# Can a swarm be grabbed?



## Reaper Steve (Aug 26, 2010)

The MM glossary entry I found doesn't prevent a swarm from being grabbed, but man, I just can't see how a swarm could be grabbed and held in place. I ruled 'no' in the game last night and no one objected, but this seems like something that would have a clear rule. Anyone know of one?
Thanks!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 26, 2010)

I would tend to say no, but I have no kind of rule support. Maybe an errata could just make that no status effect can be applied by a ranged or melee attack.

(It already cannot be moved by single target effects)


----------



## Stumblewyk (Aug 26, 2010)

It does seem counter-intuitive to be able to grab a swarm.  Using that same argument, how would one make a swarm go prone?  How would you slow a swarm (you could target the swarm with a slowing power, but how would you slow EVERY member of a swarm?)

I don't know of any particular rule that says swarms are not subject to the same status effects that a non-swarm creature is.  I think when you start to look at it on a granular level, the "realism" breaks down, but you have to keep them subject to the same restrictions and rules that any other "creature" is.

As UngeheuerLich said above, they can't be pulled, pushed, or slid by melee or ranged attacks (bursts and blasts are still A-OK, though).  If you want to extend that to grabbed, or any other effect, then do it.  It's your game.


----------



## Markn (Aug 26, 2010)

The game enourages you to find a suitable explanation for the effect.  So, grabbed, could be described as encouraging the swarm to (effectively) enter your square using food (or bait) for example.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Aug 26, 2010)

You could hand-wave the use of a net I guess. The character pulls out the net when they grab the swarm and put it away as free action when the condition ends. And... it's big enough to work and stuff.


----------



## Zaran (Aug 26, 2010)

Grapple Fighter: I grab the swarm and break it's neck!  70pts of damage!

GM:  That's great but damage is halved because it takes extra time to find the insect necks.

Of course this doesn't bother me as much as a power that breaks someone's neck using the W of the weapon you are holding.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 26, 2010)

Markn said:


> The game enourages you to find a suitable explanation for the effect. So, grabbed, could be described as encouraging the swarm to (effectively) enter your square using food (or bait) for example.




My own ruling would be: 

- There's no rule that says it can't be grabbed.  Therefore it can be.
- As a player you have to have a piece of equipment, spell, ritual or ability that can fit the task at hand in order to do it.

Ex: Flying swarm over a 20x20 area.  Do you have a big insect net?  Do you have the ability to turn the atmosphere from a 20x20 area into Jello such that the objects float or are otherwise immobilized?

Just because the rules say you can do something doesn't mean you should be able to do it.  Somewhere along the line this question falls into the campaign's tolerance for physical realism and that's different from DM to DM.

.. looks up Air to Jello transmutation.. that just sounded cool.. especially if it's found to be flammable Jello


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 26, 2010)

Grabbing? Throw a blanket over it. Prone? Blown onto their collective backs, scattered, or similar effects. Like Markn said, it's up to you to come up with a suitable description. In our group if someone is trying to do something that doesn't sound possible fromt he general description, then it's up to the player to say how it's done. No description; no effect.


----------



## Robtheman (Aug 26, 2010)

Disallowing Grabbed, Slow or Prone is pretty brutal when fighting a swarm. The entire goal is to hit it with area or burst effects, from range if possible. Nothing better than a Prone or Slow effect, or having the Fighter take it down.

Plausible descriptions for grabbed.
Grabbed: The huge fighter slams his body down on the pile of crawling skeletal hands; You throw your cloak down on the mass of scarabs; You slam a ax down on the pile of lizards then use your shield to press them into the ground

This is a situation that really tests the DMs emotive abilities - and thats a good thing! I love the opportunity to explain the inexplicable. The players love to hear exactly how a axe could flatten a swarm of lizards to a prone position, for example.

Last night a weapon attack with an axe had the added effect of knocking the target(s) prone. In this case the attack was made with the flat edge of the double axe and the creatures were smashed into the earth. It was enough that the swarm of the creatures had to work to get out of the muck. The creatures mindset is to stay with the group. While some of the swarming creatures were not technically prone they waited for the rest or helped them get free instead of striking out on their own.

If nothing makes sense that would hit the whole swarm, another option would be splitting the swarm in two, with half hp's and half damage.

This feels like a super fun result. The players' thinking goes like: "awesome job fighter now we can get clear; Oh crap there's more of them - screw you GM; Oh phew it hits less hard, i guess that was a good idea after all. Do that to the other one!"

There you have it, for what it's worth.


----------



## jrowland (Aug 26, 2010)

There is a tendency to take much of the 4E rules and read it as literal. It is explicitly abstract. 

In 4E, the "Grab" action, upon a successful "hit" imposes the "immobilized" condition.

The real question is "Can you immobilize a Swarm?". I think that is a definite yes, both by RAW and RAI. Can you then "Move a Grabbed Swarm?", this may be thornier, and where people have mentioned having a net or some such handy. I think you don't such extras. To require it runs the risk of the 10 foot pole problem of earlier editions (google it if you don't know). A  foot is all you need (throw a bucketful of dice on the floor and move them with your foot - yup, that swarm can be moved) or a cloak for those pesky gnats, but even your flailing hands can do it.

I think it is well within the DMs right to impose a -2 penalty on such grab attempts (Invoking the DMs friend). I also think you should remeber that you don't have to move every creature in a swarm, just a significant portion of them. In many ways, a swarms aura is just more of the swarm, but not so many of them that you can target or prevent you from moving through.

The same sort of thinking can be applied to Prone and other conditions. In fact, my 4E claim to fame in our gaming group is the time I knocked a Black Dragon prone over a 1000 foot cliff (crashing, dmg 47). It failed its save every round to stop from falling and fell to its death! We described the prone effect as being a result of its wings getting blown out of position such that it fell. I was hoping to buy us a round or two of healing before it righted itself and came back...imagine my surprise as the DM kept rolling single digit save rolls all the way down.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 26, 2010)

Markn said:


> So, grabbed, could be described as encouraging the swarm to (effectively) enter your square using food (or bait) for example.



 Enter your square is not what grabbed means, so maybe you were thinking of a previous edition.  Your point still stands, though: putting the food in the swarm's square may effectively immobilize it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 26, 2010)

It is not disallowing grabbed or slow or immobilize... just by a ranged or melee attack (single target)

using food as bait, i would even disagree with swarms not beeing able to be slid... i could imagine sliding the swarm with food much more easily than grabbing it


----------



## babinro (Aug 26, 2010)

Ah yes, how do I grab a swarm?
Why does a hovering flying creature have to 'stand up' when its knocked prone?
How come a construct can be put to sleep?
Why can I still shift while blinded, I don't even know which direction to protect?

I'm of the mindset that the word used as part of a condition has absolutely nothing to do with what your character is actually doing to the monster.  Conditions are merely terms created to give the player a general visualization and justification for detriments they create.

They could have simply replaced Grab, Blind, and Stunned with Condition Red, White and Blue.  If your power stated that your attack deals 1d10 damage and inflicts condition Red until end of next turn where Red was detailed as the same game mechanics described under 'grab'...you'd be less likely to question the logic of this power on any given foe and would simply accept the mechanics.  

Calling something Condition Red, isn't exactly conducive to a smooth running game as you'd have to endlessly check the rules on what that means.  By simply giving it a name like Grab, many people will grasp the general game mechanics without requiring a rules reference or memorization.

To summarize, your characters actions are in some way causing any given creature to act differently.   How you are doing this is completely open to your interpretation and requires no justification.


----------



## marli (Aug 26, 2010)

this is the problem with 4e.
the rules are TOO clear. they are so precise they leave very little to the imagination, drawing the the box to think in VERY well, when(as in this instance you are asked to think outside that box many players, (and sadly DMs) fail to invision the posibilltys.

remember its a roleplaying game, immerse your players.


----------



## Festivus (Aug 27, 2010)

How about asking the player how they propose to grab the swarm and see what sort of answer they can come up with?

Edit: To clarify, I think that yes, they can be grabbed and things can be described in a way that it makes some sort of logical sense (e.g. I use my cloak to envelop them).  I had someone become so frustrated with the lack of melee damage that they asked if another player could roll them over the swarm as a close blast attack.  I made it an improvised weapon attack and allowed it... it was creative.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 27, 2010)

Reaper Steve said:


> The MM glossary entry I found doesn't prevent a swarm from being grabbed, but man, I just can't see how a swarm could be grabbed and held in place. I ruled 'no' in the game last night and no one objected, but this seems like something that would have a clear rule. Anyone know of one?
> Thanks!



Just use common sense. Example:

*Q: Can a swarm be grabbed? *
*A:* Huh? No.

There. Done.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Just use common sense. Example:
> 
> *Q: Can a swarm be grabbed? *
> *A:* Huh? No.
> ...




I prefer to use narrative sense.

Can -I- grab a swarm?  No.

Can a mythical greek hero grab a swarm? Yes.

Guess which D&D is closer to?


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 27, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Can a mythical greek hero grab a swarm? Yes.



WTF? 

Do you have an actual example in mind?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> WTF?
> 
> Do you have an actual example in mind?




:facepalm:

You're missing the point... that mythical heroes doing impossible deeds beyond the ken of mortals is pretty much the narrative arc of 4e.  The entire design of 'tiers', where you -start- as heroic, and eventually work your way to epic tier, where the character design and concept is based on how you attain immortality (literal or metaphorical) is not easily constrained by the versimilitude of what normal people can do.

Instead, consider the rediculous suspense of belief required in descriptions of Thor, Heracles, that sort of thing.  -That- is a lot closer to where D&D lies in its basic design.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 27, 2010)

Players Handbook 7 said:
			
		

> It is a Standard Action for a character to wrap his/her arms in double-sided duct tape. This enables the grabbing of swarms.



A feat makes it a Minor Action.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 27, 2010)

I'm sorry, DracoSuave, but your argument indeed makes no sense whatsoever to me as it pertains to the question at hand, i.e. whether a swarm can be "grabbed" or not. 

It's not a question of "narrative", but a question of logic, to me. It is a question of whether as a GM you can make judgment calls on your own, or rely on the game system and the DDI updates to answer them all for you. Whether your game is about the Worlds of Your Imagination, or WotC's. And if by talking about a "narrative arc" for 4e you mean that words do not have meaning anymore, that the characters of this game are so far removed from common sense as to only make any in the context of the game rules, and the game rules only, with the make-believe being a consequence of the game system, and not the other way around, then by all means, I reject 4e's "narrative" reality and substitute my own.


----------



## Festivus (Aug 27, 2010)

DM interpretation wins over the rules.  So can the GM make a judgement call?  You bet.  I do it all the time, especially if there isn't a rule for it.


----------



## Robtheman (Aug 27, 2010)

If we are going to focus on just the words then we need to ignore the title of the ability "grabbed" and look at the mechanics (hit with attack and restrain). This was mentioned above, of course.

Ex: Greek heroes can hit something and make it stop moving. How they do it is up to the specific hero and the gods that lord over the Realm of Possibilities. The same goes for players.

IMO, if a party can't come up with a way of hitting something and making it stop moving then the table needs an injection of creativity or collaborative spirit.

The point of playing a table top RPG is to entertain each other by creating and overcoming challenges. The player entertains the DM and his/her party members. The DM entertains all the players. That sometimes means the DM has to coach a bit with a description. Saying it's "not my job" just doesn't fit in a game that is essentially collaborative story telling.

Does the RAW say you can hit and restrain a swarm? There is no list of the stuff you are allowed to hit, therefore we look for exclusions. There is no exclusion of Swarms. It simply says you can hit creatures and restrain it.

Does RAI say you can hit and restrain a swarm? We can't know. RAI is typically invoked as a rhetorical tool in an attempt to validate an opinion.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 27, 2010)

babinro said:


> I'm of the mindset that the word used as part of a condition has absolutely nothing to do with what your character is actually doing to the monster.  Conditions are merely terms created to give the player a general visualization and justification for detriments they create.
> 
> ...
> 
> To summarize, your characters actions are in some way causing any given creature to act differently.   How you are doing this is completely open to your interpretation and requires no justification.




This for the win. This is the exact mindset the game explicitly and implicitly encourages you to take.

To counter an above post, this is the reason it is in no way a problem with 4e. It is, rather, a problem with players and DMs being too literal-minded with a game that quite clearly doesn't care half a whit about what's _literally_ happening.

The rules are quite simple. Can a swarm be grabbed? *Yes.* If this wasn't meant to be possible it would have been included in what defines a "swarm." This, of course, requires a bit of creative thinking by the player how about how to actually _do it_, but if the player has a plausible rationale, you obviously allow it, because the rules are on the side of the player on this one.

Hell, depending on the nature of the campaign I'd allow it even if the player's rationale were completely implausible. The only time I'd probably pull a "c'mon, you can do better than that..." is if the current point of the story is _srs bznz _and I don't want wacky implausible action ruining the narrative flow. Note that that's still not really a "no", but rather a gentle nudge to the player to _be more creative_, which is a hell of a lot better in my opinion.

Maybe it's because I'm almost more often a player than a DM, but my biggest pet peeve is when a DM just says flat-out "no, you can't" to anything that could be even a little bit feasible (and various ideas have been tossed around in this thread to make grabbing swarms feasible). There's a reason the DM is separate from the "players"; they're the ones "playing" the game, we're just running it _for them_. I get enough frustrating restrictions in video games and board games and the like, I don't need them in a game I'm playing specifically because it is a magical fantasy world where anything is (supposedly) possible. When I'm playing a badass dwarven brawler and I just wanna go "You know? F- bees! I will punch every bee in the face!" that's about the last possible time I wan't to hear "no, you can't."

And now that I've completely ruined whatever points of gravitas I once had by directly quoting Dane Cook, it's time to get off the soap box.


----------



## Zerodime (Aug 27, 2010)

I think it's always funny how when one says "Swarm" we all assume "little insects buzzing around"
1. A swarm cann be anything...there's one in the MM "Swarm of people" or "swarm of drakes" hey just for the fun of it...imagien a "Swarm of Tarasques"!
2. The individual member of a swarm is less than a minion thats the cause why they are in a swarm to begin with.

Remember these two things when your out to argue "can or can't a swarm be grabbed?"


----------



## Pickles JG (Aug 27, 2010)

babinro said:


> They could have simply replaced Grab, Blind, and Stunned with Condition Red, White and Blue. If your power stated that your attack deals 1d10 damage and inflicts condition Red until end of next turn where Red was detailed as the same game mechanics described under 'grab'...you'd be less likely to question the logic of this power on any given foe and would simply accept the mechanics.
> 
> Calling something Condition Red, isn't exactly conducive to a smooth running game as you'd have to endlessly check the rules on what that means. By simply giving it a name like Grab, many people will grasp the general game mechanics without requiring a rules reference or memorization.
> 
> To summarize, your characters actions are in some way causing any given creature to act differently. How you are doing this is completely open to your interpretation and requires no justification.




This. I also get people objecting to pulls or pushes on diagonals that give lateral movement & can shove things into holes etc. I say the name is just a mnemonic for a slide effect with a restriction on the directions of movement.

Adding narrative as to how you achieved these status effects on odd creatures, prone oozes &c makes the game more fun but is not necessary.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> I'm sorry, DracoSuave, but your argument indeed makes no sense whatsoever to me as it pertains to the question at hand, i.e. whether a swarm can be "grabbed" or not.




Sure it does.

At a certain point, characters are expected, nay, HIRED, to do impossible things.  You have Hercules who cleaned a stable by redirecting a river.... but the stable remained, of course.  You have thor who drank from the ocean thinking it was a mere cup of water.  You have Odin who attained godhood by... get this... sacrificing himself TO himself.

That is what is considered 'stuff the immortals do.'  Epic tier is about nothing more than carving legends such as these into stone.



> It's not a question of "narrative", but a question of logic, to me.




Then USE logic.

Immortals can do the impossible.
D&D is the persuit of immortality, at its core.
Ergo, D&D characters are on the persuit of impossible accomplishments.



> It is a question of whether as a GM you can make judgment calls on your own, or rely on the game system and the DDI updates to answer them all for you. Whether your game is about the Worlds of Your Imagination, or WotC's.




Or, it's about the marriage of both.



> And if by talking about a "narrative arc" for 4e you mean that words do not have meaning anymore, that the characters of this game are so far removed from common sense as to only make any in the context of the game rules, and the game rules only, with the make-believe being a consequence of the game system, and not the other way around, then by all means, I reject 4e's "narrative" reality and substitute my own.




Or... I consider that game terms are abstractions used to reflect a malleable narrative that can be molded by creative individuals, and that therefore saying that 'grabbed must always mean literally grabbed' isn't a logical, or even a cogent statement to make.  Does the knight in chess have landed serfs dealing with it, and has it sworn an oath of fealty?  Can the bishop perform sacriments?  Of course not.  They are simply game terms.

And even if you take 'grabbed' to mean literally, then you must hold it to the litmus test of what the narrative potential of the characters are.  Are you playing a dark, gritty game where epic destinies such as Demigod or Eternal Defender are not appropriate?  Then obviously such characters could not grab a swarm.  Makes no sense.

But, if you're playing a game where characters literally have the power to become gods... then doing things associated with the legends of gods is WHOLEY appropriate to the tone of the game.  

And for the record... that latter is baseline for D&D fourth edition.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> I'm sorry, DracoSuave, but your argument indeed makes no sense whatsoever to me as it pertains to the question at hand, i.e. whether a swarm can be "grabbed" or not.



That depends if the question at hand was a 4e rules question or a 'common sense' question.


Odhanan said:


> [...]I reject 4e's "narrative" reality and substitute my own.



That's fine - if your players know about this beforehand and agree with it.

Question: Do you actually DM 4e?


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 27, 2010)

My ruling on this would be, "You can grab the swarm as soon as you explain to me, in the context of the game world, how the heck you're doing it."

Contrary to popular belief among supporters and opponents alike, 4E does _not_ mandate blind adherence to the rules in defiance of common sense.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 27, 2010)

I would certainly rule "yes".

As others have reasoned above, if you try to impose too much logic on 4E, you run the risk of nerfing out certain key powers in a way that just isn't fun for your players. The rules encourage devising interesting solutions: yes, a swarm can be grabbed; you make yourself a target so it swarms about you, throw your cloak over it, or whatever. If I can't think of one on the fly, just saying "With a heroic effort, you somehow manage to immobilise the swarm" usually works for my players. 

A similar question is "Can a phasing creature be grabbed?". 
What about an insubstantial one?

For a brawler fighter, saying "no" to these questions could result in a lot of frustration.


----------



## Kerranin (Aug 27, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> Grabbing? Throw a blanket over it. Prone? Blown onto their collective backs, scattered, or similar effects. Like Markn said, it's up to you to come up with a suitable description. In our group if someone is trying to do something that doesn't sound possible fromt he general description, then it's up to the player to say how it's done. No description; no effect.



I agree completely, if in doubt, have the PC describe how it is done. If they really can't then disallow it.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 27, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Question: Do you actually DM 4e?



Not at the moment, precisely because of this sort of nonsense (to me) we're talking about here, where words don't mean what they really mean, where the rules are the game, the game the rules, that you reinvent concepts like "mythical heroes" to mean that you can indeed grab swarms, the narrative BS that comes along with it, and the kicker, that if you try to reason using basic, common sense logic, you risk to affect the game system in some way, and that somehow is a no-no that will "destroy the fun" of the players involved (in which case, I wouldn't want to play with such players in the first place). 

Because let's face it: just like DracoS would certainly be unhappy at my game table, I would be unhappy playing at his. 

Look, I've stated my point rather forcefully, because that's the kind of thing that really rubs me the wrong way with 4E. From the feedback I'm getting, it's obvious that we won't come to any sort of agreement, even if it means agreeing to disagree. I'm fine with that, so I'm just going to bow out of the conversation.

I haven't read the 4E forum for most of the last two years and now that Essentials are around the corner, I actually remember that I do like some aspects of 4E, and would like to use the game in some way, shape or form, like for instance introducing people to RPGs in my area. I just hope that Essentials takes a few step backs from all this narrative-gamist nonsense and allows me to actually connect with it. We'll see. 

With that said, I let you discuss the narrative logic there is in allowing Mythical Greek heroes to grab swarms to your heart's content. Namaste.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 27, 2010)

*The Storyteller*

There used to be a show on the air a long time ago called Jim Henson's the Stotyteller. It was definitely one of my earliest fantasy influences. It stands up fairly well too, thanks to the excellent work of John Hurt. It's available on Netflix if you ever have the chance to check it out.

Anyway, there was an episode where a soldier has this magic sack that he can order anything to enter (think bag of holding) and goes to a castle to play poker with a bunch of devils (imps) using a magical deck of cards that he acquired that never allow him to lose.

After the imps cheating to "high heaven and low hell" all night trying to beat him, dawn approaches and he has won all of their gold. They threaten to eat him and he holds out the sack.

