jamesmishler wrote:instead of successfully completing the Spinning Sweep ended up trying to Trade Gold for Potion. Much to the Kobold's surprise, I'm sure.

Hell, that's just good role-playing if you're Chaotic Neutral.

killjoy32 wrote:i just downloaded it for the ZX spectrum (emulator to hand ready!!) woohoo there goes my work-afternoon!

I think I finished a few years ago on an Amiga emulator - my platform of choice for old school gaming.

killjoy32 wrote:
this is what i would mostly like to know. its the cornerstone of why i havent liked anything new for a long time.

Rob? youve seen the new stuff, so whats your insight into this?

I know there are more than one non combat systems.  The two I know about are Rituals which is non-combat spellcasting, and a system for resolving skill rolls that tries go beyond Roll, apply a bunch of modifiers, Fail? Succeed?.

Basically the few examples I need takes a situation and list all the skills that could resolve it and say ok for this you need X successes before Y failures. The system appears to encourage cooperation among the players as the successes (and failures) don't have to come from one player.

The shadowfell module includes a town about the size of Keep on the Borderlands. It was written old school style with minimal stats.

The Dungeon in Shadowfell does not have every room labled instead they detail it by area. So before you had this

1) Goblin Den
2) Goblin Watchpost
3) Golblin Storeroom

In 4th they would call this Area #1 and describe each of the three room and present in a single list the stat block of all the monster in that area.

The much of the advice on DMing given in Shadowfell is familiar to old school players. The module doesn't have many locale but they tried to make it free form as possible.

My opinion is that so far 4th edition is a mix of very new systems and very old ideas. That they are trying to go back to the spirit of AD&D and OD&D with different mechanics.

In OD&D and AD&D a lot of the game had to do with the player's own abilities; figure out the puzzle to unlock the door, come up with a innovative combat plan, and so on.

In games like Runequest, Rolemaster, GURPS, etc the player still comes up with a plan but the GM decides what die rolls apply rather than just adjudicate it. 4th edition is definitely in the GURPS camp in that regards but every pieces of advice tries encouage the DM and players to be as creative as possible with which skills come into play.

I did enjoy reading the post.
But some things there simply made me wonder.

(3rd round) The Fighter uses his Maul for a reaping strike on the 2nd Dragonshield. WHile the total roll of 9 is a miss he still does 3 points of damage to the 2nd Dragonshield

Not sure what a reaping strike is but I am sure it is some sort of adavnced attack form.
However, doing damage even though you did not hit and it was not an area of effect attack (like a fireball spell).
It was a maul...... .....what .......did the wind from the near miss do the damage?
Or perhaps that sort of attack scares damage from an opponant even on a miss?

How did the Dwarf get fire damage for several rounds from a glue pot?
Or did I miss something? Does a glue pot do damage on a hit (9 points?!) and the pot obviously will break to stick and make you immobile and then catch fire to burn you for several rounds?

Awesome weapon....

EDIT:  

1st Round
Slinger rolls a total of 22 cracks a fire pot on the fighter for 6 points plus 2 continuing fire

Yup I missed that line.....

So. The Dwarf Fighter was glue potted in Round Zero before any other actions during the surprise action, and then fire potted as the very first action in the first round. He lost well over half his total hit points before even being able to curse the critters.....
Sheese... poor thing.....

 END of EDIT:

Also, the Wizard missed twice in three rounds with Magic Misslies.
umnnnn...... okie dokie.....
As I recall, those were once automatic hits.
No saves.

Dragons breath attacks from a (Dragonborn??????)   Paladin scares me to no end too.  
And even so, how could he breath a breath attack while in human form?
Even real dragons could not do so while in humanoid form in Old Style D&D.
Wouldn't it melt his own flesh off?
OK, nothing noted the TYPE of breath....
(Well, freeze, melt, burn, ... whatever)
Can you say Munchkin?  

So many of the rules (even the most basic) have changed that I doubt I could ever catch up.

I feel SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO   freekin old.

Thanks for the description.  Wow.     If combat is streamlined compared to 3.e combat, then I'm glad I didn't buy into 3e.

Drifting off-topic . . .

What happens if the kobolds use their brains and do NOT rush in like easy XP?  What if they continue using ranged weapons or have additional forces that attack from behind the party?  Surprise should not mean "I choose to jump out into the open and get killed."

What happens if the kobolds are replaced with something stronger (more HP, stronger weapons, more combat skills) ?  Does that make the combat more complicated (more fiddly bits) or more simple (quicker wounds/deaths) ?

JohnGaunt wrote:Thanks for the description.  Wow.     If combat is streamlined compared to 3.e combat, then I'm glad I didn't buy into 3e.

Drifting off-topic . . .

What happens if the kobolds use their brains and do NOT rush in like easy XP?  What if they continue using ranged weapons or have additional forces that attack from behind the party?  Surprise should not mean "I choose to jump out into the open and get killed."

What happens if the kobolds are replaced with something stronger (more HP, stronger weapons, more combat skills) ?  Does that make the combat more complicated (more fiddly bits) or more simple (quicker wounds/deaths) ?

1)  You're totally right about combat in 3rd Edition...it is much more complicated, with the hidden benefit of fewer arguments.

2)  I suspect surprise in 4.0 is much like surprise in 3.0.  It gives a free action to the attacker...which could include a short charge into melee.

3)  Of course they could use missile weapons.  It is only an example.

4)  The "minions" rule is about storytelling.  Kobolds are only an example.

For the old schoolers out there wondering....

I pulled this post from one I posted on another board to give an idea with regards to how roleplay fits into 4E.  It was during a discussion regarding some of the pros and cons of the system I had with a guy named Primal....


