4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[msa]

Instead of Save or Die, its Succeed and Kill - which in my thinking is kind of the same thing.

If a monster maxes its attack roll against my defense, I'm just as dead, I just don't get a "save" to oppose the roll.

Or do I have this idea completely mixed up - explain please?

GP

I believe those two discussions were unrelated...

The first point is that the onus of determining if a spell works is on the caster now instead of the target. They are functionally equivalent, its just that they are not consistent with most other challenges in the game.

The second paragraph, I think, makes separate points. First, there is still a saving through in 4e, but it is now exclusively a duration tracker. Very few effects have durations... they last until the target saves (I'm not sure why they did this considering). Second, I think, is an independent statement about them getting rid of 'save or die' or more accurately 'instant kill' effects.

Am I right?

[wormspeaker]

I would argue that there is nothing new under the sun here... To me, role playing is something that is personal to each and every player, NOT inherent in a game system. Some people complain about D&D not having much role playing fluff and say they prefer other systems because they provide much more. But at the same time, many of the other systems touted have little to no published adventures revolving around them while D&D does and it does have some of said fluff. In aggregate, I would argue that D&D has far more RPing fluff than many systems out there, it's called novels.

I would certainly agree that there is nothing inherently more or less RP about D&D 4th Edition. There might even be more in there than the first edition books. I don't remember the 1st edition books going into much detail about how to role play, but I could just pull the PHB off the shelf at home and take a look to refresh my memory.

I will say that D&D (in general) has less of an RP bent than many other systems out there. Pendragon, the World of Darkeness books, and most of the rules light systems (such as BESM) all have a much larger focus on RP than D&D does. Nothing wrong with that of course (and some of those games might not be the kind of RP you like anyway) but they certainly put greater emphasis on it than D&D does.

However, there is nothing in D&D that says you can't focus on RP, it's just that the mechanics and source material do not support your efforts as much as other systems do. So it then falls on the GM/DM and players to promote it. Which I think is actually a good thing, because I know a lot of people who would have been turned off by the RP expectations of say, WoD if they had not been eased into the hobby with D&D.

Now of course I have had the rust blown off with a few months of running a D&D4e campaign and I'm ready to move back into a character driven rules light or rules medium game, and I think so are my players. I've been getting some complaints about the endless hack and slash progression of the current module we are running, so I am starting to take liberties with the module in order to juice up the RP a little. (I’d advise against buying the “Scepter Tower of Spellguard” module, it’s just a series of hack and slash encounters once the players get underground. While they’re above ground there are some RP opportunities, but the module provides little support in that regard. My players are thoroughly sick of it and we aren’t more than half way through with it.)

[dormouse]

I see the loss of the saving throw as a major hit at the feel of the game, though I can understand that it streamlines it.

Taking damage in an encounter is expected and, most of the time, it is not going to be fatal. The impact of spells, poison etc is frequently much greater. So the attacker has a throw - "Hit." ; defender feels oh no, , what am I saving against, oh dear my saving throw is not too good; throws, succeeds - relief on the one side and pleasure and anticipation frustrated on the other. Without saves, there is none of the to and fro of the tension.

[Gamerprinter]

One more point. I already understand that the onus is on the caster not the defender regarding success in a magic attack. However, even though my save or die roll is gone. Its been replaced by max roll by caster against my defense. In kind of sort of way, he blows my save for me, rathering than me doing it to myself.

Again I don't quite grasp the concept. But it doesn't seem to gone at all, just switched around as to who gets to roll my save. Its the opponent, not me, but the result is exactly the same.

I can't get my head around that, to see the difference.

GP

[NeonKnight]

NK, this is a question not a critique - so if an attacker is trying to get around an opponents defense, and the "save or die" mechanic is gone, what if the attacker rolls a 20 or whatever maximum roll to enable that mechanic. In the opposite way, isn't that the same the thing, rather, "I maxed my roll against my opponents defense - and now that defender dies."

Instead of Save or Die, its Succeed and Kill - which in my thinking is kind of the same thing.