"What is this?" the soldier asks, brandishing his bag of holding.
"It's a sack," one of the imps says, preplexed.
"Well if it's a sack, get in it!" the soldier exclaims, as the imps are magically sucked into the bag of holding. He then carries the squirming bag outside, full of the struggling imps, and proceeds to beat the sack on the ground, jump on it, smash it against a tree, etc.

He then frees the imps, who flee in terror, but catches the last one by the leg, and takes his hoof, which he tells him to remember "where he left it." He basically binds the imp to his service.

Anyway, long story short, I guess you could use a bag of holding to grab a swarm.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> I'm sorry, DracoSuave, but your argument indeed makes no sense whatsoever to me as it pertains to the question at hand, i.e. whether a swarm can be "grabbed" or not.
> 
> It's not a question of "narrative", but a question of logic, to me. It is a question of whether as a GM you can make judgment calls on your own, or rely on the game system and the DDI updates to answer them all for you. Whether your game is about the Worlds of Your Imagination, or WotC's. And if by talking about a "narrative arc" for 4e you mean that words do not have meaning anymore, that the characters of this game are so far removed from common sense as to only make any in the context of the game rules, and the game rules only, with the make-believe being a consequence of the game system, and not the other way around, then by all means, I reject 4e's "narrative" reality and substitute my own.




It is just as easy to change or alter rules in 4E as it is in any edition of D&D. You just have been provided with a more sound mathematical framework to use and more rules available.

3E and 4E players seem more reluctant to deal with DM interpretation in general, but it's really up to you how things go in your game. Don't hate the system, hate the players.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 27, 2010)

> 3E and 4E players seem more reluctant to deal with DM interpretation in general, but it's really up to you how things go in your game. Don't hate the system, hate the players.




In my experience it's really just a generational thing.  Younger players to thier late 20s/early 30s  come from a different mindset than the older players that would have grown up with 1e/2e (late 30s through 40s.)  Probably just the Gen Y mindset in general and not the game player type overall.

My group hasn't touched 2nd ed in something like 11 years and we run through contentions DM judgment calls all the time with little to no issue.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 27, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> My group hasn't touched 2nd ed in something like 11 years and we run through contentions DM judgment calls all the time with little to no issue.




Agreed.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> I haven't read the 4E forum for most of the last two years and now that Essentials are around the corner, I actually remember that I do like some aspects of 4E, and would like to use the game in some way, shape or form, like for instance introducing people to RPGs in my area. I just hope that Essentials takes a few step backs from all this narrative-gamist nonsense and allows me to actually connect with it. We'll see.



Don't get your hopes up. It's still 4e. Actually, from what I've seen so far, I doubt anyone who decided they didn't like 4e when it was released is going to like Essentials. It's still a decidedly gamist system.

See, the thing is, I don't mind DMs making 'common sense' rulings as long as they understand how the system's balanced. There is always the danger of invalidating player choices.

As an example, a DM may decide that all undead creatures are immune to fear effects, charm, dominate and illusions in her campaign, because it 'makes sense' to them.

That's all fine and dandy, unless one of the players decides to play an illusionist wizard or a psion. It may still be fine and dandy, if the DM told the players before starting the campaign about his house-ruling of undead.

But only mentioning it after the fact (or even worse: not mentioning at all, and simply ignoring the pcs attacks) is unacceptable, imho.


----------



## Robtheman (Aug 28, 2010)

In the case of an insubstantial creature you can grab it. However it will pass right through you into the floor immediately after that. Which is much more interesting from a narrative perspective than saying "no."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 28, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> 3E and 4E players seem more reluctant to deal with DM interpretation in general, but it's really up to you how things go in your game. Don't hate the system, hate the players.



3.x had it's issues, but 4e really doesn't require a lot of DM intervention.  It's a fairly clean system.  Powers do what they say.  

The call for interpretation isn't in figuring out what happens mechanically, it's in providing the fluff or visualization for what happenned.  



Odhanan said:


> Not at the moment, precisely because of this sort of nonsense (to me) we're talking about here, where words don't mean what they really mean, where the rules are the game, the game the rules, that you reinvent concepts like "mythical heroes" to mean that you can indeed grab swarms, the narrative BS that comes along with it, and the kicker, that if you try to reason using basic, common sense logic, you risk to affect the game system in some way




I have noted over the years a strong bias against what are now called 'martial' classes in that regard.  Heroic warriors of myth and legend frequently performed absolutely impossible feats.  Fergus mac Roth punched the peak off a mountain.  Everyone of Charlemagne's knights in the Song of Roland was spitting saracens four to a lance and cleaving mounted foes from helm through their horse's spines.  But for some reason, we want to 'reality check' anything a fighter might do.

On the other extreme, wizards of myth and legend frequently did very little.  Their powers were subtle, mysterious, and not often much use in combat.  One of Merlin's greatest feats of spell-casting was to cause the tents of an invading army to collapse - aside from that, he turned into a bird now and then, and created a disguise that fooled a noble's own wife. Circe could transform a man into an animal by serving him a magic potion in a cup of wine.  Cool stuff, but it ain't fireballs and lightning bolts and unerring magic missles and Time Stop.  But do wizards ever get called on 'verisimilitude?'  No, "it's magic" so they can do whatever their powers say, no questions asked.

It's intollerance, is what it is.  Virulent anti-martialism.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 28, 2010)

I agree with everything you say here.

But I want to throw in, that disallowing single target pushs pulls or slides but allowing single target grabs, is indeed nonsense...

if i find an explanation for the latter, i also find an explanation for the former. It is not about versimilitude here, but nconsitence.

But i want to point out, that you wizards and fighter examples are quite good. I also want to add Gandalf to your fighter wizard examples.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 28, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> But i want to point out, that you wizards and fighter examples are quite good. I also want to add Gandalf to your fighter wizard examples.



True, Gandalf was a warrior in his youth.  Throughout the books, he lit fires, unsuccessfully 'held' a 'portal,' made pretty fireworks, conjured light, and talked to animals.  No meteor swarsm or power words or even unerring magic missles for him.  I combat, he generally drew his sword.  He used his magic staff to shatter a bridge, but he actually fought the Balrog by grappling with it (so he says, later - maybe it was mataphorical maiar spirit-grappling).  Back in the day, there was a Dragon article that pointed some of that out, entitled "Gandalf was a 5th-level Magic-user."  



> I want to throw in, that disallowing single target pushs pulls or slides but allowing single target grabs, is indeed nonsense...



Maybe.  Allowing grabs - which immobilize - but disallowing single-target immobilized or restrained, though, that would indeed be nonsense.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 28, 2010)

Kerranin said:


> I agree completely, if in doubt, have the PC describe how it is done. If they really can't then disallow it.




And that's fine, just so long as you treat all of the power sources the same way. The Wizard can't just hand-wave, "Because it's magic!", if the Fighter has to be descriptive.


----------



## Camelot (Aug 28, 2010)

The problem comes from thinking that each member of the swarm is intelligent and separate from the others.  There's a certain swarm mentality that can explain these things.

Grabbing a Swarm: You pin a few members of the swarm to the ground with your hand, foot, shield, or weapon, literally immobilizing them.  The free members of the swarm won't leave their comrades who are still alive, so the entire swarm is effectively immobilized.

Slowing a Swarm: You kill a few members of the swarm, nearly hitting the others nearby, who are forced to jump back to avoid the attack.  The rest of the swarm becomes confused when members of their mob aren't moving where they are supposed to, so the entire swarm has to regroup before it can start moving again, effectively slowing the swarm.

Knocking a Swarm Prone: You fell a portion of the swarm and send their bodies flying into the rest of the swarm members, knocking many of them prone.  The creatures that remain standing aren't able to do much alone, and they're not about to leave their still alive companions, so the entire swarm is effectively prone.

You don't need nets, poisons, or 10-foot poles.  You just need psychology!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 28, 2010)

Another thing to remember about swarms is that they're not generally natural.  Rats do not gather into a 10x10 pile of feral rodentata and move and attack as one.  If you ever got a few thousand rats into a 10x10 pile, they'd go running off in all directions and be spread out as panicked individuals in a matter of seconds.  If you possit the existance of D&D-style swarm of rats in the first place, you've already sent 'realism' or 'simulation' screaming into the night.

Sure, there are bees and piranha and the like, but even they don't really quite behave like a D&D swarm.  For one thing, if you engulf a swarm of bees in something (cloud of pesticide, say) that'd kill one bee on contact, the swarm of bees just up and politely dies.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 28, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> I have noted over the years a strong bias against what are now called 'martial' classes in that regard.  Heroic warriors of myth and legend frequently performed absolutely impossible feats.  Fergus mac Roth punched the peak off a mountain.  Everyone of Charlemagne's knights in the Song of Roland was spitting saracens four to a lance and cleaving mounted foes from helm through their horse's spines.  But for some reason, we want to 'reality check' anything a fighter might do.
> 
> On the other extreme, wizards of myth and legend frequently did very little.  Their powers were subtle, mysterious, and not often much use in combat.  One of Merlin's greatest feats of spell-casting was to cause the tents of an invading army to collapse - aside from that, he turned into a bird now and then, and created a disguise that fooled a noble's own wife. Circe could transform a man into an animal by serving him a magic potion in a cup of wine.  Cool stuff, but it ain't fireballs and lightning bolts and unerring magic missles and Time Stop.  But do wizards ever get called on 'verisimilitude?'  No, "it's magic" so they can do whatever their powers say, no questions asked.
> 
> It's intollerance, is what it is.  Virulent anti-martialism.



It's an interesting point you're bringing to the table, and since it is a step further from our previous exchanges, I think it's worth answering to from my point of view. 

I'm sure you're going to find plenty of people whose opinions and scrutiny indeed fit this sort of anti-martial bias you're pointing out. Everything's possible for a wizard because well, that's magic, while the fighter will be looked upon with intense "this must be believable" criticism, whatever that means for the people involved.

Now, I do think there's some logic to it in the sense that yes, magic is well, magical, and non-magic moves are subjected to a set of Physics rules we can better understand when talking about a fantasy world with a set of Physics comparable to our world. 

YET, I actually agree with your argument, and am myself not opposed to martial classes being able to do amazing moves and exploits in combat. Far from it. 

My objections are not targeted at martial classes in particular, and are not concerned with that type of bias you describe. No. What I am specifically rejecting is the narrative logic that sustains some of 4E's mechanics, and/or explaination of such mechanics done in a Skip Williams, "rules in a vacuum", style. I.e. explaining rules with a "narrative" explanation, or rules explained in the context of other rules only, with complete disregard for their application in the game world. 

Let me take an example: Daily and Encounter powers in 4E. While I can easily explain in my mind why a Wizard would have Daily powers and Encounter powers, much in the same way I would explain why in older editions they had a limited amount of memory "slots" in a Vancian system, I find no way to explain why Fighters would only be able to use a given Martial move (exploit) only one per Day, or per Encounter. The usual explanation that is given to me for such powers is that "it's a cool move, the kind of move that ends a scene in a movie, or ends the episode". This, is a narrative explanation. It's not connected to the game world, but it's concerned with a bird's eye view upon the characters, which rubs me the wrong way as far as role playing is concerned. It basically breaks my suspension of disbelief and makes me consider game mechanics from an author's, third person, point of view, instead of an in-character, immersed point of view. 

One of my favorite OGL games is Iron Heroes. In there, you've got some badass martial classes able to perform all sorts of amazing moves in combat. But the mechanics don't use this sort of narrative logic to balance classes against each other. Instead, you have in most cases the use of pools, with the characters actually performing some specific actions or preparation or moves in the game world to be able to gather "tokens", which they then are able to spend on these amazing moves. This is an in-game explanation that does not affect my suspension of disbelief, personally. 

Thing is, there would be ways in which 4E could get away from this narrative logic I do not appreciate. One could for instance state that characters may use Encounter and Daily powers freely once per either encounter or day, and then would be able to use these same powers additionally for a specific price that would kick in after their first free use. Performing this amazing move more than once to cause a character to become fatigued, for instance, or using that particular trip more than once would cause the enemy to gain modifiers on defence, or that particular spells cast again would cause the character to potentially become mad, or whatever. 

What I'm saying is that there ways, relatively easy ways, to add to the 4E experience so that the narrative logic doesn't have to be the single overwhelming logic that sustains the whole system, while still keeping the cool exploits, prayers, spells and what-have-you just as efficient as they previously were, if not more effective than they were. It's all a question of fine tuning, to me. A question of opening the system to different types of role playing, rather than nerfing anything even more than it was with the changes of editions. 

Hope that makes my POV clearer.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 28, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Now, I do think there's some logic to it in the sense that yes, magic is well, magical, and non-magic moves are subjected to a set of Physics rules we can better understand when talking about a fantasy world with a set of Physics comparable to our world.



Except, there's no reason a fantasy world with magic would have a set of physical laws anything like our own. If it did, arcane classes couldn't so casually defy the laws of thermodynamics, and divine casters couldn't channel imaginary power from non-existant supreme beings.  

Terry Pratchet spoofs the genre in diskworld, but, really, he has a point.  The laws of physics in a high-fantasy world would have to be pretty bizzare.



> YET, I actually agree with your argument, and am myself not opposed to martial classes being able to do amazing moves and exploits in combat. Far from it. My objections are not targeted at martial classes in particular, and are not concerned with that type of bias you describe. No.



We'll see if you can come up with any example that doesn't involve restricting a martial character for being martial...






> Let me take an example: Daily and Encounter powers in 4E. While I can easily explain in my mind why a Wizard would have Daily powers and Encounter powers, I find no way to explain why Fighters would only be able to use a given Martial move (exploit) only one per Day, or per Encounter.



 Strike 1.  Try constructing an example of, say, why something 4e allows both a arcane and divine character to do is logical for one but not the other...



> What I am specifically rejecting is the narrative logic that sustains some of 4E's mechanics, and/or explaination of such mechanics done in a Skip Williams, "rules in a vacuum", style. I.e. explaining rules with a "narrative" explanation, or rules explained in the context of other rules only, with complete disregard for their application in the game world.
> The usual explanation that is given to me for such powers is that "it's a cool move, the kind of move that ends a scene in a movie, or ends the episode". This, is a narrative explanation. It's not connected to the game world, but it's concerned with a bird's eye view upon the characters, which rubs me the wrong way as far as role playing is concerned.



Sure, it's a narrativist explanation.  There are also simulationist explanations.  For instance, it could be a 'surprise move' that's only going to work on someone who hasn't seen it - once you bust it out in a given battle, that enemy, and quite possibly everyone else you're fighting, is going to be wise to it.  Or, it could be a very difficult move that you try a number of times but are lucky to pull off even once - represented by a 'reliable' daily.  




> What I'm saying is that there ways, relatively easy ways, to add to the 4E experience so that the narrative logic doesn't have to be the single overwhelming logic that sustains the whole system, while still keeping the cool exploits, prayers, spells and what-have-you just as efficient as they previously were, if not more effective than they were. It's all a question of fine tuning, to me.



I'm OK with both the narrative and immersive styles of play, but the big deal for me is that a game be reasonably and robustly balanced.   Making the game mechanically balanced and playable should be the top priority, if that means giving martial characters dialies - or taking them away from arcane characters - that's fine, I can find some explanation or rationale for it, be it a narrative one or an immersive one.

On the simulation side, I like a game to model something more fun and interesting than RL.  Real life is readily available.  So, while a love a simulationist game that delivers verismilitude with regard to a genre, if all it offers is 'reallism,' it can stay on the shelf.
(*cough*Aftermath*choke*dieofradiationpoisoninginsteadofgettingmutated*)


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 28, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Except, there's no reason a fantasy world with magic would have a set of physical laws anything like our own.



Sure. Absolutely. Except that most Fantasy role playing game worlds (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Thieves World, Birthright, Ptolus, Mystara, and about a zillion other more-or-less vanilla worlds) assume/are based, with more or less success, on a Physics engine similar to our own world (i.e. speeds and movement, weights, mass, gravity, effects of the environment, heat, cold, electricity, what poisons do to your body, and so on and so forth). 



Tony Vargas said:


> We'll see if you can come up with any example that doesn't involve restricting a martial character for being martial...
> 
> 
> Strike 1.  Try constructing an example of, say, why something 4e allows both a arcane and divine character to do is logical for one but not the other...



Well, I just did in the part you didn't quote: "While I can easily explain in my mind why a Wizard would have Daily powers and Encounter powers, much in the same way I would explain why in older editions they had a limited amount of memory "slots" in a Vancian system, I find no way to explain why Fighters would only be able to use a given Martial move (exploit) only one per Day, or per Encounter."

I can in game-world terms explain to myself that a given Prayer is only allowed at certain given times or intervals by a particular deity, or that a spell is so complex in its particular effects that it could only be performed once every once in a while, but a particular fighting move, not so easily, to me. 

I can understand in-game why a Wizard would only be able to cast Fireball once a day (maybe the spell is super complex. Maybe it exerts such a drain on the mind as to make it hard to cast again for some time. Maybe the Gods of Magic don't want you to cast Fireball all the time. Etc). I can understand in-game why a Cleric could only use Astral Refuge once a day (Maybe the Gods don't want you to breach the veil between worlds that often. Maybe the Prayer itself consumes your spirits and drains your soul in such a way as to make it impossible to cast again right away. Maybe... you get the picture). I don't understand why a fighter could only Crack the Shell once a day, or why the Rogue would only be able to use Trick Strike once a day.



 

Note that in my post I also indicated simple ways in which I think uses of Encounters and Dailies could be loosened a bit by implicating some prices on further utilizations of these powers, with maybe specific prices for specific power sources, or specific prices for each specific powers. This obviously was just an example, but still, I do think there are some possibilities for 4E to remain 4E while doing away with the gamist-narrativist BS going on with the system.



Tony Vargas said:


> Sure, it's a narrativist explanation.  There are also simulationist explanations.  For instance, it could be a 'surprise move' that's only going to work on someone who hasn't seen it - once you bust it out in a given battle, that enemy, and quite possibly everyone else you're fighting, is going to be wise to it.  Or, it could be a very difficult move that you try a number of times but are lucky to pull off even once - represented by a 'reliable' daily.



For some reason, I find it exceedingly more complex to come up with simulationist explanations than narrative ones. Maybe it's just me, but then again, I'm far from being the only D&Der out there with this type of issue with the 4E game system (see link above, for instance). 



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm OK with both the narrative and immersive styles of play, but the big deal for me is that a game be reasonably and robustly balanced. Making the game mechanically balanced and playable should be the top priority, if that means giving martial characters dialies - or taking them away from arcane characters - that's fine, I can find some explanation or rationale for it, be it a narrative one or an immersive one.



To me, game balance is not the same thing as rules balance. Rules balance is just one of the many components of actual game as-it-is-being-played balance, which also includes various GM skills, collaboration between the participants of the game, spotlight given to characters and the situations that allow such spotlights, play styles (game balance between thespian players will not mean the same thing as game balance between tactical players) and so on and so forth.

The rules are not the game. The game is not the rules.

Rules balance being the be-all end-all of game balance, and thus requiring near-perfection, is a fallacy, and thus, does not have to be a priority of game design. To me at least.



Tony Vargas said:


> On the simulation side, I like a game to model something more fun and interesting than RL.  Real life is readily available.  So, while a love a simulationist game that delivers verismilitude with regard to a genre, if all it offers is 'reallism,' it can stay on the shelf.
> (*cough*Aftermath*choke*dieofradiationpoisoninginsteadofgettingmutated*)



I'm not connecting with this argument. The rules being grounded in the game world instead of vice versa does not mean that the world has to be boring or mundane. You can simulate a high fantasy, off the hook world, using mechanics that find their justification in game world elements. Toon in that sense could be simulationist of a cartoon physics engine. In other words, simulationism is not predicated on the idea that you must model the real world itself.


----------



## Initiate (Aug 29, 2010)

The powers system seems like a way of "dumbing down" D&D. With the powers system you have a select amount of abilities so that players don't have to worry about a dozen different modifiers that crop up when using said powers multiple times.

I`m not necessarily a fan as I would love to be able to use martial dailies more than once a day and honestly the powers system was the reason I avoided 4e like the plague when it came out. 

I'm used to it now and when I`m playing a non-martial class I don't mind. Although I do find myself longing for Brute Strike after it's spent.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 29, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Sure. Absolutely. Except that most Fantasy role playing game worlds (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Thieves World, Birthright, Ptolus, Mystara, and about a zillion other more-or-less vanilla worlds) assume/are based, with more or less success, on a Physics engine similar to our own world (i.e. speeds and movement, weights, mass, gravity, effects of the environment, heat, cold, electricity, what poisons do to your body, and so on and so forth).