[QUOTE=Primal]...Personally my biggest problems in 4E -- in addition to keeping track of all the various small mechanical details -- are coming up with plausible explanations for how most of the powers work, and the 'exception-based' monster/NPC system...[/yQUOTE]

I agree with you here, with regards to pen and paper players. It become much easier with mini's and table top markers, much much easier. You can really see the system shine, and anyone that tells you that you cant spice up the action during some serious team tactics filled battles needs a lesson in roleplay 101 (I sidetracked there a bit so forgive the rant).

The issue then is that 4th Ed basically hand guides you to the battle mat and says "Here you go, now you will be just fine". This is one of those areas where I can see some real valid criticism this early in the release. Its reason enough to give people pause and WotC needs to address the issue rather than just say "Yeah umm you can pen and paper it still. It works...really it does I swear!"  This is not a pen and paper game anymore boys and girls.


The powers thing though I also agree with. The key there is taking the time as a GM/DM to invest some thought into each one. At first that seems daunting, and well, it certainly is for those who might be new to the game. What I ended up doing is making sure I knew what my players were choosing and why. What did they envision the power/ability as being able to do. Then extrapolated a bit. I also go over the mobs I use and am sure to be aware of each ability and its roleplay strengths and weaknesses. That way during combat, descriptions are colorful but short and dont bog down the game play. When a player questions "How did they do that?!" I have already thought out the answer or was describing it during play to avoid the question in the first place.

A real clear cut example is the Kobold Dragonshield and how players reacted to its Dragonshield Tactics. (*insert to Acaeum crowd...this is after all but one minion was killed as well as the slinger being taken out by our rogue and warlock but not before he took the paladin out of the battle with glue, fire and normal bullets.  This is just a snipet to give you an idea about how things were "roleplayed" during combat, most the party was wounded to some degree, and the dragonborn paladin was unconscious being aided by the priest)

Fighter (player) - "Im going to move up to those two buggers with the dragon scale shields and mow them down with a cleave!" Makes his move on the board.

DM (me) - "Striding forward you swing your maul back for a wicked slash only to find the two Kobolds have quickly scampered a short distance away in opposite directions, now out of reach of your hammer. One of the slippery little "buggers" taunts you with yipping laughter." I slide the Kobolds appropriately.

Fighter - (improvising) "Dam, I ready a dagger and toss it at the laughing one." He has a free action to let one hand drop and just keep ahold of the maul with the other and a minor action to ready the dagger. Rolls a 19 to hit.

DM - "You let the weight of the maul swing down guiding it with one hand and pull out a dagger with your now free hand. A quick toss clips the laughing kobold who yelps with suprise and the others grin turns to a concerned growl.

Fighter - (rolls dice for dagger damage) "I wink knowingly at the one who growled then yell out I am going to need help cornering these little sons of a (well you get the idea...hehehe)"

(*to Acaeum...the rogue and warlock helped the warrior corner the slippery Kobolds to win the day.  So you can see, roleplay is as alive and well in 4E as it was in 1E, though the nostalgia factor of 1E never looses its charm for me at least  but just so you know, Im not claiming any kind of superiority, its certainly no better or worse IMHO...just different.  This board is about 1E and earlier classic versions so forgive any intrusion from my lurker status here, but I thought I might show an old coots version on a new revision since I am playing a 4E campaign at the moment.  If you are curious I will check back in and answer any questions in this thread about minions, dragonborns, etc...*)

MM

Deadlord39 wrote:Kobold Dragonshield............
Sorry, man, a kobold is a kobold.

Actually I quite agree with you Dead, just not in the way you might think.  I think there is a point at which if you boost the Kobolds ability too much, it does cease to be a Kobold.  But I rather like the idea that Kobolds are like any humanoid race, they can have different skills, roles, and abilities both in battle and in non combat scenarios as well.  So long as you keep them close to the spirit of what a Kobold is.  Thats the key.  They are all still pretty whimpy, low level cannon fodder that only really challenge low level parties.  But even they have their warriors, and wizards, shammans and sharlatans, and PC like heroes too.

I quite like the fact that they have a trick or two up their sleeves.  In fact I cant remember a 1st Ed campaign I ran without spicing up the little guys like Kobolds and Goblins.  =)

MM

deimos3428 wrote:...translating snipet into 1E terms...please stand-by...

That doesn't strike me as particularly strong example of roleplaying in any edition.  It's a basic combat sequence with a few smirks, mostly made by the player.  

The key concern is that the shift towards a conflict resolution focus seems to have continued unabated in 4E.  Perhaps D&D has jumped the shark.

Meh, strong or weak the example wasnt word for word but the point stands.  4E supports roleplay as much as 1E.  Roleplay is about the DM and PC's not the system.  You arent somehow implying the combat system gets in the way of roleplay are you?  That would be a bit ludicrous.  I have play tested a number of encounters now and if anything, the combat is alot more tactical, the players really get into talking amongst themselves and working out strategies, and the roleplay between them and myself comes off nicely (we have been doing this a long time though so its old hat).

In the other post I wrote a good example of how the system supports non combat resolution very well with skill challenges.  The roleplay part of that is all up to the PC's and DM and that social interaction.

Combat resolution has always been a huge part of D&D since dwarves elves and wizards have been slaying dragons.  Interestingly enough, I have never seen more pages dedicated to roleplay suggestions and help for new players than I have in the 4E DMG/PHB.  That says alot.  Not that it means 4E is better for roleplay, only that the designers took the time and material to get back to basics and give players and DM's good advice.

I even picked up a trick or two, and I have been doing this for years.

MM