like I said I think your points are all valid and good but I just think there needs to be that flexibility in some of the "improvements".

And 3.5 isn't a game were you plan ahead? I think planning ahead is one of the essential things in RPGs. You're always building your character towards a certain end, even in the RP context.
I understand that you like the idea of getting "your cards dealt and rolling with the punches", but it can also be frustrating. One example I can think of is the Warhammer Fantasy RPG: you get to roll your starting class. Cool idea, while oh so aggravating if you wanted to play, say, a whily rogue and you roll a dwarven soldier. You can say that this is good, since real life doesn't grant you choices. Three points: a) It's a hobby, and a fantasy game, and generally those are made to escape real life. b) An RPG character is a huge time investment and being forced to spend that tile in a way that doesn't suit you, is insane. c) I think it's pretty safe to assume that your character spend his entire youth and teenage to reach his "starting class".

[Uller]

But that is just it GawainBS, I think you have hit the nail(or should I say Warhammered the nail on the head) on the head. Not everyone plays rpg's to be able to plan a build of their character. I know for a fact a stack load of people that play the game play it as a form of escapism where they do not have to worry about planning and strategy. I absolutely agree it is frustrating as hell to have the dice influence how successful your character is going to turn out...and agree that this alone would probably put a lot of players off due to this but also you have to realise that people play the role playing game entirely for just its escapism and aspect of chance also.

All I think is that there should have been an option to role a dice instead of take the 6 on offer. I would find it that much more rewarding knowing that I have made an interesting build influenced by the "chance" aspect in the game and the journey rather than know exactly how my character is going to turn out along the way.

To me a role of 1 or 2 on the hitpoint dice makes you think outside the square a lot more and this is a good thing. Who says a character with low hitpoints can not be a successful one? Geepers I have had several characters that have been Fighter types that have had very low hitpoints.

And since the realism aspect has been brought up I have to make mention that life never deals you up a straight forward plan. There is no such thing as "I am going to be X and the path that I take will lead straight towards X" It rarely happens that way so I think from a realism point of view a role of the dice as to hitpoints would just make the journey a little more challenging.

[GawainBS]

I can live with some randomness, but not the magintude of randomness I described you would get by rolling classes. I know, you never suggested that.
Believe, I liked rolling HP's, but I also know that over the course of levels, coupled with a high CON scores, especially for characters that needed the HP, rolling is generally evened out, so getting fixed HP won't make a huge, if even noticable, gameplay impact at all. Maybe the first few levels.

[Uller]

Yup, fully agree. However the bulk of adventures or campaigns that I have been in over the 20 odd years of playing have been the funnest during those early levels. I find that later levels hitpoints pretty much become less and less of an influence on the outcome considering most things can kill you with one spell or critical hit...

And absolutely, constitution plays a big part and always will and hence the roll of a 1 or 2 is really no big deal when you have a e.g. +3 to constitution but its those chances to role a 10 or a 9 that make the bonus even all the more satisfying...potential for 13 hitpoint increase instead of 9 (on offer)...but hey you might role a 2 next time but then again you may not...

[GawainBS]

My main gripe with the lowest levels is that you can be killed by a lucky hamster. That's one point the new edition adresses, which is very, very good.

[Uller]

Agreed, thats why I always endorse giving max hitpoints for first level characters then role for their hitpoints each level afterwards. There is always going to be that element of risk and chance. Heck its what makes the characters that survive all the more heroic! I have probably had betwenn 15 and 20 characters die in my playing time but to me this is a blessing in disguise cos it lets me build a new one knowing the dynamics of the current team and the better understanding of the campaign setting that I am currently in.

I always believe in the chance that a "lucky hamster" may do a crit and kill character element to remain....if you didn't have that element where is the fun in that? I agree it is frustrating when your character dies but then again you look at it on the other hand it is an "opportunity" to try something new.

[GawainBS]

But the "Lucky Hamster" gets really tedious. With a streak of badluck, you might end up killing the party without intending it. Quite annoying if everybody has written a background that meshes in with the campaign and so on...

[Uller]

I agree, could be tedious if that happened however it takes something pretty special to kill an entire party....its something really a DM should have control on if things are heading that way...have had a lot of situations where the bulk of the party have been knocked down to below zero before and the party has just scraped through. Those are the battles and encounters that are very memorable....

But you have brought up some very valid points and from reading the 4E rules pretty much it is aimed at making the job a lot easier for the DM so maybe it was a decision in that direction to snub out the rolling of the hitpoints?

[GawainBS]

I hope the decision was made with that in mind, Uller, but I find the designers at Wizards to be pretty lousy at gametesting. They put up a series of articles describing their testing sessions, and they all made very, very sub-par builds. I'm not saying it's wrong to play D&D that way, heck, if you're having fun playing a Commonor, more power to you, but is IS wrong to playtest the game that way. You don't perform a crashtest on a car by making it drive at 5km/h and let it hit a wall of foam cushioned with geesefeathers, do you?

[Uller]

Fully agree, considering the size of D&D and the fact that it is pretty much the role model or "pin up boy" for most other role playing games around you would think Wizards of the Sword Coast should be making sure that the testing is pretty intensive.

Yeah, I hope they tested the game from various levels. No good re-inventing rules to a game that is fun only at the low levels but slow and too much hard work at the higher levels...

[GawainBS]

To be honest, I doubt it. It took my friend Pandaroon exactly 5 minutes to come up with something broken with that PDF. Of course, those are only preliminary rules, but still.
Take a bunch of half-elfs, let them squeeze together, and you get about a +30 or 40 unnamed bonus to diplomacy checks. Need we continue?