Superficially, perhaps.  But myth and legend actually /did/ grow from our own world, and people seemed OK with their mighty heroes punching the tops of mountains, outrunning arrows, diverting rivers with their bare hands, and otherwise doing the flat-out impossible.  Why can't a fantasy setting have room in it's ill-defined 'natural laws' for impossible feats by sword-swingers as well as wand-wavers?




> Well, I just did in the part you didn't quote: "While I can easily explain in my mind why a Wizard would have Daily powers and Encounter powers, much in the same way I would explain why in older editions they had a limited amount of memory "slots" in a Vancian system, I find no way to explain why Fighters would only be able to use a given Martial move (exploit) only one per Day, or per Encounter."



That's just you aplying a double standard against the martial types, again.

What I said was:  Try coming up with an example contrasting arcane and divine.  

Try leave martial out of it while conveying your objections to 4e.   You insist it's not that you have anything against that source, yet it's the only one you seem able to muster an objection too.





> For some reason, I find it exceedingly more complex to come up with simulationist explanations than narrative ones. Maybe it's just me, but then again, I'm far from being the only D&Der out there with this type of issue with the 4E game system (see link above, for instance).



Simulationist explanations are a bit more exacting, I think, by their very nature.  And, I did opine that "anti-martialism" was a commonplace prejudice in the hobby, you're certainly not alone in wanting to aply this particular double-standard.




> To me, game balance is not the same thing as rules balance. Rules balance is just one of the many components of actual game as-it-is-being-played balance, which also includes various GM skills, collaboration between the participants of the game, spotlight given to characters and the situations that allow such spotlights, play styles (game balance between thespian players will not mean the same thing as game balance between tactical players) and so on and so forth.



Certainly, good DMing and restraint on the part of the players can make up for a bad system.  I'm not personally willing to cut a system any slack for being fixable by a sufficiently skilled DM, though.  Systems can be well or robustly balanced, or have a fragile balance about them, or be complete crap - that they can be house-ruled or otherwise compensated for doesn't make a crap system not crap.



> I'm not connecting with this argument. The rules being grounded in the game world instead of vice versa does not mean that the world has to be boring or mundane. You can simulate a high fantasy, off the hook world, using mechanics that find their justification in game world elements. Toon in that sense could be simulationist of a cartoon physics engine. In other words, simulationism is not predicated on the idea that you must model the real world itself.



My point exactly.  You can have a simulationist game without having to base any of it on RL.  You can simulate a fantasy world in which mighty warriors routinely perform impossible feats - including somehow 'grabbing' a swarm, if you like.  If you want to look at the rules as the 'laws of physics' for the game world, then 4e models a world in which a lot of stuff that isn't possible in our world, is possible.  You could never 'grab' a swarm of bees (while, you could, if nabbed the queen, the rest would swarm around you - bad example - you could never grab school of piranha), but then you could never cast a fireball, or turn undead (even if you could find some undead to turn), or transform into an aspect of the primal beast.

I'm really hearing two things from you.  One is:  I'm harbor no prejudice against martial characters, I just think they should be restricted from doing things the rules say they can, while all other power sources get the full benefits of the abilities the rules give them.

The other is:  I don't like 4e being so narativist, I'd prefer it be simulationist.  

Well, to the second:  consider that 4e may be simulating naratives.  No, really, fantasy novels, action flicks, mythic epics - they're all narratives.


As for the first, I'm really not being fair.  In our society today, charges of 'prejudice' are easy to make and hard to wriggle free of.  I'd really like to be able to just drop that aspect of the discussion.  So, why don't we keep discussing the narrative/simulationist aspect of it, but just leave the poor beleaguered martial power source completely out of it?


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 29, 2010)

Ah well. See now Tony, I feel like really I must be completely failing at explaining my points, because your entire post reads to me like you either completely misunderstand what I'm saying, or willfully miscontrue them to suit whatever argument you want to have (like for example this weird notion that I have something against martial classes. Did you actually read my example of ways to expand on uses of Encounter and Daily powers with drawbacks to further uses after the first one, which included actual examples not only for martial powers, but spells also? (here, last two paragraphs - this shows you I'm not talking about gimping martial classes at all, but give actual examples in which all encounter and daily powers, from ALL power sources, could be potentially broadened to allow for more connection between the application of these powers and the game world)

IDK. Like I said. Either you completely misunderstand what I'm saying, or you're building some kind of strawman argument. *shrug* Either way, we're just going to go round and round in circles from there. Not worth pursuing any further.

It's alright, mate. We gave it a shot at least. Thanks for the occasion to explain my POV a bit further.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 29, 2010)

Initiate said:


> The powers system seems like a way of "dumbing down" D&D. With the powers system you have a select amount of abilities so that players don't have to worry about a dozen different modifiers that crop up when using said powers multiple times.
> 
> I`m not necessarily a fan as I would love to be able to use martial dailies more than once a day and honestly the powers system was the reason I avoided 4e like the plague when it came out.
> 
> I'm used to it now and when I`m playing a non-martial class I don't mind. Although I do find myself longing for Brute Strike after it's spent.



I really don't get this mentality at all. I suppose 4e casters have fewer interesting options than they did in 3e, but the powers system has definitely "smartened up" a whole slew of classes that, in all previous editions, boiled down to either:
"I hit it 'til it's not a problem anymore."
OR
"I get behind it then hit it 'til it's not a problem anymore."

To say nothing of actually making movement relevant (and beneficial!) in combat. Full attack actions were as dumbed down as dumb can get. To say nothing about letting clerics be more than heal-bots. And more interesting monsters for DMs to play.

I'll take that kind of tactical improvement across the board over losing spell memorization & buff-scry-port any day of the week. I've been playing since AD&D and I can say with certainty that 4e is the smartest D&D I've played.

Getting (more) back on topic, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that 4e really doesn't give a crap about simulationists. It has not once set out to pretend that it was a game for simulationists, and every day that passes it shocks me more and more when simulationists are perplexed when the game allows things they can't wrap their heads around.

Part of the other (non-tactical) reason why 4e is the smartest D&D is that it places so much greater impetus on the player to drive the narrative of their character. Players are essentially given the charge of figuring out exactly how their character works within the context of the game world. The books don't have to explain it, the designers don't have to explain it, DM's don't have to explain it. It's all on the player. If you need to know why your new warlord can only ever seem to try to pull a *Lead the Attack** roughly once per day, then _you're _the one who has to figure out the reason why that is (or, if you can, employ the MST3K Mantra). If you can't figure it out, and that bugs you, then martial classes aren't for you. Simple as pie.


*I was going to just say "daily power" but let's be honest with ourselves here


----------



## Initiate (Aug 29, 2010)

What I meant by dumbing down was that they used the powers system instead of something along the lines of what Odhanan was suggesting with the different modifiers for multiple uses of powers.

I completely agree that it is the smartest edition yet, I merely chose poor wording. Sorry to have obviously struck a cord there.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 29, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Ah well. See now Tony, I feel like really I must be completely failing at explaining my points, because your entire post reads to me like you either completely misunderstand what I'm saying, or willfully miscontrue them to suit whatever argument you want to have (like for example this weird notion that I have something against martial classes.)



I can see how it would seem that way.  It looks to me like you're making an assumption upon which you're basing your position.  I was trying to get you to re-examine that assumption, or at least, to see what your argument would be like without it.  I'm not saying you hate martial classes - you might /really/ like them - but you do appear to be holding them to a different standard than everything else. 

Like I said, if you can make your point without using a martial class or power as an example, I'd be delighted to hear it. (And I'd have no way to twist or willfully misconstrue your argument into you somehow not liking the martial archetypes, would I?)  If you can't, you might want to give a little thought as to why.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 29, 2010)

If the fiction means nothing in your game, you might as well be playing a board game. 

If you can fictionally justify "grabbing" or "restraining" something, then do it. Otherwise, no.


----------



## Primal (Aug 29, 2010)

Gradine said:


> I really don't get this mentality at all. I suppose 4e casters have fewer interesting options than they did in 3e, but the powers system has definitely "smartened up" a whole slew of classes that, in all previous editions, boiled down to either:
> "I hit it 'til it's not a problem anymore."
> OR
> "I get behind it then hit it 'til it's not a problem anymore."
> ...




Well, clerics as heal-bots was more of a problem in AD&D than 3E; in 3E clerics became "buff-bots". In fact, most clerics I've played with used their first rounds buffing *themselves*, and then stepped to the frontline to completely destroy the baddies in melee.

I'm afraid that 4E has emphasized tactical combat a bit too much for my taste; I was never really good at it, and I feel combat in 3E was about as much as I could handle. However, I'm hoping that 'Essentials' downplays this a bit with stances and "simplified" powers, because I would like to try playing and running 4E, but I feel a bit overwhelmed with all that I've seen of the core stuff.

At the moment I'm running and playing PF RPG; I feel it has added a lot of options via talents and feats, but without it all becoming too complex. And very "specialized" combat feats and class variants have made certain archetypes actually viable choices -- for example, for the first time I might actually play a dwarven ranger or a polearm specialist or a sword-and-board fighter. If the 'Essentials' line still feels too complex, I can always keep on playing PF. 



> Part of the other (non-tactical) reason why 4e is the smartest D&D is that it places so much greater impetus on the player to drive the narrative of their character. Players are essentially given the charge of figuring out exactly how their character works within the context of the game world. The books don't have to explain it, the designers don't have to explain it, DM's don't have to explain it. It's all on the player. If you need to know why your new warlord can only ever seem to try to pull a *Lead the Attack** roughly once per day, then _you're _the one who has to figure out the reason why that is (or, if you can, employ the MST3K Mantra). If you can't figure it out, and that bugs you, then martial classes aren't for you. Simple as pie.




Well, in the end 4E does not give any more narrativistic control to the player than any other edition, because the final say is still on the DM; if the DM thinks a player's description is over the top, it doesn't happen that way. The only exception I can think of are the Skill Challenges, and only if the DM asks the players to describe what and how they're trying to accomplish with each check. I *do* agree with you that it *is* best to give as much narrativistic control to the players as possible, but it's not "hardwired" to the rules in the same way Indie RPGs do it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 29, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> If the fiction means nothing in your game, you might as well be playing a board game.
> 
> If you can fictionally justify "grabbing" or "restraining" something, then do it. Otherwise, no.



I don't think this is true.  I mean if my PCs are being attacked by a swarm of sewer rats as they attempt to sneak into the castle to depose the Lich King who has ruled the kingdom for the last 100 years since it grew to power in the Old War when it tricked all of the leaders of the world into giving their kingdoms to it....

It means the fiction means something...and it isn't a board game.  On the other hand, I still want the guy playing the Grappler Fighter to have fun for the next hour while we run the combat.  Since almost every one of his powers becomes quite a bit more ineffective if he can't grab an enemy, I can imagine it might be kind of frustrating to have all of them fail.  So, I'll allow him to grab the swarm and simply abstract it enough that I don't have to describe it.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 29, 2010)

Primal said:


> Well, in the end 4E does not give any more narrativistic control to the player than any other edition, because the final say is still on the DM; if the DM thinks a player's description is over the top, it doesn't happen that way. The only exception I can think of are the Skill Challenges, and only if the DM asks the players to describe what and how they're trying to accomplish with each check. I *do* agree with you that it *is* best to give as much narrativistic control to the players as possible, but it's not "hardwired" to the rules in the same way Indie RPGs do it.




I don't really disagree with anything you say up until this point. In fact, I believe in the exact opposite of what you say in terms of skill challenges. Skill challenges are the only times where it's _absolutely essential_, gameplay-wise, for the DM to carefully adjudicate the players' narrative uses of their skills.

In all other cases, especially in combat, there's really no point _gameplay-wise_ in the DM reining in what their characters are or are not capable of. Obviously, how much srs bznz reasonable combat descriptions are will vary from group to group, but the end result will _always _be the same regardless: roll for damage and apply effects.

Thus, I disagree with your basic assertions about 4e. As a D&D game (I'll admit I don't have as much experience with other systems), it has, more than any other edition, encouraged players to take creative, narrative control of their characters. And, more importantly more than any other edition, has _not _encouraged DMs to rein their players in. I can assume other systems will do this _better _(in fact, at least two that I have played _do.) _I'm simply asserting that 4e does this particularly well also, as there are far fewer (almost none, really) gameplay reasons for DMs to rein their players in now.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 29, 2010)

Primal said:


> I'm afraid that 4E has emphasized tactical combat a bit too much for my taste; I was never really good at it, and I feel combat in 3E was about as much as I could handle. However, I'm hoping that 'Essentials' downplays this a bit with stances and "simplified" powers, because I would like to try playing and running 4E, but I feel a bit overwhelmed with all that I've seen of the core stuff.



3e was more grid-oriented and tactical than prior versions of the game (which you could often run without minis at all), and 4e continued that trend, yes.  I don't think Essentials is particularly less tactical.  All the movement options remain, the roles are still there, etc.  Mostly the classes are a lot easier to create and level-up.  The martial classes have slightly fewer in-combat options, in that they lack dailies, but aside from that, have the same call to be tactical in positioning and coordinating their actions.  

One thing I don't quite get is the complaint that 4e is somehow more complex than 3e.  3.x was positively nightmarish on towards the end, there, especially if the game was in one of those optimization death-spirals in which the players build uber-characters, the DM responds with uber-monsters, the players respond with broken combos, etc, etc...

Where I've found complexity in 4e isn't on either side of the DM screen, but behind the curtains.  The game is simple and easy to run, simple to play.  But try to tinker with it, and you suddenly realize what a complex web of choices, interactions, and synergies you have to try to keep from screwing up.  Building a new class for instance, is a truely daunting proposition.  Even modifying a rule or two can force you to consider dozens of unintended consiquences.



> Well, in the end 4E does not give any more narrativistic control to the player than any other edition, because the final say is still on the DM; if the DM thinks a player's description is over the top, it doesn't happen that way.



While the DM can, in theory, override anything ("no, your character has blue eyes, not green!"), there's really no need.  Descriptions don't affect mechanics, so how a character describes what he does won't change what he accomplishes.  Also, many of the powers imply player control of things outside of what his character does (or even knows about).  A daily divine power, for instance, could be expended on a given round not because the player called on it that round, but because he called on it each round, and it was at that moment that the god chose to act through him.  Each time a Cleric heals, for instance, it could be a miracle that he has no way of actually causing to happen, he just has to have faith that it will.  If you describe your Cleric's powers that way, you're actually making decisions for the God he whorships.  

The thing is, you can go that way or not, as it suits you.  I've seen groups that really like the 'storytelling' aproach, and couldn't stand D&D really take to 4e, because it leaves them that kind of narrative flexibility.  Conversely, I've seen groups for whom D&D has always been as much or more small-scale wargame as RPG, similarly take to 4e for it's emphasis on tactical play.


----------



## Primal (Aug 30, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> 3e was more grid-oriented and tactical than prior versions of the game (which you could often run without minis at all), and 4e continued that trend, yes.  I don't think Essentials is particularly less tactical.  All the movement options remain, the roles are still there, etc.  Mostly the classes are a lot easier to create and level-up.  The martial classes have slightly fewer in-combat options, in that they lack dailies, but aside from that, have the same call to be tactical in positioning and coordinating their actions.
> 
> One thing I don't quite get is the complaint that 4e is somehow more complex than 3e.  3.x was positively nightmarish on towards the end, there, especially if the game was in one of those optimization death-spirals in which the players build uber-characters, the DM responds with uber-monsters, the players respond with broken combos, etc, etc...
> 
> Where I've found complexity in 4e isn't on either side of the DM screen, but behind the curtains.  The game is simple and easy to run, simple to play.  But try to tinker with it, and you suddenly realize what a complex web of choices, interactions, and synergies you have to try to keep from screwing up.  Building a new class for instance, is a truely daunting proposition.  Even modifying a rule or two can force you to consider dozens of unintended consiquences.




Oh, I totally agree with 3E high-level play being very, very complex -- however, not so much on the tactical side per se. As you said, it mostly came down to crunching numbers with the wide range of feats and prestige classes, but I didn't see it affecting tactical depth; instead, most optimized PCs were really "one-trick ponies" who relied on the same actions round after round. In 3E, I think the complexity in tactical choices had more to do with spellcasters (and spells in general). For the DM this meant that he had to know what the PC spellcasters were capable of doing and adjust his/her tactics accordingly; likewise, he had to know all the spells and spell-like abilities monsters had at their disposal, which could be a real headache at high levels.

4E has none of that; instead, every player must know his powers inside out, and how these powers interact with other PCs. For example, I might easily mess up by pulling a monster to melee, when I should have actually used a power that would push it so that the wizard could use some close blast power. Or I should have marked a minion that is whittling down the wizard's HPs at an alarming rate . And so on (I think you get my point). Now, this sort of stuff used to be more relevant to spellcasters, but now every PC has to think of the "group synergy" (i.e. "Which of my powers will be most useful to group in this particular situation?") and it can very easily lead to "power paralysis". I've even seen some people badmouthing less tactically-inclined players for playing "stupidly". 

For the DM this also means he that he/she must create balanced encounters that challenge the players; although 4E provides a lot of tools for this, not all of us can easily juggle the hazards, terrain effects and "synergy" effects from monster roles and powers. Running a typical 4E combat would be a nightmare for me, because I don't just need to try to use tactics to the best of my ability; I also need to keep track of marks, effects, zones and whatnot. It's just too tactical for me.

I still think 4E does a lot "right"; it's just the heavily emphasized tactical depth that's keeping me away from it. And that is why I hope 'Essentials' product line will introduce less complex combat rules and classes.

Now that PF RPG has introduced a new array of options with APG, I'm starting to feel the same with PF NPCs; there's just so many new choices, and some of them are even "overlapping" (e.g. a feat copies an effect that archetypes X and Y already offer at levels 5 and 9, respectively). The end result is that I don't feel I can manage all the fiddly details, and I wish the designers would have created a separate subsystem for handling NPCs.



> While the DM can, in theory, override anything ("no, your character has blue eyes, not green!"), there's really no need.  Descriptions don't affect mechanics, so how a character describes what he does won't change what he accomplishes.  Also, many of the powers imply player control of things outside of what his character does (or even knows about).  A daily divine power, for instance, could be expended on a given round not because the player called on it that round, but because he called on it each round, and it was at that moment that the god chose to act through him.  Each time a Cleric heals, for instance, it could be a miracle that he has no way of actually causing to happen, he just has to have faith that it will.  If you describe your Cleric's powers that way, you're actually making decisions for the God he whorships.
> 
> The thing is, you can go that way or not, as it suits you.  I've seen groups that really like the 'storytelling' aproach, and couldn't stand D&D really take to 4e, because it leaves them that kind of narrative flexibility.  Conversely, I've seen groups for whom D&D has always been as much or more small-scale wargame as RPG, similarly take to 4e for it's emphasis on tactical play.




I absolutely encourage creativity, within reasonable limits (no iron golem PCs in my campaigns, for example) and I didn't mean that the rules *restrict* a player's control over narration. However, apart from the player being able to describe his actions, and say when he uses certain (encounter and daily) powers, there's nothing in the rules that would mechanically enable a player to seize control of the narrative in the same way it's hardwired into many Indie RPGs. I personally wouldn't probably ever interfere in the way a player described a power taking place in the story, unless I felt it's a bit too "anime-ish" or "supernatural" (for a martial PC, that is).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 30, 2010)

Primal said:


> Oh, I totally agree with 3E high-level play being very, very complex -- however, not so much on the tactical side per se. As you said, it mostly came down to crunching numbers with the wide range of feats and prestige classes, but I didn't see it affecting tactical depth; instead, most optimized PCs were really "one-trick ponies" who relied on the same actions round after round.



There was a prolific school of 'optimization' thought that made the game about winning at chargen.  But, if you look at the tactical options in the game - before they became obscured by such things, at lower levels, for instance  - there where definitely tactical options and consideration.  Surprise, high ground, flanking, etc made positioning of some importance, and AoOs complicated positioning.  In addition to melee attacks characters could trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush, or initiate a nightmarishly complicated grapple.  The main addition I've seen with 4e is that there's involuntary movement, and AOs are a bit easier to avoid than AoOs, so you get more actual movement.

In 3E, I think the complexity in tactical choices had more to do with spellcasters (and spells in general). ... 4E has none of that; instead, every player must know his powers inside out, and how these powers interact with other PCs.[/quote]Certainly, which is still orders of magnitude easier than learning spells inside out for prepped casters.  A 3.x wizard needed to know all the spells he learns inside out - he needs only a passing familiarty with the whole list to choose which one he wants to learn.  The divine prepped casters just plain needed to know their whole lists.  Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters had it easier, but they still ended up knowing dozens of spells at high level.