If a monster maxes its attack roll against my defense, I'm just as dead, I just don't get a "save" to oppose the roll.

Or do I have this idea completely mixed up - explain please?

GP

In 3.5 weapons had these huge Critical Hits (Example a Great Axe was a d12, if it critted it did 3x damage. That was EVERYTHING x3, so in the hands of someone wielding it two handed (which it had to be) with a 20 Strength (most Orcs), with a +4 Strength Modifier they got an additional 1.5 added to the strength modifier. So a normal attack was 1d12 + 6 (strength mod x1.5). When they critted this would be 3x 1d12 + 3x6 or 3d12 +18.

So the damage would then be between 21 (3 1's +18 ) to 54 (3x12 +18 ). And this was against a party of first level characters

In 4e rolling a crit is never so swingy. Rolling a crit simply means Maximum Damage, No die roll necessary. Wielding a weapon that does 1d8 +3 (Strength Modifier for example), means a Critical Hit deals 8+3 or 11 damage. Should one be weilding a High Critical weapon (Like a Great Axe) then they roll an additional d6 to add to the damage. Magic weapons add additional d6s to the damage, on the order of 1d6 per ‘plus’ of the weapon, so a +3 weapon adds 3d6 to the damage dealt.

That is how crits work. Same for Spells, If I attack the Goblin horde with a fireball, her is the ‘Power’ writeup for Fireball :

Fireball Wizard Attack 5
A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at
your enemies, and it explodes on impact.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Fire, Implement
Standard Action Area burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage.
Miss: Half damage.

So a fireball is always 3d6 + my intelligence modifier, half damage on a miss. Pretty similar to previous editions. If I score a hit with my fireball (succeed my attack roll against your Reflex score, getting a bonus on my attack roll with my Intelligence Modifier, much Like Strength Vs AC of fighters), you take 3d6+Modifier. If I miss, you take half. If I crit then you take 18+modifier (3 6’s + Modifier).

Save-Or-Die effects in previous editions were spells like Disintigrate, or Phantasmal Killer, or even god Forbid the 2nd Level Spell of Hold Person, or even 1st level Sleep at low levels. These were ‘Save-or-Die’. If you were hit with a Disintegrate spell and failed your saving throw you were dead. No if’s, and’s or but’s.

Hold Person and Sleep, while not killing you outright meant close to the same thing. Hit with one of those and you were out of the fight, and an easy target for a coup-des-grac.

So, now, (using Hold Person as an example), lets say you are hit with the 4e equivalent. You are now ‘restrained’. Restrained means you cannot move, but you can still attack, and do other actions, you just can’t move from that spot (unless you have abilities like teleport that allow ‘movement’ without ‘moving’). Then at the end of your turn you make a saving throw versus the restrained condition. You roll a d20, if it comes up 1-9 you continue to be restrained (held), if you roll 10-20, then you shake the effect.

This is not to say that the ‘really, really bad things’ are gone from the game, Some of them are still there, example being Petrification (Basilisks, medusa, etc). But they are not the ‘quickie’ they are currently.

So, here is an example of a medusa gaze attack:
C Petrifying Gaze (Standard, at-will) F Gaze, Petrification
Close blast 5; blind creatures are immune; +16 vs Fortitude; the target is slowed (save ends). First Failed Save: The target is immobilized instead of slowed (save ends). Second Failed Save: The target is petrified (no save).

First, the attack needs to hit you (so the medusa needs to succeed with the gaze attack, and that has a very short range (I think 3 squares), then you need to fail 2 saves (each with a 55% chance of success), before you ‘expire’. Even then there are lots of abilities to assist you in making those saves with a better chance of success (example make the save with a roll of 8+ or even 6+ or 4+.

Does this answer your question?

[torstan]

Well there are two points here. First of all, there are no instant kill effects. It's now 'succeed and damage' rather than 'succeed and kill' to steal your terminology. This is a big change and makes high level play reasonable. Otherwise in a 4 person party someone was going to die on average 1 in every 5 encounters because someone would cast finger of death and those are the odds that someone rolls a one. That's not a reasonable system for high level combats unless you really are all happy with everyone being resurrected every now and again.