4e characters get basic attacks plus two at wills, an encounter and a daily - 6 powers to 'know,' if you count both melee and ranged basic attacks.  Three more if you want to consider charge, bullrush, and grapple (which is sooo much simpler).  A 1st level 3.x fighter had could attack melee or ranged, charge, bull rush, grapple, disarm, trip, sunder and/or fight defensively.  That's actually comparable.  By Paragon a 4e character adds 3 encounters, and, late in paragon, a fourth daily, bringing him up to 15 attack options at 20th.  A 3.x Sorcerer (the simpler sort of caster caster) at 11th level would have 19 spells known (not including cantrips, of course) to choose from each round.  The comparable level 3.x fighter would have added Full Attacks to his options, and, perhaps, feats like Spring Attack, WWA, Power Attack or Expertise or Power Attack - five or six feats from his class features, though it's unlikely /all/ would add combat options, a number of them could - a 12th level fighter who just went for WWA would have that, Spring Attack, Expertise, and Full Attack as additional combat options, bringing him up to 13 combat options.

The 4e characters about top out at 20th, after that, they most trade out encounters and dailies, maybe pick up some sort of additional power with their Epic Destiny.  3.x casters continue to grow in complexity, of course, but even the lowly fighter could add a few more options before completely running out of interesting feats.   





> Now, this sort of stuff used to be more relevant to spellcasters, but now every PC has to think of the "group synergy" (i.e. "Which of my powers will be most useful to group in this particular situation?") and it can very easily lead to "power paralysis". I've even seen some people badmouthing less tactically-inclined players for playing "stupidly".



I do like that the roles, forced movement, and ally-affecting powers have made teamwork more important.  Players who don't like that can gravitate towards strikers - some striker builds (most other than the rogue, I think) require very little coordination to work well.  And, indeed, striker is a popular role.  ...



> For the DM this also means he that he/she must create balanced encounters that challenge the players; although 4E provides a lot of tools for this, not all of us can easily juggle the hazards, terrain effects and "synergy" effects from monster roles and powers. Running a typical 4E combat would be a nightmare for me, because I don't just need to try to use tactics to the best of my ability; I also need to keep track of marks, effects, zones and whatnot. It's just too tactical for me.



Certainly, if there's a player/DM disparity on the tactical decide, it could be a problem.  Mostly if the DM is too tactically enclined, though - a single very tactical player still has to engage in the cat-herding required to get any tactical advantage or synergy out of his allies - an overly tactical, overly competative DM can be overwhelming, since his monsters can always coordinate perfectly.  Some restraint is actually called for in the DM role.  

My current DM was not at all tactically enclined as a player, but she finds it easy to occassionally have monsters engage in good tactics when she gets the infrequent urge to do so, for that reason.  



> I still think 4E does a lot "right"; it's just the heavily emphasized tactical depth that's keeping me away from it. And that is why I hope 'Essentials' product line will introduce less complex combat rules and classes.



I haven't seen anything to indicate less complex rules options.  The martial classes are stripped of daily powers, but have about the same number of options -though some of those options seem simpler to understand.



> Now that PF RPG has introduced a new array of options with APG, I'm starting to feel the same with PF NPCs; there's just so many new choices, and some of them are even "overlapping" (e.g. a feat copies an effect that archetypes X and Y already offer at levels 5 and 9, respectively). The end result is that I don't feel I can manage all the fiddly details, and I wish the designers would have created a separate subsystem for handling NPCs.



4e does at least let you design monsters and NPC more easily and with less extraneous detail than 3.x did.  The work load on the DM to prep 4e encounters is much reduced.  That might help make up for the greater demands for 'tactics' in-play.  Of course, if your players aren't a bunch of wererommels, it might not be a problem.  





> there's nothing in the rules that would mechanically enable a player to seize control of the narrative in the same way it's hardwired into many Indie RPGs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 30, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It means the fiction means something...and it isn't a board game.  On the other hand, I still want the guy playing the Grappler Fighter to have fun for the next hour while we run the combat.  Since almost every one of his powers becomes quite a bit more ineffective if he can't grab an enemy, I can imagine it might be kind of frustrating to have all of them fail.  So, I'll allow him to grab the swarm and simply abstract it enough that I don't have to describe it.




Wrong. You're saying that you roleplay and then when you get to combat everything is abstract (i.e. a boardgame). I'm speaking specifically about combat. And if you get to combat and the fiction ceases to matter, well, you're not playing an RPG at that point. You've switched into "boardgame" mode. If you're letting the grappler fighter use his powers with no fictional circumstances backing them up, then that's weak. 

I think this is the reason why some gamers who stuck with 3.5 hate 4E, because you actually have to work to make the fiction stick in 4E combat, whereas 3E kind of relied on the fiction.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 30, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> One of my favorite OGL games is Iron Heroes. In there, you've got some badass martial classes able to perform all sorts of amazing moves in combat. But the mechanics don't use this sort of narrative logic to balance classes against each other. Instead, you have in most cases the use of pools, with the characters actually performing some specific actions or preparation or moves in the game world to be able to gather "tokens", which they then are able to spend on these amazing moves. This is an in-game explanation that does not affect my suspension of disbelief, personally.



I'm unclear why you couldn't just imagine the same actions happening in 4E. Does it have to be the result of a die roll in order to count for martial characters? Descriptive stuff doesn't count? I mean, back in the old days that's all we had - if the fighter's player didn't describe his attacks colourfully, it was just "hit" or "miss".

Seems to me you can use the same justification in 4E as you do in Iron Heroes, only without all the pool bookkeeping.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 30, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> Wrong. You're saying that you roleplay and then when you get to combat everything is abstract (i.e. a boardgame). I'm speaking specifically about combat. And if you get to combat and the fiction ceases to matter, well, you're not playing an RPG at that point. You've switched into "boardgame" mode. If you're letting the grappler fighter use his powers with no fictional circumstances backing them up, then that's weak.




I think the players in this case are deciding the fiction that backs it up. 



> I think this is the reason why some gamers who stuck with 3.5 hate 4E, because you actually have to work to make the fiction stick in 4E combat, whereas 3E kind of relied on the fiction.




See I disagree here- I kind of find it the other way around.

I like games like 4e that give you a rule, then let you decide for the most part about the corner cases and weird oddities.

In a game like 3e because the guy writing the rule thought it shouldn't apply "realistically or whatever" to swarms it wouldn't apply to swarms, and it would say so.  

Cool if that works for you, but me? I tend to start thinking, but what about this case, or this case... Or what about...

Now if you're looking for a way to actually have whatever the effect is apply to what the designer thought it should apply to, you have to jump through hoops to make it work.

So for me, 4e style is much easier to work with.

Imaginations are different in each person, and so are "knowledge levels." What one person knows as a "fact" another person might know is actually BS.

Just gimmie the rule and I can decide how it applies.

Different strokes n all that.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 30, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think the players in this case are deciding the fiction that backs it up.




That's exactly what I am saying. Read my previous post. No fiction = no mechanics. Otherwise, you're just playing a boardgame. 

If one of my players says, "I use my 'Grappling Strike' power to immobilize the swarm!" 

My immediate response is, "Awesome. How do you do that?" 

If he doesn't have any fictional justification, then it simply doesn't happen. This whole, "if it's in the rules it should happen" is a boardgame mentality. What I'm trying to accomplish is fiction with the rules there to facilitate that.



Scribble said:


> See I disagree here- I kind of find it the other way around.
> 
> I like games like 4e that give you a rule, then let you decide for the most part about the corner cases and weird oddities.




I never said anything in my post about "corner cases" - so I really don't get how you "disagree" here. 



Scribble said:


> In a game like 3e because the guy writing the rule thought it shouldn't apply "realistically or whatever" to swarms it wouldn't apply to swarms, and it would say so.
> 
> Cool if that works for you, but me? I tend to start thinking, but what about this case, or this case... Or what about...




No, I think the same applies to 4E rules. Can you fictionally immobilize this target? Yes? Cool. You do it. No? Sorry, you can't. 

There are no "corner case". Every case is the same. Can you fictionally justify it? If so, then you do it. 



Scribble said:


> Now if you're looking for a way to actually have whatever the effect is apply to what the designer thought it should apply to, you have to jump through hoops to make it work.
> 
> So for me, 4e style is much easier to work with.




Wtf are you talking about? I don't think the designers look at each scenario and write out whether it applies in each situation. They make a general rule about how to "grab" something and immobilize. It takes common sense and fiction for that rule to be invoked. 



Scribble said:


> Imaginations are different in each person, and so are "knowledge levels." What one person knows as a "fact" another person might know is actually BS.
> 
> Just gimmie the rule and I can decide how it applies.
> 
> Different strokes n all that.




I'm not talking about "facts". I'm talking about fiction. If you say, "I grab the swarm..." I'm simply going to ask, "Sure. How do you do that?" 

If you can't come up with something fictionally, you can't do it. Period. If your answer is... "Uh, I don't know... This power says I can..." I'm gonna say, "I don't give a . I need to know HOW you do it." 

This has nothing to do with "facts" or "knowledge" or "reality" and everything to do with "fiction" and "justification". 

If you're playing the game that has "Condition Red" and "Condition Blue" you might as well be playing a boardgame. 

There's a reason they added "you are lying down" to the prone entry which was VERY missing from the original entry. It's because fictionally, it matters. 

I honestly find it very sad to see people playing with the idea of "rules first" and "fiction second". 

For me, it's Fiction First, then determine where the rules come in to adjudicate that.

Unfortunately, the way 4E is designed, it's easy to fall into that trap. So, I understand.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm fairly sure the correct answer to the question, "can I grapple an ooze/a swarm?" is to turn around and ask the players "how do you intend to grapple the ooze?". If they provide a halfway reasonable, or, since we're speaking about D&D, a mostly _unreasonable_ response, that's still somewhat clever in a kooky, child-like way, then the answer is equivocally "yes".


----------



## Scribble (Aug 30, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> That's exactly what I am saying. Read my previous post. No fiction = no mechanics. Otherwise, you're just playing a boardgame.





Relax man. 

I agree with you that rules adjudication should go through the fiction "filter" first.  

All I'm saying is I prefer games that don't try to pre-bake the rules with a lot of what the designer thought was the fiction that fits the rule.

In my opinion, this lets ME decide how best to fictionally interpret the rule more easily.

In my opinion, 3e pre-baked more rules then 4e does, so I find working as a DM with the 4e rules easier.

It's a personal opinion/preference that's all.


----------



## Initiate (Aug 30, 2010)

I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a knot. It's all about personal preference, if you don't like the way one person interprets the rules don't play with them, it's that simple. It's only a game guys, calm down.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 30, 2010)

Actually..I distinctly remember a thread discussing the pros and cons of at-will versus encounters and dailies and it was related to ToB.

The suggestion of having at-wills modified by a "penalty/tax" system for using he same power repeatedly (the trip monkey syndrome) was the original idea behind Iron Heroes/ToB martial characters.

In practice, it was really tricky to implement as the player now had to keep track of how many times they had used the specific power, cross reference it against a formula (say -1 to attack every time this at-will is used past the 1st time) apply the tax and then the player would then have to revaluate whether or not the power was "good".

Indeed..the token system from Iron Heroes was, on paper, brilliant, but in practise Mearls mentioned to not working as well...


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 30, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Relax man.




And, this is why I never presuppose people's emotive qualities over text on the internet. Really? You can tell that I'm not relaxed? ... 



Scribble said:


> I agree with you that rules adjudication should go through the fiction "filter" first.




Sweet. That's exactly what I was saying. Some people here don't. 



Scribble said:


> All I'm saying is I prefer games that don't try to pre-bake the rules with a lot of what the designer thought was the fiction that fits the rule.
> 
> In my opinion, 3e pre-baked more rules then 4e does, so I find working as a DM with the 4e rules easier.




I disagree that 3E pre-bakes the rules more. Certainly, 4E does so in some instances of the rules. It's why there's a power for every possible "maneuver" you can do. I have 100 different ways for 100 different scenarios to knock someone prone or whatever - and that's tied to mechanical methods, not fictional. Honestly, it's jarring to the fiction. I'm not saying I don't enjoy the cool powers and the variations, but I think I can objectively disagree on the point you're trying to make. 

3E had generic maneuvers, like "Disarm", "Attack", "Sunder" etc... Very generic things you could do that could apply to a variety of fictional circumstances (like some of the 4E generic moves [Bull Rush, Grab, etc...]). 

Honestly, if I were designed 4E, I would have went with a more modular approach using the 4E chassis - but, then you could play the game forever without an infinite number of splats... But, I digress. 

It's just one of those things 4E sacrificed a bit with the powers system. I still prefer 4E to 3E (by far), but I do miss this aspect of previous editions.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 30, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm unclear why you couldn't just imagine the same actions happening in 4E. Does it have to be the result of a die roll in order to count for martial characters? Descriptive stuff doesn't count? I mean, back in the old days that's all we had - if the fighter's player didn't describe his attacks colourfully, it was just "hit" or "miss".
> 
> Seems to me you can use the same justification in 4E as you do in Iron Heroes, only without all the pool bookkeeping.



Not to me. In one case for instance you have an Armiger taking on the charge of his opponent and using the strength of the incoming attacks to build up his own response, which is an in-world explanation of the way you accumulate tokens to then spend on Armiger class abilities in combat, whereas Crack the Shell, the Fighter attack power (PHB p. 79) does not come with any in-world explanation whatsoever as to why a Fighter could perform this move only once a Day. 

I mean, it's not rocket science. If you don't see the difference, Iain, I won't be able to help you there. It's crystal clear to me.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 30, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Not to me. In one case for instance you have an Armiger taking on the charge of his opponent and using the strength of the incoming attacks to build up his own response, which is an in-world explanation of the way you accumulate tokens to then spend on Armiger class abilities in combat, whereas Crack the Shell, the Fighter attack power (PHB p. 79) does not come with any in-world explanation whatsoever as to why a Fighter could perform this move only once a Day.
> 
> I mean, it's not rocket science. If you don't see the difference, Iain, I won't be able to help you there. It's crystal clear to me.




There is an "in-game explanation" for Daily and Encounter Powers in 4E. It's on page 54 of the PHB: 

_Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while._

_Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit._


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 30, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> There is an "in-game explanation" for Daily and Encounter Powers in 4E. It's on page 54 of the PHB:
> 
> _Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while._
> 
> _Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit._



So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is a mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this _specific_ move again? I'm sorry, but the rule vs. the explanation does not compute with me. I mean, it's not an unsurmontable leap to just forget about it and not care and just play the game, as I said earlier, but if you're not seeing the disconnect, then I don't know what to say.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 30, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> ...whereas Crack the Shell, the Fighter attack power (PHB p. 79) does not come with any in-world explanation whatsoever...




You said there wasn't. I provided it. I'm not making this  up. Facts are facts. 



Odhanan said:


> So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is a mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this _specific_ move again?




No, you can't still move the same and there are certainly side effects. You can't do your Encounter or Daily any more - that's the side effect. That energy/opening/etc... has been expended. When you "rest", you can get those back (get your energy back). The actual power represents energy - when you expend it, you lose that energy. 



Odhanan said:


> I'm sorry, but the rule vs. the explanation does not compute with me.




That's your fault, not the game's. 



Odhanan said:


> I mean, it's not an unsurmontable leap to just forget about it and not care and just play the game, as I said earlier, but if you're not seeing the disconnect, then I don't know what to say.




You mean, 'insurmountable' I think. 

And, I don't know what to say to someone who is seeing the disconnect when there are clearly explanations for the fictional cause of the Encounter and Daily mechanic. 

You can like that explanation or not, but there's no "disconnect" here, outside of your inability to disconnect your opinion from fact.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 30, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> You said there wasn't. I provided it. I'm not making this  up. Facts are facts.



Sure. A crappy explanation that does not make any sense to me, but hey. Still. 



P1NBACK said:


> No, you can't still move the same and there are certainly side effects. You can't do your Encounter or Daily any more - that's the side effect. That energy/opening/etc... has been expended. When you "rest", you can get those back (get your energy back). The actual power represents energy - when you expend it, you lose that energy.



Nope. You can still move the same, you are not fatigued at all, you can still use any other Daily, even if more powerful, or Encounter power, but for some reason, the ONLY specific side effect is that this only, specific exploit cannot be performed again. Which doesn't make any sense to me. If that represents energy and somehow I've expended these resources Cracking the Shell of my ennemy, I do not understand why I would still have the resources to sprint or why I would still have the resources to sting and hinder nearby foes with a savage fury of strikes aimed at their legs (Thicket of Blades power description, Level 9 Exploit) but somehow could not redirect this "fury" on Cracking the Shell of another one of my enemies. You see some logic in this, fine. I don't.



P1NBACK said:


> That's your fault, not the game's.



That's your fault is you don't understand my point. Not mine. 
Same level or argumentation, chap. We won't go far with this.



P1NBACK said:


> You mean, 'insurmountable' I think.



Yes. I'm a Frenchman, and English is not my first language. Is that a crime? You want to somehow patronize me or make me feel ashamed? You'll have to try harder.



P1NBACK said:


> And, I don't know what to say to someone who is seeing the disconnect when there are clearly explanations for the fictional cause of the Encounter and Daily mechanic.
> 
> You can like that explanation or not, but there's no "disconnect" here, outside of your inability to disconnect your opinion from fact.



Well, I'm in good company, then, because I don't know what to say to people who argue their point by belittling others, not addressing their points but deflecting responsibility ad hominem style either. I guess we have a communication breakdown at this point.

It's alright.


----------



## Initiate (Aug 30, 2010)

I think this topic about sums up what this thread has come down to.

xkcd: Duty Calls

Seriously, why bother getting so riled up? It's just D&D rules.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 30, 2010)

Initiate said:


> I think this topic about sums up what this thread has come down to.
> 
> xkcd: Duty Calls
> 
> Seriously, why bother getting so riled up? It's just D&D rules.



Totally.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 30, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Sure. A crappy explanation that does not make any sense to me, but hey. Still.




Like I said, that's your opinion. Your original "complaint" was that the game didn't have an in-game explanation "whatsoever". I was just showing you that, yes, it certainly does. Whether that is explanation is satisfactory for you, well, that's up to you.

I may find that the Iron Heroes "explanation" is lame. That's not the point though. The point was, that yes, it is there. We've established this as fact. Next? 



Odhanan said:


> Nope. You can still move the same, you are not fatigued at all, you can still use any other Daily, even if more powerful, or Encounter power, but for some reason, the ONLY specific side effect is that this only, specific exploit cannot be performed again.




Yup. This IS the fatigue mechanic in 4th Edition D&D, at least for Martial characters. Encounter and Daily exploits amount to specific reserves of stamina and energy, as well as tactical openings that only happen once every so often that the character can take advantage of. So, being able to "move the same" or using other reserves of energy has nothing to do with it. At all. 



Odhanan said:


> Which doesn't make any sense to me.




And, that's fine. But, it's your issue. How is that a problem with the game? 



Odhanan said:


> If that represents energy and somehow I've expended these resources Cracking the Shell of my ennemy, I do not understand why I would still have the resources to sprint or why I would still have the resources to sting and hinder nearby foes with a savage fury of strikes aimed at their legs (Thicket of Blades power description, Level 9 Exploit) but somehow could not redirect this "fury" on Cracking the Shell of another one of my enemies. You see some logic in this, fine. I don't.




You're arguing that the fiction shouldn't matter all of a sudden? Here's why you can't use "Crack The Shell" again... Because you've already taken advantage of that opening. You've exploited it and now you simply don't have the resources, stamina, energy, tactical savvy, etc... to find another similar opening. You're not that good fictionally. 



Odhanan said:


> That's your fault is you don't understand my point. Not mine.
> Same level or argumentation, chap. We won't go far with this.




No. I understand your point. I'm saying it's unfounded. You said, "There is no fictional explanation whatsoever..." and I show you there is. Yet, now that there IS an explanation, that explanation "doesn't make sense". 

Yet, it makes perfect sense to me. That's the disconnect. Whether you LIKE the explanation, that's a totally different topic altogether. 



Odhanan said:


> Yes. I'm a Frenchman, and English is not my first language. Is that a crime? You want to somehow patronize me or make me feel ashamed? You'll have to try harder.




Not at all. I was actually just trying to point something out to you. If English isn't your native language, perhaps you would be happy to learn. I'm always interested in correcting my mistakes. *shrug*



Odhanan said:


> Well, I'm in good company, then, because I don't know what to say to people who argue their point by belittling others, not addressing their points but deflecting responsibility ad hominem style either. I guess we have a communication breakdown at this point.
> 
> It's alright.




I never belittled you. And, I directly answered your comments. I gave you facts and concrete explanations. If that's "belittling" to you, I'm not sure how to deliver that information. Should I coat it in sugar and strawberries? Would that make the truth more satiable for you?


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 30, 2010)

(I visibly have a hard time stopping *sigh*) 



P1NBACK said:


> Like I said, that's your opinion. Your original "complaint" was that the game didn't have an in-game explanation "whatsoever". I was just showing you that, yes, it certainly does. Whether that is explanation is satisfactory for you, well, that's up to you.
> 
> I may find that the Iron Heroes "explanation" is lame. That's not the point though. The point was, that yes, it is there. We've established this as fact. Next?



I do acknowledge your point then: yes, there is an explanation, and yes, you may find IH's explanations of token pools (which actually depend on the actual pool being considered, for the record) lame. Sure. You can.



P1NBACK said:


> Yup. This IS the fatigue mechanic in 4th Edition D&D, at least for Martial characters. Encounter and Daily exploits amount to specific reserves of stamina and energy, as well as tactical openings that only happen once every so often that the character can take advantage of. So, being able to "move the same" or using other reserves of energy has nothing to do with it. At all.



That logic rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's as if each particular move had its own particular energy reserve that cannot be used for any other move. While I can undestand this sort of reasoning in the case of Vancian casting (where one spell is memorized a certain way, and cannot be substituted for another spell/pattern on memory, much like because you learned a poem by heart you can't suddenly shift your memory to recite another, completely different poem you didn't memorize before), I just cannot understand this for exploits performed on the battle field, where the energy I spend on breaking the enemy's armor to pieces somehow can not be put to other use, like striking the enemy's feet with fury. 



P1NBACK said:


> And, that's fine. But, it's your issue. How is that a problem with the game?



Because the game's logic sucks to me. Fact is, you know as well as I do that this explanation is not why Dailies and Encounter powers work the way they do. They work they way they do for game system reasons, rules balance reasons, and explained after the fact in an half-arsed way with two paragraphs in the rules book. If I am the only one with this problem, then all is fine and good. It's my problem. But if a significant number of D&D fans got problems with this, then it becomes the game's failing to not answer the fans' expectations in terms of logic that would sustain the rules. So. You can keep claiming that's my problem and my own, but the changes that are being made to Essentials as far as Dailies are concerned seem to indicate otherwise. 




P1NBACK said:


> You're arguing that the fiction shouldn't matter all of a sudden? Here's why you can't use "Crack The Shell" again... Because you've already taken advantage of that opening. You've exploited it and now you simply don't have the resources, stamina, energy, tactical savvy, etc... to find another similar opening. You're not that good fictionally.



Read above. If I don't have the resources, stamina, tactical savvy to perform a level 5 exploit, I don't understand why I would still have them to perform a level 9 exploit still. That does not make any sense. To me.




P1NBACK said:


> No. I understand your point. I'm saying it's unfounded. You said, "There is no fictional explanation whatsoever..." and I show you there is. Yet, now that there IS an explanation, that explanation "doesn't make sense".
> 
> Yet, it makes perfect sense to me. That's the disconnect. Whether you LIKE the explanation, that's a totally different topic altogether.



Nope. That's where you lose me: you finding the explanation totally logical doesn't de facto make it logical to me, and doesn't make my reasoning wrong. Unless of course you address my actual reasoning, instead of just saying that's my problem and my problem alone. 



P1NBACK said:


> Not at all. I was actually just trying to point something out to you. If English isn't your native language, perhaps you would be happy to learn. I'm always interested in correcting my mistakes. *shrug*



Thanks for the clarification. It just seemed very patronizing of you. I would appreciate if we could stick to actual arguments.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 30, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> I never belittled you. And, I directly answered your comments. I gave you facts and concrete explanations. If that's "belittling" to you, I'm not sure how to deliver that information. Should I coat it in sugar and strawberries? Would that make the truth more satiable for you?




I actually agree with you on all the major points you've been making (ie, martial dailies and encounters make perfect sense to me in-context); but I do think we should all just take a moment to marvel at this paragraph.




That's all, go on about your day.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 30, 2010)

> That logic rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's as if each particular move had its own particular energy reserve that cannot be used for any other move. While I can undestand this sort of reasoning in the case of Vancian casting (where one spell is memorized a certain way, and cannot be substituted for another spell/pattern on memory, much like because you learned a poem by heart you can't suddenly shift your memory to recite another, completely different poem you didn't memorize before), I just cannot understand this for exploits performed on the battle field, where the energy I spend on breaking the enemy's armor to pieces somehow can not be put to other use, like striking the enemy's feet with fury.




Well in the case of the vancian spell system.

1. The rules say that I have to memorize a spell and that the spell is wiped when I cast it.  I then have to memorize it again to use it.  This only makes sense when the inherent magic of the world is taken into account and I allow magic to be the reason why I can both memorize something so quickly and lose it just as fast.

When I memorize something it's in there for longer than a day or one recital.  I do not have an 18 WIS or INT in real life (ergo, I'm not a top 1% intellect) therefore it stands to reason that a mage would have better recall than I.  Unless somehow magic is involved, therefore there's no real logic there on the order of martial prowess.  You shouldn't use that as an example to prove a point in regards to martial prowess.

2. On the order of encounter powers, daily powers etc.  Here's the logic: it's a combination of factors that prevents you from using something more than once an encounter or once a day.  If the DM feels you can do something more than you're supposed to he or she can allow it.

Why can't I use an encounter power more than once in an encounter: 

a. Because you only found opportunity to use it once.
b. Because your enemies only left themselves open once in the encounter.
c. Because it wasn't tactically sound to use the power in the encounter more than once.

I think that most players of D&D haven't been in real fights enough to have a good feel for how chaotic they can be and how fast things really happen.  There's a fair amount of truth to "he who lands the first solid shot, wins" and "it's really hard to land a good solid shot if everyone is aware of their surroundings and well trained."  I'd argue this is why martial powers are called exploits.

3. Why can't I use my daily power as more uses of my encounter power?  

a. Cute answer: Why can't I remember my spells in 3rd Ed? (see previous section 1.)
b. Because it's not really up to you when an opponent leaves himself open to what your character knows.. 

The game takes into account the fact that combat is chaotic.  It also takes into account that players have control over their characters and decide when the character attempts to do something.  It's assumed that the player "knows" when that opening is because the game is intended to be cinematic and the players should be using their abilities at appropriate times.

c. Because it's a game and needs game balance.  (Ultimately)

Just my take.

KB


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 30, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> Wrong. You're saying that you roleplay and then when you get to combat everything is abstract (i.e. a boardgame). I'm speaking specifically about combat. And if you get to combat and the fiction ceases to matter, well, you're not playing an RPG at that point. You've switched into "boardgame" mode. If you're letting the grappler fighter use his powers with no fictional circumstances backing them up, then that's weak.



No offense, but that's not the definition of a role playing game.  As long as you are still playing a character in a world that has some rules, you are still role playing.  This world just has slightly different rules than the "real world".

What it comes down to for me is that we are still playing a game to have fun.  If not being able to use your powers against an enemy is no fun, then "realism" takes a back seat to fun.  It's not that I don't consider "fiction", it's that it always takes a back seat to game balance and to the fun of the players.

Any time realism becomes the primary motivator in a game you end up with a situation where one player gets favored over another.  Often this favoritism leans towards spellcasters over non-spell casters.

Take, for instance, 2 at-will powers: One arcane, One martial.  They both do some poison damage.  You are attacking a Fire Elemental.  They have no veins, they are made of fire.  They aren't immune to poison in 4e.  The DM asks each character: "How exactly do you poison a Fire Elemental?"

The Wizard replies with "I modify the casting of the spell slightly as I'm casting it so that the substance I shoot at the Elemental acts the same as a poison would for a human.  I'm really good at Arcana and would know how to modify my spells on the fly and I'd also know what hurts Elementals."

The Rogue replies with "Umm...I don't know.  I just stab it with my poisoned dagger the same way I do all other creatures."

And the DM allows the Wizard to use his powers and reduces the Rogue's powers to quite a few less than he normally has, making it less fun to play.

This either has the side effect of causing players to all decide to play spell casters or to suffer.

It resulted in situations where a Rogue could do nearly 0 damage for an entire session due to choice of monsters while the Cleric suddenly became the most powerful member in the group.  I had a player quit simply because he was tired of his character doing nothing when we were adventuring in an ancient dungeon where there was nothing alive in it.



P1NBACK said:


> I think this is the reason why some gamers who stuck with 3.5 hate 4E, because you actually have to work to make the fiction stick in 4E combat, whereas 3E kind of relied on the fiction.




It's exactly BECAUSE 3.5 "relied on the fiction" that everything it didn't say was so glaring.  If one particular monster wasn't immune to grappling but it was immune to a list of 10 other things, you have to assume that there's a reason it isn't immune to grappling or it would have been listed there.  Either that or you had to second guess a huge new list of things everything was immune to.  Which often meant players had to rely on the DMs whims as to when their powers worked.

I, and the people I played with, adhered to the rules just as closely in 3.5e.  It's just that the rules in 3.5e were much more arbitrary(or "realistic" depending on your point of view).

Nowadays, it's just easier to say "Everyone's powers should work unless the rules say otherwise."  I don't care whether the grappler fighter is grabbing some of the insects and the others refuse to leave their brethren, he's being so threatening that the insects feel compelled to stay nearby him(perhaps he put his arm in the middle of them and they are now crawling all over his body), he swings he sword so hard that it creates a vacuum that sucks the insects in, or any other explanation you can come up with.  To me, the explanation isn't really important.  I want to get the round of combat over with so we can get to the next one...as quickly as possible so we can get back to the role playing part of the game.

And I want that round of combat not to end with one of the players saying "I guess I don't do anything, since half my powers grab and the other half can only target grabbed creatures"


----------



## Gradine (Aug 30, 2010)

Just to toss my own two cents in to actual discussion (beyond just snarky hypocritical humor), but you know what has _never_ made any sense to me? Vancian spellcasting. I understand that it comes from a series of novels, but it still always struck me as a half-assed rationale behind what I always thought was a poorly designed magic system. In fact, the only kind of spellcasting that really makes sense to me, from a simulationist standpoint anyway, is Casting From Hit Points. 

Are Martial dailies/encounters nothing more than a mechanic designed to keep martial classes balanced against spellcasters at all levels? Well, no duh. I don't think too many people are mourning the lack of balance between these two. Are most of explanations given to justify Martial powers just half-assed excuses to defend a well-balanced game? Yes. Can you remove the phrase "Martial" from that previous sentence and have it still be completely true? Absolutely, undeniably *yes*.

I'm sorry, but there isn't anything about any of the classes that makes perfect sense (or really any kind of sense) in-context of any physically or magically existing world. I mean, you have wizards slinging Fire_cubes_, for pete's sake! And that's just scratching the surface. Saying that "A wizard did it" is _acceptable _to everything other than the poor martial classes is myopic and, frankly, what has led to the horrible unbalancing of such characters in every previous edition.

Of course, none of that is the point. I have already mentioned (maybe it was another thread, don't remember) that "making sense" has never been a design goal of 4e. The design goal was instead to make a fun, well-balanced role-playing game. Anything else is gravy. Many here happen to agree with that. If "making sense" is important to you in a tabletop RPG than 4e is _unequivocally_ not the game for you. But lambasting something for not being what it never had any intention of being quite frankly doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 30, 2010)

*Monopoly*

It kind of gets to the point where you have to understand that this is a game, not a really good effort at realism.

I can play Monopoly and not be upset that the mortgage rules are unrealistic.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 30, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> a. Because you only found opportunity to use it once.
> b. Because your enemies only left themselves open once in the encounter.
> c. Because it wasn't tactically sound to use the power in the encounter more than once.



These reinforce the narrative-story rationale behind Daily and Encounter powers to me, because if what you are saying is true, then me, player, choosing to use a particular Daily power doesn't mean that I'm playing my character doing something in the game-world, but ALSO means that as a player, out-of-character, I get to decide that now is the opportunity to use this particular power or that the enemies are now leaving themselves open to its use... which means I am affecting game elements, a "story" or "narrative", outside of my character. That is something that rubs me the wrong way.

As for c. I expect as the player to choose whether it is sound to use this or that tactic more than once in an encounter. I don't want the game mechanics to make these kinds of choices for me.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 30, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> It kind of gets to the point where you have to understand that this is a game, not a really good effort at realism.
> 
> I can play Monopoly and not be upset that the mortgage rules are unrealistic.



Monopoly also isn't a role playing game. For some people, the pleasure there is in playing a role playing game relies on one's ability to immerse him/herself in the game world through his or her character. These people will want to use rules that makes sense to them in the context of the game world. 

If they are not getting this out of the rules system, there is no incentive to them to play this particular role playing game instead of Stratego, Monopoly, Modern Warfare 2 or God knows what else that is not a role playing game. That's the point. 

Some people don't care or want to bother with these things. That's perfectly fine by me. But just because some other people do care about these things doesn't make them guilty of "badwrongfun" or some sort of nutjobs taking things necessarily too seriously.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> As for c. I expect as the player to choose whether it is sound to use this or that tactic more than once in an encounter. I don't want the game mechanics to make these kinds of choices for me.




The thing is, without a restriction on how often you can use your powers, you end up with only a few options for what happens with Martial characters:

a) There are no other options except Attack With Weapon.  You use this every round since you have no special powers.

b) There are other options, but to balance the game they are all poor choices so no one ever uses them and it essentially becomes a).

c) There are other options, but unless you specialize in one, they are poor choices.  If you do specialize in one, it becomes the best option every time and it essentially becomes a).

d) Different options function best in different circumstances.  However, each circumstance has a best option, the best option is always chosen, and the game plays itself (i.e. The enemy has low strength and is bad at grappling, they can't cast spells while grappling.  If I use a grapple right now, I have essentially won.  OR  The enemy is really specialized in their weapon, if I disarm it, I have essentially won).  This also penalizes players who aren't savvy with the rules as they won't know the best circumstances to use special moves in.  Since there is only one choice in any given round, it essentially becomes a).

e) There are a lot of other options and they are all balanced perfectly with Attack With Weapon.  So it doesn't matter what choice you make, since they are all the same.  Which essentially becomes a).


The only way to stop everything from becoming a) is to put restrictions on how often special options can be used.  We need to decide how to restrict more powerful special options.  If we follow your logic then we can't arbitrarily restrict options based on number of times per day, since it doesn't make any sense.  We can't restrict them based on tactical opportunities since that causes d).  We can't restrict them based on narrative control.  How can we restrict them then?

There was one suggestion listed(allow the same option multiple times but with negatives each time), but it pretty much devolves into a form of d).  It means "Use the best option until the penalty becomes so bad it isn't the best option anymore.  Then switch to the next best option.  Repeat".


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 31, 2010)

Instances where the power structure in the 4E core books could make sense in game world terms to me:

- The characters are robots (or clones, or pre-human experiments etc) with specific combat moves programmed into them. Their memories reboot after an encounter partially, whereas some more complex routines need to be rebooted after an extended rest (dailies). This would explain why some complex combat moves could only be performed once. This is a limitation inherent to the character's nature.

    - The universe itself limits the capabilities of the characters. It could be an edict of the Gods, or some universal Law of the Cosmos. Maybe the game is all about a competition taking place in some artificial universe. Or the whole game world in fact is a virtual reality generated by computers. Or something similar that implies that the laws of nature themselves force these limitations onto the characters.​
Applications could include a universe where PCs are pre-human heroes trying to break free from the rules of the Gods, the Architects, whatever forces controls them, or a d20 Modern game where characters may enter a virtual reality that is in effect a 4E game within the boundaries of the virtual world/matrix, and so on, so forth.


----------



## Camelot (Aug 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> - The universe itself limits the capabilities of the characters. It could be an edict of the Gods, or some universal Law of the Cosmos. Maybe the game is all about a competition taking place in some artificial universe. Or the whole game world in fact is a virtual reality generated by computers. Or something similar that implies that the laws of nature themselves force these limitations onto the characters.




Or the whole game world is in fact a fantasy world of magic that is being simulated by the aforementioned game.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 31, 2010)

Camelot said:


> Or the whole game world is in fact a fantasy world of magic that is being simulated by the aforementioned game.



Which is metagaming, and not what I'm looking for with a role playing game.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Some people don't care or want to bother with these things. That's perfectly fine by me. But just because some other people do care about these things doesn't make them guilty of "badwrongfun" or some sort of nutjobs taking things necessarily too seriously.




Not at all, it's really more of a wrong system type thing. You can try to make 4E something it isn't, or play a different system that is more aligned with what you are wanting.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> These reinforce the narrative-story rationale behind Daily and Encounter powers to me, because if what you are saying is true, then me, player, choosing to use a particular Daily power doesn't mean that I'm playing my character doing something in the game-world, but ALSO means that as a player, out-of-character, I get to decide that now is the opportunity to use this particular power or that the enemies are now leaving themselves open to its use... which means I am affecting game elements, a "story" or "narrative", outside of my character. That is something that rubs me the wrong way.




Then why are you playing a game where interactive storytelling is the whole point of playing the game?



> As for c. I expect as the player to choose whether it is sound to use this or that tactic more than once in an encounter. I don't want the game mechanics to make these kinds of choices for me.




Then advise me of a game that has combat mechanics which let you make the rules up as you go along to suit your fancies while affecting powers that drastically affect outcomes and you'll find your game.

No edition of D&D has had powers that do extra damage that aren't throttled in some way similarly.  Even video games that simulate fantasy have a refresh period for attacks and powers.

Methinks you're just arguing to argue.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 31, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> Not at all, it's really more of a wrong system type thing. You can try to make 4E something it isn't, or play a different system that is more aligned with what you are wanting.



There are parts of 4E I really like though. The very base concept of powers as units of capabilities universal throughout the game is an interesting idea. The tactical effects themselves are interesting. The way saving throws work, or the different types of defenses, this too is interesting to me. The whole idea of Rituals being performed outside of combat and allowing for some special or particularly potent effects is pretty cool. 

What I'm really hoping is that Essentials just takes a few steps back from the things that rub me the wrong way with the game. Just enough for me to actually grab the elements I like with the game without being too bothered with the rest.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 31, 2010)

Kobold Boots said:


> Then why are you playing a game where interactive storytelling is the whole point of playing the game?



Which game are you talking about? 4E, or role playing games in general? 

In the first case, I'm not playing 4E right now but hope to be able to connect with it via Essentials. We'll see. 

If you are talking about the latter, i.e. role playing games in general, then we have a fundamentally different way to consider what the point of role playing games is. For me, role playing games aren't about storytelling _at all_. Storytelling, storygames, narratives, stories, all these point out to a completely different type of game than actual role playing games, to me. 

To me, role playing games are about immersion in the "now" of the game world. It's not about being in a "story", it's about being in an actual, if fictional, game world. There is no "narrative" unfolding, just like there is no narrative unfolding in my own real life. As DM, I do have game elements, starting situations for a game, locales, NPCs and factions with motives, goals and plans, mysteries, murders going on and what have you, but these are all events going on around the PCs, that they may have triggered or not, that they may investigate or not, but there is no such thing as a "story" or "narrative" unfolding in the game. It's about actual events as they unfold for the characters in the game world. 

There's an important nuance here which, to me, makes the notion of story and narratives anathema to the very act of role playing. 

See this RPG Site thread for more on this.



Kobold Boots said:


> Methinks you're just arguing to argue.



I'm sorry I'm giving you this impression. This is really not my intention. I believe all I'm saying, here. I'm not trying to mislead people or argue a point I actually don't believe just to be contrarian to other people's views. Really.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 31, 2010)

_Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.

Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit._



Odhanan said:


> So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is a mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this _specific_ move again? I'm sorry, but the rule vs. the explanation does not compute with me.



So, it's 'unrealistic,' is what you're saying.  And that bothersyou.  Yet a wizard can throw a 15' diameter ball of fire every six seconds, all day, but can only cast a 35' diameter once a day, even though, after doing so, he can keep tossing the 15' ones with just as much fascility as before, and that doesn't bother you.

It's easy to make the mistake of aplying that kind of double-standard, because people really can and do swing swords IRL, and it's not hard to imagine (or see demonstrations) of what swinging a sword is like.  The same can't be said of casting spells.

But the upshot is that, for a martial power, the explanation that a power requires some sort of great effort is not realistic enough.  But, it's fine for any other source.

_Originally Posted by Kobold Boots  
a. Because you only found opportunity to use it once.
b. Because your enemies only left themselves open once in the encounter.
c. Because it wasn't tactically sound to use the power in the encounter more than once.
_



Odhanan said:


> These reinforce the narrative-story rationale behind Daily and Encounter powers to me, because if what you are saying is true, then me, player, choosing to use a particular Daily power doesn't mean that I'm playing my character doing something in the game-world, but ALSO means that as a player, out-of-character, I get to decide that now is the opportunity to use this particular power or that the enemies are now leaving themselves open to its use... which means I am affecting game elements, a "story" or "narrative", outside of my character. That is something that rubs me the wrong way.



Now, given a more plausibly 'realistic' rationale for a martial encounter or daily, you find it too 'narativist.'  


Now, why is it that a Wizard can't cast fireball more than once per day?  How about a Cleric, why can he only cast Spiritual Weapon once a day?