As for the difference between a saving throw I make and an attack someone else makes, there really is very little to it. Essentially the mechanic of the 3.5 save is roll a d20 and add your bonus - if this hits the AC (the save DC) then you win! Now 4e just looked at that and figured out it was the same mechanic as an attack roll, so why should the defender be rolling the save? So they decided to lump all the mechanics together, got rid of saving throws as we knew them and made the attacker roll the random chance as a to hit. The odds shouldn't have changed much (other than being a little more balanced) but you know have one less mechanic - and wizards roll to hit with fireballs just like a fighter rolls to hit with a sword. And they can critical too - which is very cool.

To answer Doormouse, I agree that the moment of terror you get when you ask a player to make a will save isn't there any more. But you still get a similar degree of terror by describing the arcane chanting of the enemy and then asking what their will defence is. Your players will be holding your breath when you roll the dice.

The 4e saving throw is something entirely different and really shouldn't be compared in any way to the 3.5 saving throw. They are fundamentally different and address different things.

Edit: Beaten to this by Neonknight!

[msa]

Again I don't quite grasp the concept. But it doesn't seem to gone at all, just switched around as to who gets to roll my save. Its the opponent, not me, but the result is exactly the same.

Torst said this too, but yeah... this is right. There is no difference mathematically.

3.5: target rolls d20 + level modifier + stat modifier vs. (caster's) 10 + level modifier + stat modifier
4e: caster rolls d20 + level modifier + stat modifier vs. (target's) 10 + level modifier + stat modifier

There are some differences... in 3.5 'level' modifier was based on class for the saver and spell level for the caster, and now its just level for both. But otherwise... same roll.

The only difference is now the mechanics for determining if a spell has full effect are consistent with the mechanics for determining if a skill is successful or an attacks hits.

[NeonKnight]

The other concept I LOVE, absolutely LOVE in 4e is the concept of Minions. The Rank-n-File GOONS. A Movie Equivalent is the 'Unamed Badguy #1, etc. These are characters who are present to 'fill out the ranks' are a threat but are simple to dispose of, again, like in James Bond movies the rank-n-file soldiers of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. James takes out with a single punch or a single shot from his Walther PPK.

Previous editions had a very hard time representing these characters.

So, in 4e, these are represent as Monsters with a Single hit point. So, hit them with an attack, and down they go, if the attack misses, they live. This includes the aforementioned in another thread FIREBALL. If that attack roll misses, the minion lives. The do moderate damage (nothing random about them, the roll attacks but not damage, they just do X damage, nothing more, nothing less).

Now, before you think a Minion is a push over and useless after low level play, Nope. The following is the stats for a 21 level Monster:

Legion Devil Legionnaire Level 21 Minion
Medium immortal humanoid (devil) XP 800
Initiative +11 Senses Perception +11; darkvision
HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion.
AC 37; Fortitude 33, Reflex 32, Will 32; see also squad defense
Resist 15 fire
Speed 7, teleport 3
Longsword (standard; at-will) ✦ Weapon
+26 vs. AC; 8 damage.
Squad Defense
The legion devil legionnaire gains a +2 bonus to its defenses
when adjacent to at least one other legion devil.
Alignment Evil Languages Supernal
Str 14 (+12) Dex 12 (+11) Wis 12 (+11)
Con 14 (+12) Int 10 (+10) Cha 12 (+11)
Equipment plate armor, heavy shield, longsword

So, I like Minions, and they see use regardless of the level of play I play at.
As you can see, a very tough opponent for most characters lower than 15th level, even though it has a single hit point.

[msa]

The other concept I LOVE, absolutely LOVE in 4e is the concept of Minions.

Minions were an awesome addition. I played a few RPGs that had them over the years and I was super happy they made it into D&D.

[torstan]

Yep, minions are a straightforward win for 4e. I am adapting them into my 3.5 campaign to allow my high level characters some proper mass battles without the whole game grinding to a halt.