----------



## fjw70 (Aug 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> There are parts of 4E I really like though. The very base concept of powers as units of capabilities universal throughout the game is an interesting idea. The tactical effects themselves are interesting. The way saving throws work, or the different types of defenses, this too is interesting to me. The whole idea of Rituals being performed outside of combat and allowing for some special or particularly potent effects is pretty cool.
> 
> What I'm really hoping is that Essentials just takes a few steps back from the things that rub me the wrong way with the game. Just enough for me to actually grab the elements I like with the game without being too bothered with the rest.




My thoughts on 4e are similar to yours. I like to say that I prefer new school mechanics and old school style. I like 4e but would prefer a toned down version.

Before hearing about Essentials I was working on combining 1e and 4e, but then the more I heard about Essentials the more thought it just might hit the spot I was shooting for (or come pretty dang close).

I eagerly wait for the release of Heroes of the Fallen Lands.  That is the key book in Essentials for me. If that book is what I hope then I my be able to get my cake and eat it too with regards to mixing the old with the new.


----------



## Nichwee (Aug 31, 2010)

Can a swarm be grabbed?

RAW = Hell Yes.
How?
You use a free hand to swirl about through the swarm stopping them running away (the gerbil runs from one hand to the other repeatedly trick) or you make a small vortex by swinging your arm in a circle sucking in insects. 
Both these could apply the "grabbed" condition so that all the mechanics work - and "grabbed" is just a name for a set of effects.

Why are some marital powers restricted in use?
The opening, the adrenaline and the muscle groups of some moves are different and can only take so much before they give out. I recently tried to draw a 70lb warbow - it almost screwed up my shoulder (and I didn't draw it fully) but I could still draw a 27lb bow fine - and an Encounter/Daily power can easily be drawing the bow back further for more power or holding/using a weapon in an unusual way that puts different strain on the body than a "normal" (At-Will) attack. 
This can translate into Powers with limited use in a completely narrative fashion: "I did a move and I twinged a certain muscle group - if I do that again soon I am going to pick up a 'dibilitating/long term' injury but if I stick to the stuff that 'doesn't strain me as much/uses a different muscle group for the main umph' I should be able to get by fine and after a 'short/extended' rest to stretch out the muscle and apply some ointment to the area I'm sure everything will be back to normal."
Treat '.../...' as options to cover the type of justification needed in the situation this would represent.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> (I visibly have a hard time stopping *sigh*)
> 
> 
> I do acknowledge your point then: yes, there is an explanation, and yes, you may find IH's explanations of token pools (which actually depend on the actual pool being considered, for the record) lame. Sure. You can.




Right on. Issue resolved.  



Odhanan said:


> That logic rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't make any sense to me.




Sure. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Right? "To you" is the clause there. 



Odhanan said:


> Because the game's logic sucks to me. Fact is, you know as well as I do that this explanation is not why Dailies and Encounter powers work the way they do. They work they way they do for game system reasons, rules balance reasons, and explained after the fact in an half-arsed way with two paragraphs in the rules book.




I mean, you could say the same thing about tokens in Iron Heroes. I don't know. It could be prescriptive or descriptive. 



Odhanan said:


> Read above. If I don't have the resources, stamina, tactical savvy to perform a level 5 exploit, I don't understand why I would still have them to perform a level 9 exploit still. That does not make any sense. To me.




Because a level 9 exploit is a distinct ability that you can pull off, just like the level 5 ability. They are mutually exclusive. 



Odhanan said:


> Nope. That's where you lose me: you finding the explanation totally logical doesn't de facto make it logical to me, and doesn't make my reasoning wrong. Unless of course you address my actual reasoning, instead of just saying that's my problem and my problem alone.




Like I said, you can choose not to like 4E's explanation. That's your option. However, the complaint you filed against 4E, that there was no "in-game explanation" is false. Applying logic to rules mechanics simulating what you perceive as "reality" or whatever a sure fire way to have an aneurysm. I could break down "tokens" in Iron Heroes the same way. I just think it's strange that you're so willing to accept a "token" explanation and not the other. *shrug*

Anyways, now that we've cleared up the issue of whether 4E has an in-game explanation, I think we can move on to the _real _issue with powers, which is the disconnect between the fiction and the mechanics when it comes to actually employing them.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 31, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> No offense, but that's not the definition of a role playing game.  As long as you are still playing a character in a world that has some rules, you are still role playing.  This world just has slightly different rules than the "real world".




Oh god, wherein he tries to define "roleplaying game"... Gimme a break. I can "roleplay" my banker in Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a roleplaying game? It has some rules and I'm playing a character... 

No. Absolutely not. 

The roleplaying comes in when my fictional actions and choices have a direct impact on the game. This is why it's important for the mechanics to support the fiction. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> What it comes down to for me is that we are still playing a game to have fun.  If not being able to use your powers against an enemy is no fun, then "realism" takes a back seat to fun.  It's not that I don't consider "fiction", it's that it always takes a back seat to game balance and to the fun of the players.




First of all, I never once mentioned realism as the stated goal. Never. Plausibility? Yes. Realism? No. 

However, my main concern is the fiction. As I just discussed, without that fiction carrying my character and my choices, we're playing a board game and "roleplaying" is just us masturbating with our voices. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Any time realism becomes the primary motivator in a game you end up with a situation where one player gets favored over another.  Often this favoritism leans towards spellcasters over non-spell casters.




Like I said... We're not talking about realism. We're talking about fiction. Pay attention. 

But, you're assuming spellcasters are more elite in the fiction. This isn't necessarily true. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Take, for instance, 2 at-will powers: One arcane, One martial.  They both do some poison damage.  You are attacking a Fire Elemental.  They have no veins, they are made of fire.  They aren't immune to poison in 4e.  The DM asks each character: "How exactly do you poison a Fire Elemental?"
> 
> The Wizard replies with "I modify the casting of the spell slightly as I'm casting it so that the substance I shoot at the Elemental acts the same as a poison would for a human.  I'm really good at Arcana and would know how to modify my spells on the fly and I'd also know what hurts Elementals."
> 
> ...




Really? That sounds fun as hell to me. All of sudden, we're immersed in the fiction because of one simple question. I'm imagining the Wizard modifying his spell and recalling his lore of elementals. 

If the Rogue had justified it in the fiction, "As I strike at the elemental, I make sure to place my blade in the ember that rests at it's heart so that my poison strikes at it's weakest location..." 

Wow... All of a sudden I'm IMAGINING this fiction take place. And it sounds ing awesome. 

This... compared to...

Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will. 
DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though. How do you do that? 
Wizard: Well, I just cast it. 
DM: Oh, cool. Well, roll to hit. Roll for damage. 
DM: Rogue, you're up. 
Rogue: Sweet. I use Poison Strike at-will. 
DM: Oh, uh, sure. Roll to hit. Roll for damage. 

...

Nah... I'd rather hear... 

Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will. 
DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though, how do you do that? 
Wizard: I modify the casting of the spell slightly as I'm casting it so that the substance I shoot at the Elemental acts the same as a poison would for a human. I'm really good at Arcana and would know how to modify my spells on the fly and I'd also know what hurts Elementals.

Oh yeah!




Majoru Oakheart said:


> This either has the side effect of causing players to all decide to play spell casters or to suffer.




Not at all. See my example above. 




Majoru Oakheart said:


> It resulted in situations where a Rogue could do nearly 0 damage for an entire session due to choice of monsters while the Cleric suddenly became the most powerful member in the group.  I had a player quit simply because he was tired of his character doing nothing when we were adventuring in an ancient dungeon where there was nothing alive in it.




Not at all. Rogues can deal damage to undead. There's nothing saying they can't. They just need to justify it in the fiction, same as the Wizard or Cleric. 

I use Magic Missile. "Sweet, what happens?" "How does that work?" "How do you do that?" 




Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's exactly BECAUSE 3.5 "relied on the fiction" that everything it didn't say was so glaring.  If one particular monster wasn't immune to grappling but it was immune to a list of 10 other things, you have to assume that there's a reason it isn't immune to grappling or it would have been listed there.




Being immune to something and having characters justify it in fiction are two entirely different things. 

For example, in the example above, the Rogue decides to strike at this tiny little ember floating in the center of the fire elemental, it's the magical beast's heart. We've already established the rogue can use the poison on it (because she justified it in the fiction), but if the elemental has Immunity to Poison, well, the DM just JUSTIFIES that in the fiction. 

"When your poison blade strikes at the elemental's ember heart, your blade flares and the poison is burned away. You realize, no poison will simply be able to pass through the heat of the elemental to reach its heart." 

Poison. Immunity.  

This, versus, "Sorry. It's immune. You deal no poison damage." 

Well... Why is it immune? How is it immune? Same thing. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I, and the people I played with, adhered to the rules just as closely in 3.5e.  It's just that the rules in 3.5e were much more arbitrary(or "realistic" depending on your point of view).




Sigh... Again. We're not talking about realism. I play my games in a very cinematic manner. A rogue striking the ember heart of a flame elemental? Oh yeah. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Nowadays, it's just easier to say "Everyone's powers should work unless the rules say otherwise."




Yeah. I'm of the school that says, "Everyone's powers work if you can justify it in the fiction." 




Majoru Oakheart said:


> I don't care whether the grappler fighter is grabbing some of the insects and the others refuse to leave their brethren, he's being so threatening that the insects feel compelled to stay nearby him(perhaps he put his arm in the middle of them and they are now crawling all over his body), he swings he sword so hard that it creates a vacuum that sucks the insects in, or any other explanation you can come up with.




If you can justify it in the fiction. Yes. The example given earlier of someone using their shield to hold down a swarm of lizards or whatever is a good one.  




Majoru Oakheart said:


> To me, the explanation isn't really important.




And, this is sad to me. We're playing the game for the explanation. For the fiction. We're not playing Monopoly or D&D Minis. 




Majoru Oakheart said:


> I want to get the round of combat over with so we can get to the next one...as quickly as possible so we can get back to the role playing part of the game.




So... Why play combat at all? Just skip it. "You guys win. Good job. Now... back to roleplaying..." 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> And I want that round of combat not to end with one of the players saying "I guess I don't do anything, since half my powers grab and the other half can only target grabbed creatures"




My advice to that player: "Use your imagination. This is D&D. Not, Monopoly."


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Aug 31, 2010)

P1nback... I completely agree that justifying the action with fiction is cool and I wish more people did it. However, some players are not glib of tongue or quick to develop fiction... and I hate the 'mother may I' effect where my PCs actions might be nerfed by the GM because I didn't describe it well enoufh.

Swarms can be grabbed... and someone at the table should justify the action with fiction in order to help the game be more enjoyable..... that someone depends on the group.
I don't want rules designed in a mass market game for just one style of play...{unless its mine!}

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk


----------



## eamon (Aug 31, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> _Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.
> 
> Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit._
> 
> ...




Now, I don't think daily martial powers are problems, but it's not hard to see his point:

  If you're using non-existant, arcane/divine/primal whatever powers and skills to conjure up some fireball and throw it somewhere - who knows what kind of resources and effort that requires?  Essentially _any_ explanation will do (as long as it's self-consistent), so perhaps each spell has a unique sound - and only it's frequency is expended when you cast that spell so that only that spell is effectively expended.  Or mana colors.  Or memorized symbols.  Or whatever - it hardly matters.

On the other hand, martial powers - representing physical effort the way they do, cannot simply get away with anything.  And in the real world, if you're tired, you're tired - and that'll impact the execution of _all_ your tricks.  Or perhaps you've overstressed a particular set of muscles; but then you'll feel that whenever you reuse _them_, not just for that one specific power.  And if something were exceptionally tiring, you'd expect that to affect quality of execution rather than the ability to execute at all - at the very least, it might affect at-wills _too.

_'Course, the game's obviously simplified out "minor" details, so it's not unreasonable to use some simple recharge mechanic rather than an attempt at a simulation.  On the other hand, the simple recharge mechanic they chose doesn't really jive with the martial flavor at all (no real, complex physical exploits are so tiring as to be doable only once per day yet have no impact on other exploits).  This isn't an issue with other power sources to the same extent because they don't have that same flavor of being supreme _physical _exploits - instead they're powered by something we can't know anything about since it's not actually real.  It's pixie dust.

So if "effort" and muscle strain are the motivating fluff, then the recharge mechanics make little sense (why does one power have no effect on another?).

(And again, this is just a minor inconsistency, you don't have to convince me this is somehow irrelevant - I'm _already _quite satisfied that it is.)

The change essentials makes is probably a good one from both this fluff perspective and from gameplay perspective (where it's good to break up the excessive symmetry the game now sometimes suffers from).


----------



## eamon (Aug 31, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> Why are some marital powers restricted in use?
> The opening, the adrenaline and the muscle groups of some moves are different and can only take so much before they give out.



Some moves you got there...


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 31, 2010)

eamon said:


> On the other hand, martial powers - representing physical effort the way they do, cannot simply get away with anything.  And in the real world, if you're tired, you're tired - and that'll impact the execution of _all_ you're tricks.  Or perhaps you've overstressed a particular set of muscles; but then you'll feel that whenever you reuse them, not just for that one specific power.  And if something were exceptionally tiring, you'd expect that to affect quality of execution rather than the ability to execute at all - at the very least, it might affect at-wills _too._




Because it's not _just _physical stamina and energy. It also has to do with timing, flow of combat, techniques your opponents are using, precise openings that occur only once in a while, tricks you can use in a battle maybe once (fool me once...), etc... etc... There's a MILLION reasons you can fictionally justify Encounter and Daily powers. 

_If you’re a martial character, they are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while._

This is it. This is the explanation for Encounter Powers. You've practiced these advanced maneuvers, but there's only so many times you can pull them off in a fight due to a million different variables that can change every fight. This time I strained a muscle, this time the enemy is keen to my trick after doing it once, this time I can't find the right opening to use it multiple times, etc... etc... 
_
If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.

_Dailies are even more so. You're not just getting fatigued physically, it also takes a mental toll. It takes timing. It takes patience. It takes focus. Someone with multiple dailies can call on those reserves multiple times per day, but when they do so it drains them and pushes them to their limit. I can't push any farther, I can only maintain by using At-Wills - I might be able to pull off an Encounter power if this guy lets down his guard, etc... etc... 

Why can a guy use Daily 5 and then use his Daily 9? Because that character can perform "two dailies" now. His reserves have increased - he's more focused, experienced, can push himself mentally, etc... 

But, why can't he do Daily 5 twice? ... 

I'd say he COULD. But, why would he? Daily 5 is not going to be as good as Daily 9, so it makes more sense to use Daily 5 + Daily 9. 

Have you ever been in a real fight? You know how you keep trying to get that damn armbar on someone but you just can't get it until that certain moment when the timing is right and the opening is there? That's what I'm talking about here. You know when that opponent escapes the armbar and then all of a sudden you don't even go for that particular armbar anymore because you know they've figured out how you got it on them? Yeah. 

Watch UFC and tell me they don't have particular moves they pull out at specific times. You know how they're fatigued as  all through the fight and then all of a sudden they leap at them and do a flying kick to the face and knock their opponent out? WTF?!!?!? He was FATIGUED!?! He looked ing tired. How did he pull that flying knee off? (I'm literally recalling a UFC fight I saw and was stunned by...). Well, he went into his "deepest reserves" and pulled out a badass move that he could probably not do again. 

That's the fictional justification for Martial powers. And, it makes WAY more sense to me than a Wizard not being able to cast fireball over and over.


----------



## eamon (Aug 31, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> P1nback... I completely agree that justifying the action with fiction is cool and I wish more people did it. However, some players are not glib of tongue or quick to develop fiction... and I hate the 'mother may I' effect where my PCs actions might be nerfed by the GM because I didn't describe it well enoufh.




In practice, people will learn what flies and copy each other.  Perhaps the less-glib won't think to net-grapple a swarm to be able to grab it, but if someone else does it first, they'll be able to do the same.

Also, this is where DM consistency comes it - if the player is trying something that should be possible based on earlier rulings, the DM should (in my view anyhow) help them through it.

And if nobody in the party thinks of being able to grapple with a swarm using a net, well, then you're just playing in a work in which grabbing a swarm isn't possible.  And that a perfectly fine, fun world - there's nothing wrong with that, and it's not like you're screwing over the players here since grabbing swarms is hardly a component of expected behavior and balance when confronted with a swarm.  You're not unbalancing the game by removing the option.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 31, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> P1nback... I completely agree that justifying the action with fiction is cool and I wish more people did it. However, some players are not glib of tongue or quick to develop fiction... and I hate the 'mother may I' effect where my PCs actions might be nerfed by the GM because I didn't describe it well enoufh.
> 
> Swarms can be grabbed... and someone at the table should justify the action with fiction in order to help the game be more enjoyable..... that someone depends on the group.
> I don't want rules designed in a mass market game for just one style of play...{unless its mine!}
> ...




This is why you encourage descriptive behavior. Quick to develop fiction...? They do it in non-combat scenarios right? There's no specifics in the game for what to say when you Bluff right? You're telling me when someone uses Bluff you let them say, "I bluff him. I got a 18. Do I succeed?" 

 NO. 

You say, "Sure. What do you say to him? How do you bluff him? Are you lying to him or what?" 

I just don't get that. If anything, if it's a new player say, give the guy some options. 

DM: So, you're fighting this fire elemental. You got the jump on it. What do you do? 
Noob Rogue: Well, I have this "Poison At-Will" on my sheet. What does that do? 
DM: Well, you can strike a creature's insides and deliver a poisonous attack. 
Noob Rogue: Well, I use it on the fire elemental. 
DM: Sure. How do you do that? 
Noob Rogue: I don't know... I guess I just swing at it. 
DM: Nah, that's not gonna work. The fire elemental is made up of mostly fire, but there are embers floating around in it that you think makeup it's life force. There's a particularly large one in the center. You think if you hit that you might be able to deliver a poisonous attack. 
Noob Rogue: Oh cool. Well, I get a +2 for flanking right? 
DM: You sure do. 
Noob Rogue: Great, I tumble over to position myself behind the elemental (moves his mini 2 squares) and as I'm tumbling I'm drawing out this little vial and rubbing the end of it across the tip of my blade. When I get in position, I strike quickly at the elemental's ember heart. (rolls dice for attack, hits). 
DM: Oh yeah, your blade goes right through the flames and pierces the elemental's heart delivering your poison. (notates hp loss and ongoing poison or whatever). In addition, you struck it in a way that chipped away a large bit of the ember. Roll your sneak attack damage because you're flanking.
Noob Rogue: Oh cool. I can do that? Ah. I see! That +2 from flanking is combat advantage. Ok. 
DM: Yup. 
Noob Rogue: (rolls SA damage)
DM: Sweet. Wizard. You're up.

I also offer up suggestions and encourage all my players to make suggestions to each other and get involved with their descriptions. I don't think it's as daunting to new players as you are suggesting. In fact, in my experience, it's easier for a new player to suggest a fictional method of attack versus a mechanical one. 

It's going to require the DM abide by this too. Give descriptions for the players to riff off of.

And, when a description calls for something not covered by powers, don't forget DMG page 42! . I can't grapple the swarm with my hands... What if I do THIS to grapple it? Sweet. Let's reference page 42.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Aug 31, 2010)

Regretfully, I have had players who approach roleplaying as a mechanical puzzle and do indeed use the 'I bluff, and rolled a 34'... they learned this style of play before arriving at my table and are reticent to change.

Consistant descriptions that support the PCs reliable use of powers is a good thing. But at some tables it won't be happening soon. The option should be there, but if Mike isn't willing or able to describe how his encounter power trips a swarm... either the GM provides to supporting fiction or accepts the bland approach. The GM should not deny the powers effect when an experienced player is reticent to pony up the fictional story.

*Mike is the kind of players who had a diplo-monkey paladin in 3.x, and is completely uninterested in anything beyond the mechanical puzzle game of skill tests.

Is this a rule-set issue? I don't think so. However, my experience with 4e is that combat length plus power cards tends to limit the fiction telling. I almost would rather a free-form power system that uses stunts, player description, and an "elements of magic" building block approach.  
But that kind of game is harder to learn.

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 31, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> Regretfully, I have had players who approach roleplaying as a mechanical puzzle and do indeed use the 'I bluff, and rolled a 34'... they learned this style of play before arriving at my table and are reticent to change.
> 
> Consistant descriptions that support the PCs reliable use of powers is a good thing. But at some tables it won't be happening soon. The option should be there, but if Mike isn't willing or able to describe how his encounter power trips a swarm... either the GM provides to supporting fiction or accepts the bland approach. The GM should not deny the powers effect when an experienced player is reticent to pony up the fictional story.
> 
> *Mike is the kind of players who had a diplo-monkey paladin in 3.x, and is completely uninterested in anything beyond the mechanical puzzle game of skill tests.




Man, I think you're supremely selling your game short. If you want that boardgame experience with the roleplay "tacked on" as flavor (ala the banker roleplay when we play Monopoly), go for it. But, this is why justifying the mechanics in the fiction is _so important. _

I would never, ever let a player roll a Bluff skill check without explaining how they are bluffing and what they are saying (let alone having them act it out). 



Primitive Screwhead said:


> Is this a rule-set issue? I don't think so. However, my experience with 4e is that combat length plus power cards tends to limit the fiction telling. I almost would rather a free-form power system that uses stunts, player description, and an "elements of magic" building block approach.
> But that kind of game is harder to learn.




That's a serious disconnect with the rules and actual play, in my opinion. The rules do matter and if you're not getting the roleplay from them, there's a problem. 

Honestly, if you want to go free-form with player description and elements of magic, you should ditch the power system and roll with page 42 of the DMG. It's exactly what you are looking for. In fact, even if you don't ditch the power system, I would develop a power card specifically for the rules on that page and hand it out to your players (making it a viable and present option). The catch is, they have to describe what they are doing. Maybe that will ween them into some description. 

And, the next time "Mike" says he wants to Bluff the vizier, simply ask him, "Awesome. How is your character doing that?" I bet you see results.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 31, 2010)

*Good points*

In order to make anything happen at a table you need buy-in from everyone involved. If your players can't agree that you need to be the ultimate authority on ruling, and you feel you need that authority to deliver the experience you want for your players, then you're at an impasse.

One feature of 3E and to a greater extent 4E is that it requires _less_ adjudication from the DM in order to function. Some people think this is a bug, but it is in fact a feature. This lessened adjudication was incorporated by design to make DMing "easier". That fact alone means that it may not be the best system for all players and groups. 

_Less_ adjudication. If you are just playing by the rules as written without bending, your game is suffering for it. Look at recent changes to damage expressions for monsters. Those changes have been needed for a very long time. Anyone that has DM'd awhile and hasn't attempted to address some of the issues inherent with 4E (solos and damage specifically) isn't wrong, but is simply missing out. If as a player you are fighting your DM for trying to make their game better, you suck.

The paradox of this whole viewpoint is that if however you are playing, if everyone is having fun, then the product has accomplished its goal. I just think that there is a great amount of potential lost in this generation of gamers.


----------



## Solvarn (Aug 31, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> Regretfully, I have had players who approach roleplaying as a mechanical puzzle and do indeed use the 'I bluff, and rolled a 34'... they learned this style of play before arriving at my table and are reticent to change.




Try giving out a +1 or +2 bonus depending on how good the description is to any skill checks made during a skill challenge. You'd be surprised what your power gamers can come up with.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 31, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> And, the next time "Mike" says he wants to Bluff the vizier, simply ask him, "Awesome. How is your character doing that?" I bet you see results.




We do precisely that, in play, and give small bonuses or penalties based on how well the player did. Frequently someone will come up with something that simply doesn't fit the skill that the player wants to use. "I persuade him to help us by telling him I'll cut his hand off, if he doesn't!" Clearly an intimidate; not a use of diplomacy.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 31, 2010)

eamon said:


> In practice, people will learn what flies and copy each other.  Perhaps the less-glib won't think to net-grapple a swarm to be able to grab it, but if someone else does it first, they'll be able to do the same.
> 
> Also, this is where DM consistency comes it - if the player is trying something that should be possible based on earlier rulings, the DM should (in my view anyhow) help them through it.
> 
> And if nobody in the party thinks of being able to grapple with a swarm using a net, well, then you're just playing in a work in which grabbing a swarm isn't possible.  And that a perfectly fine, fun world - there's nothing wrong with that, and it's not like you're screwing over the players here since grabbing swarms is hardly a component of expected behavior and balance when confronted with a swarm.  You're not unbalancing the game by removing the option.



And this works for some parties but certainly not all.

Maybe it's just my exposure to recent pop culture talking, but I for one, as both a DM and a player, don't really _need _an explanation for every little thing that happens at the table. Since when does something implausible in a _fantasy action_ sequence break immersion?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I _expect_ things not to make any sense every once and a while.

And speaking of breaking immersion, how is bringing play to a screeching halt while everyone goads a player into describing how their power works (despite everyone already knowing it _should _work by RAW) not metagaming of the highest order? I mean, if the player offers it themselves it's just gravy, and I'm all for encouraging the player to give a little more creative thought to what they're doing from time to time. What I am NOT for is having everyone at the table telling a player how they should play their character, and I am certainly NOT for creating a houserule on the fly to take away something the players by all rights should be able to do just because the first person to try it wasn't having a good creative moment.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 31, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> I almost would rather a free-form power system that uses stunts, player description, and an "elements of magic" building block approach.
> But that kind of game is harder to learn.



Such games - like Ars Magica or Mage: the Ascension - are a great deal of fun in their own right.  But balance and playability are not exactly their hallmarks.

I think imagining the narrative fluff behind 4e powers is a great idea, and players should be allowed to do it - but also allowed not to if they don't feel up to the challenge at a given moment, with the DM or even other players picking up the slack if that makes them uncomfortable in some way.   Such imaginitive fluff or the lack thereof shouldn't override the rules, though.  That's using a blunt instrument to force creativity, and creativity doesn't respond well to bludgeoning force.


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 31, 2010)

Gradine said:


> And speaking of breaking immersion, how is bringing play to a screeching halt while everyone goads a player into describing how their power works (despite everyone already knowing it _should _work by RAW) not metagaming of the highest order? I mean, if the player offers it themselves it's just gravy, and I'm all for encouraging the player to give a little more creative thought to what they're doing from time to time. What I am NOT for is having everyone at the table telling a player how they should play their character, and I am certainly NOT for creating a houserule on the fly to take away something the players by all rights should be able to do just because the first person to try it wasn't having a good creative moment.




How is roleplaying bringing play to a screeching halt? I'm dumbfounded by that logic. 

Metagaming is a term that has been demonized and is totally appropriate for making decisions when you roleplay. You're metagaming when you choose a power to use... I don't get how "metagaming" is wrong in this sense. 

I think you're talking about dysfunctional play, which is totally not what we're advocating. Since when is "roleplaying" a houserule for 4E? Wtf...


----------



## P1NBACK (Aug 31, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's using a blunt instrument to force creativity, and creativity doesn't respond well to bludgeoning force.




You think asking a player to roleplay is a blunt instrument? If I, as a DM say, "Ok, you're trying to Bluff him. How are you doing that in the fiction? You need to describe it..." that's a blunt instrument? Really? 

If they can't describe their character bluffing the target, they aren't roleplaying anymore. They are rolling dice. Man... I must be nuts. 

I don't think asking a player to roleplay in a roleplaying game is stunting creativity at all. It happens every time my two groups play (it even happened in this thread to great results). Sometimes people will do something in the fiction and it calls for a check, and other times someone will call for a check and I'll ask them to do something in the fiction. "I want to Intimidate." "Great, how do you intimidate him?" "I grab his throat and tell him if he doesn't give us the info I'm going to choke him till his eyes pop." 

... 

It's not as hard as you guys make it out.


----------



## Initiate (Aug 31, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> I don't think asking a player to roleplay in a roleplaying game is stunting creativity at all. It happens every time my two groups play (it even happened in this thread to great results). Sometimes people will do something in the fiction and it calls for a check, and other times someone will call for a check and I'll ask them to do something in the fiction. "I want to Intimidate." "Great, how do you intimidate him?" "I grab his throat and tell him if he doesn't give us the info I'm going to choke him till his eyes pop.".




My usual DM started implementing explaining what/how you were doing things in non-combat situations for the new players we had. After they began getting used to describing what they were doing during skill checks he began pushing for in combat descriptions a little harder.

It worked very well for my group, with players now describing or demonstrating what their characters are doing most of the time.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 1, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> How is roleplaying bringing play to a screeching halt? I'm dumbfounded by that logic.
> 
> Metagaming is a term that has been demonized and is totally appropriate for making decisions when you roleplay. You're metagaming when you choose a power to use... I don't get how "metagaming" is wrong in this sense.
> 
> I think you're talking about dysfunctional play, which is totally not what we're advocating. Since when is "roleplaying" a houserule for 4E? Wtf...



It _is _bringing play to a screeching halt when you, as a DM, _demand_ that a player describe _exactly_ how they're accomplishing something that's perfectly allowed for them to do according to RAW, and don't move on until you've gotten an answer that satisfies you; this is _especially _true if you allow other players to pipe in with their suggestions, which can easily be demeaning and demoralizing to the player in question if they feel like they're not _clever enough _to get anything done.

And it _is _houseruling on the fly when you decide that just because someone hasn't given you an explanation you like they aren't allowed to do it.

I understand that this isn't really a problem with experienced players, but new players often have problems thinking on their feet like that. Hell, even experienced players have their off-days. Punishing them for that with inventing a house-rule on the spot (yes, saying swarms can't be grabbed is a house-rule) is, in my opinion anyway, absurd.

Maybe it's just because I'm used to DMing new players, but I find the carrot (the DM's best friend) is far more useful than the stick (creating punishing house-rules) more effective in coaxing creative moments out of players.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Sep 1, 2010)

Jumping in late to this thread, but I can't resist.



babinro said:


> I'm of the mindset that the word used as part of a condition has absolutely nothing to do with what your character is actually doing to the monster.




1000 times yes. Words have no standard meaning in 4e. The Pathfinder PP has absolutely nothing to do with finding paths or scouting... despite all the fluff claiming the contrary. Tripped does not mean tripped, grabbed does not mean grabbed. This bothers me to no end. But some people don't mind it a bit. To each his own. 




babinro said:


> They could have simply replaced Grab, Blind, and Stunned with Condition Red, White and Blue.




Again, yes, and I wish they would have. Better yet, a word or words that actually means what the condition does. Like, Physically Immobilized. Far better that than to corrupt the meaning of the word "grab."



babinro said:


> To summarize, your character;s actions are in some way causing any given creature to act differently.   How you are doing this is completely open to your interpretation and requires no justification.




Finally, yes, again. The "requires no justification" part is what gets me. I just don't want to play a role-playing game where there does not need to be any justification for the fiction being created. I know that many people do; glhf to those folks. 

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, By Moradin's beard, YES! In 4e, a swarm can be grabbed. Which does not mean it is grabbed.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 1, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> You think asking a player to roleplay is a blunt instrument? If I, as a DM say, "Ok, you're trying to Bluff him. How are you doing that in the fiction? You need to describe it..." that's a blunt instrument? Really?



Yes, if you override his success or failure per the rules based on your assessment of his RP or lack thereof.  RP is supposed to be a fun part of the game, where the player can be expressive or creative - not a resolution mechanic.  Players have differing levels of thespian skill and aren't all equally outgoing and assertive.  Some are new to the hobby, some are quite shy and retiring.  Some, while creative when given time don't dream up cool imagery in a snap.  We don't require every player who rolls up a fighter to be physically strong, we can't expect every player who chooses Bluff or Diplomacy to be glib, or every player to block out an action like their Jame Cameron doing a story board for Avatar2.

One alternative is to make the roll, determine the results and RP as best you can based on how successful it was.  

The same goes for 'realism' issues with a power.  Use the power, use the resolution mechanics, RP the results.  Don't grill the player on exactly how his character is performing a mechanically straightforward action and penalize him if you don't like his explanation.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 1, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> Oh god, wherein he tries to define "roleplaying game"... Gimme a break. I can "roleplay" my banker in Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a roleplaying game? It has some rules and I'm playing a character...



Yep, it is if you start roleplaying in it.  That's the point roleplaying as part of a game makes it a roleplaying game.  If you use a houserule that says everyone has to come up with an idea for their Monopoly character and you should consider your decisions in terms of his/her personality then absolutely it's a role playing game.

I generally, also like to have "improvement" mechanics in a game to qualify it as a True RPG.  Which means getting XP and going up levels.  Monopoly fails at this test, but it could certainly be a light RPG if played the right way.



P1NBACK said:


> First of all, I never once mentioned realism as the stated goal. Never. Plausibility? Yes. Realism? No.



Which is why I put quotation marks around "Realism".  I use the world "Realism" to mean "Being in line with how you feel the world is supposed to function".  Plausibility is just as good a word but not entirely accurate.  It's certainly plausible that people have expanding hands and can grab an entire swarm in one hand(in the same way that it's plausible that people can make fireballs by waving their hands).

On the other hand, although it's plausible, it isn't "Realistic".  People in real life don't have that ability.  I find more people have objections due to "Realism" than "Plausibility".

Nothing in any of the D&D books ever say that people DON'T have expanding hands capable of growing to a size big enough to grab a bunch of creatures at once.  You only assume they don't have that ability because it doesn't work that way in real life.  Therefore, the issue is one of "Realism".



P1NBACK said:


> However, my main concern is the fiction. As I just discussed, without that fiction carrying my character and my choices, we're playing a board game and "roleplaying" is just us masturbating with our voices.



The problem is, where is this "fiction" coming from?  I have an ability that says when I hit someone with it, they are grabbed.  So, it's possible within the game "fiction" since the rules describe what you can do within the game world.  The rules ARE the fiction.

Simply roleplaying your version of the "fiction" isn't superior to roleplaying my version of the "fiction".  And both my version AND your version are simply "masturbating with our voices".  In the end whatever we say matters only to us and the group of friends we are playing with.



P1NBACK said:


> But, you're assuming spellcasters are more elite in the fiction. This isn't necessarily true.



I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it is much easier to justify how to shoot the planet into the sun when you have magical powers than it is if you are a "normal guy" with a sword.  If you have to justify everything, you get a pass just by having the "fiction" say you are a magic user.



P1NBACK said:


> Really? That sounds fun as hell to me. All of sudden, we're immersed in the fiction because of one simple question. I'm imagining the Wizard modifying his spell and recalling his lore of elementals.



Not to me.  I want the combat to be over in less than 2 hours.  If we stopped for every power someone used in order to justify things like this, we'd extend the time it took to nearly double.

Even if it's exciting to describe your magic missile the first or second time, but the 40th or 50th time you've used the power in the campaign, I just want to know how much damage it does. 



P1NBACK said:


> If the Rogue had justified it in the fiction, "As I strike at the elemental, I make sure to place my blade in the ember that rests at it's heart so that my poison strikes at it's weakest location..."



Until your DM says "There is no ember that rests at it's heart.  It's entirely made out of fire.  It has no veins, no blood, and no vital areas.  Now, describe to me how it is plausible at all that your ordinary poisoned blade can do anything at all to it?"

Your powers then become the whim of your DM.  After all, it isn't very plausible that weapons could harm a creature of pure fire at all.  It would require an extreme justification just to be able to use your weapons on it.

After all, there is fiction within the D&D worlds claiming that creatures like this need magic weapons to harm at all(since they did in previous editions).  On the other hand, spells count as magic, so casters get a free pass again.



P1NBACK said:


> Wow... All of a sudden I'm IMAGINING this fiction take place. And it sounds ing awesome.



Understood.  You like description.  I like some flavor now and then myself.  We currently use a lot more flavor description in our current games than I did back when I started D&D.  Back then the DM would resolve initiative in clockwise order and he'd point at you and you'd say only two things: AC you hit and amount of damage dealt.  Unless you wanted to move somewhere first.  In which case you stated that.



P1NBACK said:


> Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will.
> DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though. How do you do that?
> Wizard: Well, I just cast it.
> DM: Oh, cool. Well, roll to hit. Roll for damage.
> ...



There's certainly nothing wrong with this.  Except maybe the DM stopping to ask "How do you do that?"  I'd be prone to say "What do you mean 'How do I do that?', I have the ability to wave my arms and a poison missile shoots out at a target I choose.  I do the same waving my arms motion I always do and I choose the elemental as my target.  The same missile that always appears shoots at the enemy and then does 27 poison damage to him.  It's not like anything has changed since the last time I used the ability."



P1NBACK said:


> Nah... I'd rather hear...



I think that is entirely a matter of taste.  Whether someone describes how their power works or not doesn't change what the power does.  It does the same amount of damage and has the same effect.  The description is simply "masturbating with your voice".  But that's ok.  It just shouldn't become the basis of how the game works.



P1NBACK said:


> Not at all. Rogues can deal damage to undead. There's nothing saying they can't. They just need to justify it in the fiction, same as the Wizard or Cleric.



As I've said, this "fiction" is heavily dependent on what is in your DM's head.  If your DM has the image of a ghost as having no vital organs.  Since it is just a spirit, it has no weak points in his mind.  Sneak Attacks rely on your hitting weak points in the fiction.  So, in the DMs mind(and therefore, the fiction), Sneak Attacks cannot be done to undead.  No matter what justification the Rogue comes up with, the DM is going to say it isn't supported in the "fiction".  So, the high level Rogue with the dagger goes from doing 1d4+10+3d8 to 1d4+10.  Changing his average damage from 25 to 13.  Actually halving it.

Are there going to be some DMs who are more open to making up fiction as you go along?  Sure.  But where is the line?  How often does your character have to suck in combat in order to fulfill the desire to "stay within the fiction"?  And if you play in multiple D&D games are you going to have to guess at where that line lies for every DM you play with?



P1NBACK said:


> Being immune to something and having characters justify it in fiction are two entirely different things.



You miss my point.  But I agree with that statement.  The point I was trying to make was if the book says a particular creature is immune to poison, the game designers felt there was a fiction reason for that(it has no blood, or whatever).  If it isn't immune to fire, then there is likely a fictional reason for that as well(fire burns it the same as it does everyone else).

No justification is going to convince the DM that you should be able to poison the creature that specifically says it is immune to poison.  However, why does using fire on the creature require a justification more than "I use fire on it"?  I already used a dice to determine if I was capable of using the power and hitting the enemy.  Do I need to answer a pop quiz in addition?



P1NBACK said:


> Sigh... Again. We're not talking about realism. I play my games in a very cinematic manner. A rogue striking the ember heart of a flame elemental? Oh yeah.



I play my games in a very cinematic manner as well.  The rogue gets to strike the ember heart of a flame elemental.  That's why he gets his Sneak Attack damage.  We just save time by not describing it every time.  And we keep the balance between the classes by not requiring a justification for each one of their powers.  If the game lets them use their powers, then they can use their powers.



P1NBACK said:


> Yeah. I'm of the school that says, "Everyone's powers work if you can justify it in the fiction."



See above.  It's much easier to say "It's magic, of course I can do it" and convince most DMs than it is to say "My poison dagger can poison that ghost...because I....umm...hit it in it's head..and...I...twist the blade?"

If you can justify it easier with some classes and whether you can use your powers requires justification then certain classes become more powerful than others.



P1NBACK said:


> If you can justify it in the fiction. Yes. The example given earlier of someone using their shield to hold down a swarm of lizards or whatever is a good one.



It's a matter of "What IS the fiction?"  Where does the standard of "the fiction" come from?  If I'm playing a grappler fighter where all of my powers require a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand, and all grab my enemy(therefore no shield) and I say "I suck up all the insects into my glove by spinning my arm really fast.  Faster than anyone has ever moved before."  Does that fit the fiction?  Or is that too magical to fit what a fighter can do?



P1NBACK said:


> And, this is sad to me. We're playing the game for the explanation. For the fiction. We're not playing Monopoly or D&D Minis.



Why are we playing the game for the explanation?  I'm certainly not playing the game to determine how the metaphysical reality of the D&D world works whenever I cast my magic missile.  I'm concerned with whether or not it hits my enemy and whether the enemy dies, so I can save my friend from being eaten and continue on my quest to save the princess from the evil archmage, become rich and famous, and then go to the tavern for ales and wenches.

Whether the magic missile hits the enemies shoulder or chest doesn't so much matter to me.  It's an interesting fact to know.  But not required by any stretch of the imagination.  And if described every single time might cause it to take months instead of weeks(in real time) for me to save that princess.



P1NBACK said:


> So... Why play combat at all? Just skip it. "You guys win. Good job. Now... back to roleplaying..."



Because part of the game is seeing IF you succeed.  You might die.  One of your allies might die.  The NPC you've been protecting might get kidnapped in the battle.

It's also fun to fight things because you enjoy combat mechanics.  I love the idea that my characters has the ability to shoot fireballs out of his hands.  I like seeing if I can tactically outsmart the monsters and use my powers as effectively as possible to reduce the damage me and my allies take while maximizing the damage my enemies take.

I derive the same fun out of playing through a battle as I do playing a game of Warhammer 40k or playing a game of Starcraft on my PC.  With the added benefit that I get to spend time with more friends this way and the battle has a context behind it.  I get to play a character who has a personal stake in the fight.  I get to think of it from his point of view.  Which fulfills some of my desire to be someone else for a while.

To me, the fun parts of combat are being smart enough to use my immobilizing power on the big damage melee creatures on the back so they are effectively out of the battle while we take care of the ranged enemies before finishing off the melee enemies second.  I like the idea that we used teamwork in order to defeat a challenge put before us.

Which is part of the reason having a DM tell me "Sorry, your immobilizing power is shooting arrows at the enemies and pinning them to the ground.  You can't pin Oozes to the ground, they flow around it" is so annoying.  It takes my good plan and turns it around on a whim because my powers don't fit the sensibilities of the DM. 



P1NBACK said:


> My advice to that player: "Use your imagination. This is D&D. Not, Monopoly."



Imagination doesn't get you out of every bind.  At least it shouldn't.  I find it equally bad when a player can get away with murder simply by anticipating the DMs thoughts or when the DM restricts the players simply because they weren't creative enough.

For instance, it's annoying when 3 players use their biggest daily powers against an enemy, each doing around 30-40 damage a piece against a big, nasty creature, realizing this is going to be hard.  Then one PC suddenly has an idea.  The roof of the cave was described as being unstable.  He shoots a basic ranged arrow at the roof.  The DM says "Excellent, you are being creative, the roof collapses and immediate does the other 500 points of damage needed to kill the monster."

What really happened is that the DM planted an idea by giving a hint of what he wanted the players to do.  Then rewarded them for coming up with the idea that he gave them.  As soon as that happened, they ceased playing D&D and began playing the "Guess what the DM was thinking" game.  Since, guessing what the DM is thinking lets you do 500 points of damage while everyone else has to roll to hit in order to do 30 damage.

The reverse can be true as well.  If you come up with an explanation your DM likes, you get to use your powers.  This requires knowing your DM well enough to know what he likes.  The players who are better at reading the DM get to be more powerful in game.

It ceases to be a game about playing a character who has cool powers in a fantasy universe and instead becomes a game about being yourself and attempting to use your power of imagination in order to wow your DM.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 1, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Which is metagaming, and not what I'm looking for with a role playing game.



That's not true at all.  The word metagaming gets abused.  It means making decisions knowing the game is a game and expecting that things that wouldn't work in the world will work that way because it is a game.

A great example is from the 3e DMG that says that it is metagaming, for instance, to say "Hey, I bet there is a way to disable this trap, because the DM wouldn't put a trap here without a way to disarm it!"

It's not metagaming to say "Hey, there's got to be a way to disarm this trap since whoever manufactured it would have put in some way for them to get through this room."

In the same way, it isn't metagaming to say, "My power works because poison affects fire elementals in this world." or "I can't use this power more than once a day, because that's the way it's always been here.  When it was taught to me by my master, he explained that this move only works once a day.  As his master had explained to him and his master to him and so on, stretching back to the beginning of time.  Why this is, no one knows.  It is simply the way of the universe.  It requires getting in the exact right frame of mind and position in order to execute.  Perhaps it is tapping into a type of 'magic' that has never been identified.  Perhaps the gods are meddlesome and keep putting people slightly out of position if they try to do it too often since they are jealous of the power that mortals could wield if they could do it infinitely.  We may never know."

As long as there is an in game reason for it, it isn't metagaming.  If the game rules are used to simulate the fantasy world than there is an in game reason for every restriction you have in the rules.

Either that or you accept that games need rules in order to be fun and sometimes those rules affect the in game world.  I personally prefer to think of the encounter/daily powers for martial characters in terms of novels.  When I read a Drizzt novel, he doesn't simply cut the heads off of every enemy he encounters with his first attack.  However, he HAS cut the heads off of his enemies with the first blow against them.  He doesn't do it every single time because he can't get the attack off every time.  Often it only happens once a day, if that.  But also, he doesn't do that every single time because as the reader of that story, it would be really boring:  "Let me guess, after those Orcs jump Drizzt, he cuts their heads off...again".

There's no in game reason he can't do it only once a day.  But he doesn't.


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 1, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, if you override his success or failure per the rules based on your assessment of his RP or lack thereof.




Where in the whole goddamn world did I ever say I was "assessing" this roleplaying? Show me ONCE where I said that the roleplaying was ever "assessed". Please. I'd love to see it. Because I don't think I've ever said or done that inside of a game. 



Tony Vargas said:


> RP is supposed to be a fun part of the game, where the player can be expressive or creative - not a resolution mechanic.




You're right. It's NOT a resolution mechanic. But, for that resolution mechanic to come into effect, you need to do something in the fiction to invoke it. "I use my Intimidate skill..." is unsatisfactory. You need to actual DO something in the fiction for those resolution mechanics to resolve anything. If you say, "I use my Intimidate skill..." there's nothing to resolve. Your character didn't DO anything. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Players have differing levels of thespian skill and aren't all equally outgoing and assertive.  Some are new to the hobby, some are quite shy and retiring.  Some, while creative when given time don't dream up cool imagery in a snap.  We don't require every player who rolls up a fighter to be physically strong, we can't expect every player who chooses Bluff or Diplomacy to be glib, or every player to block out an action like their Jame Cameron doing a story board for Avatar2.




I never said anything of the sort. I don't require my players to be anything other than roleplayers. The fiction is theirs. But, there must be fiction. 



Tony Vargas said:


> One alternative is to make the roll, determine the results and RP as best you can based on how successful it was.




Sure. Except, how can you know what to roll when you haven't done anything? If I roll my "Bluff" skill and then roleplay my character grabbing a hammer and threatening it in some guy's face because I want him to leave me alone... Am I bluffing? No. I'm Intimidating at that point. 

And, now we _are _slowing the game down. It's much easier to roleplay what you want to do and then let the rules resolve those actions (and this is where I think 4E powers kind of fail in that respect... it doesn't ALLOW the player to roleplay what they want to do, only what is available to them on their sheet to do, not in their head and imagined events...). 



Tony Vargas said:


> The same goes for 'realism' issues with a power.  Use the power, use the resolution mechanics, RP the results.  Don't grill the player on exactly how his character is performing a mechanically straightforward action and penalize him if you don't like his explanation.




Yeah. My point is, there is no mechanical straightforward action - everything is, or should be, rooted in fiction. When you DM, do you describe the dungeon you draw out, or do you just draw a grid and begin combat?


----------



## Nichwee (Sep 1, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> Where in the whole goddamn world did I ever say I was "assessing" this roleplaying? Show me ONCE where I said that the roleplaying was ever "assessed". Please. I'd love to see it. Because I don't think I've ever said or done that inside of a game.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. It's NOT a resolution mechanic. But, for that resolution mechanic to come into effect, you need to do something in the fiction to invoke it. "I use my Intimidate skill..." is unsatisfactory.




If "I use my Intimidate skill..." is unsatisfactory then you have assessed the roleplaying and found it lacking. Roleplaying is about thinking and acting like a person not yourself, not about having the ability to actually do it. So choosing to Intimidate with your character when you are a "natural diplomat" would be roleplay - You'd solve the problem with diplomacy, but your character is the "Do as I say or else" type so you go for that - even if you doubt it will work = roleplaying.

BTW is "I threaten to rip his arms off if he doesn't do what I want" enough to replace "I use my Intimidate skill." in your opinion? If not, then you are saying "Your RP wasn't good enough, you can't do what you want." = assessing.

People can bring RP to their characters without having to "act out the drama" by the simple choices they make and abilities they choose. A pyromaniac will choose fire-powers and use them all the time, even though having a range of elemental damage types would be more sensible and using a fireball can often be tactically unsound - does the pyromaniac care, no. So the player roleplays that by not worrying about hitting his own side much and learnign nothing but fire-powers.
My wizard is melee-obsessed (due to events that occured at Lvl 10) and a bookworm. He uses his MBA a lot more than is sensible, chooses utilities that require him in melee range dispite having low HP, took the WotST paragon path despite it being very weak mechanically. He also lists off monster knowledge "junk" as the fight goes, and geeks out at new magic or rituals he hasn't dealt with before. All examples of RPing my character, and none require me to justify my choices beyond "I choose to do ... and my roll got me a score of .....". If I was asked to say what I was looking for on a monster knowledge or Arcana check I would be fooked - as I have no clue what the "giveaways" are to identify a given monster or ritual.

Should a person have a goal in mind before they roll a dice? Yes.
So "I use my Intimidate skill ..." should have a fiction behind it, but it shouldn't require a player to know the correct way to imtimidate someone just so they can describe how they are doing it - that is what the check is for.
I roll well and the DM says "You grab him by the scruff of the neck and say you will remove his ears with your bare hands if he doesn't tell you what you want to know. He visably pales and begins to spill his guts."
I roll badly and the DM says "You grab him by the scruff of the neck and say you will remove his ears with your bare hands if he doesn't tell you what you want to know. He sniggers to himself and asks if you practice that speech in front of the mirror. He doesn't seem to be worried."


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> Where in the whole goddamn world ...





Um, dude, you seem to be getting a touch hot here.  Can we chill this out a little bit, please?  This is supposedly about "grabbing a swarm"*, right?  It probably does not merit such things as damnation of the world, hm?  

Thanks, all.




*wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, IYKWIMAITYD


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 1, 2010)

Wow. So, this is getting entirely too long and you're ignoring most of my points. I'll try one more time. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yep, it is if you start roleplaying in it.  That's the point roleplaying as part of a game makes it a roleplaying game.  If you use a houserule that says everyone has to come up with an idea for their Monopoly character and you should consider your decisions in terms of his/her personality then absolutely it's a role playing game.




This is false. It's not a roleplaying game if what you do fictionally has no impact on what you do mechanically. Plain and simple. You simply CANNOT impact what you do in Monopoly by roleplaying things out in the fiction. I can't say, "Well, today boys I'm not traveling anywhere. I'm going to stay in my hotel on Boardwalk and play some poker with my colleagues." 

Nope. You roll the dice on your turn. You must move that many spaces. Those are the rules of the game. 

The same thing applies to D&D. By not allowing fiction in the game to impact the mechanical functions of the game, you're turning it into a board game. That's fine if you want to have that experience. I'm not knocking it. But, let's not be naive and call it roleplaying.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I generally, also like to have "improvement" mechanics in a game to qualify it as a True RPG.  Which means getting XP and going up levels.  Monopoly fails at this test, but it could certainly be a light RPG if played the right way.




XP and leveling is totally not a requirement for a game to be an RPG... And, improvement doesn't "mean" XP and leveling in all RPGs. 

I think you need to broaden your horizons as far as RPGs. What games have you played? 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which is why I put quotation marks around "Realism".  I use the world "Realism" to mean "Being in line with how you feel the world is supposed to function".  Plausibility is just as good a word but not entirely accurate.  It's certainly plausible that people have expanding hands and can grab an entire swarm in one hand(in the same way that it's plausible that people can make fireballs by waving their hands).




If they have that power and can justify it in the fiction, sure. There's also a social contract at the table that needs to be clear to all the players and what is acceptable to them. If you want to play a "anime" oriented game, and I'm interested in a more classic fantasy experience, we need to reconcile those differences and figure out what kind of theme we're going for in the campaign. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> On the other hand, although it's plausible, it isn't "Realistic".  People in real life don't have that ability.  I find more people have objections due to "Realism" than "Plausibility".




I don't. We're playing elves and wizards (which, last I checked, don't exist). I don't give one  about realism. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Nothing in any of the D&D books ever say that people DON'T have expanding hands capable of growing to a size big enough to grab a bunch of creatures at once.  You only assume they don't have that ability because it doesn't work that way in real life.  Therefore, the issue is one of "Realism".




When did I say this? I just described earlier in this thread that a rogue could stab a fire elemental's ember heart... Wtf is wrong with you? Are you not reading my posts? Quit replying to my posts and quoting me if you're not going to read them. I never once said anything about realism, except that I don't give a  about it. 

Seriously... Just stop. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> The problem is, where is this "fiction" coming from?




It's coming from your imagination. The same as where mine is coming from. And, when we tell this story, when we describe our actions and our characters, we're created a shared story. It's not hard. You should try it. You might enjoy roleplaying. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I have an ability that says when I hit someone with it, they are grabbed.  So, it's possible within the game "fiction" since the rules describe what you can do within the game world.




You're right. So describe it for me. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> The rules ARE the fiction.




Nope. The rules are there to resolve the fiction. Fiction is the fiction. Seriously. Saying, "I roll my Intimidate skill" is NOT fiction. There's NOTHING there that is fictional. That is a real world thing you are announcing. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Simply roleplaying your version of the "fiction" isn't superior to roleplaying my version of the "fiction".




Agreed. I never said otherwise. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> And both my version AND your version are simply "masturbating with our voices".  In the end whatever we say matters only to us and the group of friends we are playing with.




Not if we're playing a roleplaying game. You're not masturbating with your voice if your fictional actions with your character(s) has a direct impact on the game (see my Monopoly example above). 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it is much easier to justify how to shoot the planet into the sun when you have magical powers than it is if you are a "normal guy" with a sword.




I think that depends on the magical power and the sword. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> If you have to justify everything, you get a pass just by having the "fiction" say you are a magic user.




Not true. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Not to me.  I want the combat to be over in less than 2 hours.  If we stopped for every power someone used in order to justify things like this, we'd extend the time it took to nearly double.




This is an issue with 4E, not roleplaying. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Even if it's exciting to describe your magic missile the first or second time, but the 40th or 50th time you've used the power in the campaign, I just want to know how much damage it does.




That's fine. If you're playing "I roll to hit. I roll damage. Next?" Which is more boring? I don't want to hear that 50 times in a row. THAT to me is boring. I want to hear how you're using that Magic Missile NOW in THIS situation in THIS moment on THIS particular enemy. 

Does it really take that much time to say, "Two bolts of bluish force streak out of my staff and strike at the two minions." 

"Sweet. The bolts hit them with precise force and the wind is knocked out of them and they fall unconscious. Santos, you're up now." 

Really? That was hard? You're telling me you want to hear. "I use my At-Will attack power Magic Missile. I got a 20. For 6 damage..." "Ok, The minions die." 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Until your DM says "There is no ember that rests at it's heart.  It's entirely made out of fire.  It has no veins, no blood, and no vital areas.  Now, describe to me how it is plausible at all that your ordinary poisoned blade can do anything at all to it?"




The DM must adhere to the rules and fictionally justify it as well. I never said the DM could give monsters powers fictionally. I said you have to justify your actions it fictionally. If the fire elemental is not immune to poison, the DM must supply a reason why, fictionally. Plain and simple. 

You tell me, Majoru, why is a Fire Elemental not immune to poison? 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Your powers then become the whim of your DM.  After all, it isn't very plausible that weapons could harm a creature of pure fire at all.  It would require an extreme justification just to be able to use your weapons on it.




Not at all. I gave a perfect example earlier in the thread. Powers are never the whim of the DM. I never said that. I said, "To do something with your character mechanically, you need to do something fictionally." 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> After all, there is fiction within the D&D worlds claiming that creatures like this need magic weapons to harm at all(since they did in previous editions).  On the other hand, spells count as magic, so casters get a free pass again.




Again. No.  no. Where in my example above did the Rogue _not_ get to attack the elemental with poison? Please. Show it to me. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Understood.  You like description.




I like fiction, i.e. roleplaying. Sure. I also like board games, but when I play D&D, I don't want to play a board game. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I like some flavor now and then myself.  We currently use a lot more flavor description in our current games than I did back when I started D&D.  Back then the DM would resolve initiative in clockwise order and he'd point at you and you'd say only two things: AC you hit and amount of damage dealt.  Unless you wanted to move somewhere first.  In which case you stated that.




How is this relevant at all? It's not. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> There's certainly nothing wrong with this.  Except maybe the DM stopping to ask "How do you do that?"  I'd be prone to say "What do you mean 'How do I do that?', I have the ability to wave my arms and a poison missile shoots out at a target I choose.  I do the same waving my arms motion I always do and I choose the elemental as my target.  The same missile that always appears shoots at the enemy and then does 27 poison damage to him.  It's not like anything has changed since the last time I used the ability."




Everything has changed, hopefully. You're telling me every battle you get in has the same enemies? The same circumstances? The same whatever? I find that hard to believe. 

"Majoru, your wizard steps up onto the deck of the hovering airship. Lord Baltu is there and he has your sister in his arms, using her as a human shield. Now how do you use your Magic Missile?" 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think that is entirely a matter of taste.  Whether someone describes how their power works or not doesn't change what the power does.  It does the same amount of damage and has the same effect.  The description is simply "masturbating with your voice".  But that's ok.  It just shouldn't become the basis of how the game works.




The description is not masturbating with your voice, because your description directly impacts the fact that you are using the power in the fiction. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> As I've said, this "fiction" is heavily dependent on what is in your DM's head.




No. It's heavily dependent on what's in YOUR head. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> If your DM has the image of a ghost as having no vital organs.  Since it is just a spirit, it has no weak points in his mind.  Sneak Attacks rely on your hitting weak points in the fiction.  So, in the DMs mind(and therefore, the fiction), Sneak Attacks cannot be done to undead.




Are you kidding? You don't think spirits and undead have weak points? 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> No matter what justification the Rogue comes up with, the DM is going to say it isn't supported in the "fiction".




That's not true at all (unless the DM wants it to be by design of the monster - certainly a DM can design a monster that has immunities and such things). But, if the DM has a creature with no such immunities, then certainly the rogue can justify hitting the creature. I'll come up with one right now. 

"I strike at the zombie's sinewy tissue that connects it's neck with it's head." 

Bam. Sneak attack. It took me about 2 seconds of game time to come up with and say that. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Are there going to be some DMs who are more open to making up fiction as you go along?  Sure.  But where is the line?  How often does your character have to suck in combat in order to fulfill the desire to "stay within the fiction"?  And if you play in multiple D&D games are you going to have to guess at where that line lies for every DM you play with?




Not at all. Certainly every group has their goals for the game. Let's hope one of those goals is to create compelling fiction while they play. We've already established that the DM is held just as responsible for adhering to creating this fiction as the players, so there is no "line". 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> But I agree with that statement.  The point I was trying to make was if the book says a particular creature is immune to poison, the game designers felt there was a fiction reason for that(it has no blood, or whatever).




Omg... The designers relied on fiction?? HOW DARE THEY!



Majoru Oakheart said:


> If it isn't immune to fire, then there is likely a fictional reason for that as well(fire burns it the same as it does everyone else).




Agreed. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> No justification is going to convince the DM that you should be able to poison the creature that specifically says it is immune to poison.




Why are you trying to argue with me about things I never said and things I agree with? Let's drop these antics. You're filling up your post with garbage that is not relevant to the topic and that we both agree on, yet you're phrasing it like we disagree and are arguing this matter. Just stop. Please. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> However, why does using fire on the creature require a justification more than "I use fire on it"?  I already used a dice to determine if I was capable of using the power and hitting the enemy.  Do I need to answer a pop quiz in addition?




No. We just established that if a creature is immune to fire, it is immune to fire. Period. The DM should explain this in the fiction, just like you should. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I play my games in a very cinematic manner as well.




How is that possible if you don't describe anything? Doesn't make any sense to me. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> The rogue gets to strike the ember heart of a flame elemental.  That's why he gets his Sneak Attack damage.  We just save time by not describing it every time.




Wrong. You never knew about the ember heart if you didn't describe it. Hell, I never imagined a fire elemental with an ember heart until this very thread where the fiction demanded we describe it. So, don't tell me that we'd have all imagined that somehow if we never described it. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> And we keep the balance between the classes by not requiring a justification for each one of their powers.  If the game lets them use their powers, then they can use their powers.




Sure. So long as they justify it in the fiction. Same as everyone being allowed to use "Bluff" so long as they bluff someone in the fiction. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> See above.  It's much easier to say "It's magic, of course I can do it" and convince most DMs than it is to say "My poison dagger can poison that ghost...because I....umm...hit it in it's head..and...I...twist the blade?"




Sure. If that's how you want to describe it. I'd probably help you out if you were struggling and tell you about the shimmering parts of the ghost that seem to come in and out of the material world, beckoning to be brought forth from its ethereal state. When you strike at the ghost, you can "sneak attack" it by striking these parts of it. ...

Or something. Whatever. Twisting your blade is fine too. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> If you can justify it easier with some classes and whether you can use your powers requires justification then certain classes become more powerful than others.




Not at all. Justify how you use fireball underwater? The fighter doesn't have this problem. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's a matter of "What IS the fiction?"  Where does the standard of "the fiction" come from?  If I'm playing a grappler fighter where all of my powers require a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand, and all grab my enemy(therefore no shield) and I say "I suck up all the insects into my glove by spinning my arm really fast.  Faster than anyone has ever moved before."  Does that fit the fiction?  Or is that too magical to fit what a fighter can do?




Didn't we already cover this? I think so. Suit the fiction to YOUR group's preference. It's not the control of the DM the style of fiction your group wants to tell. It's your group's control. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Why are we playing the game for the explanation?  I'm certainly not playing the game to determine how the metaphysical reality of the D&D world works whenever I cast my magic missile.  I'm concerned with whether or not it hits my enemy and whether the enemy dies, so I can save my friend from being eaten and continue on my quest to save the princess from the evil archmage, become rich and famous, and then go to the tavern for ales and wenches.




Yup. Me too. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Whether the magic missile hits the enemies shoulder or chest doesn't so much matter to me.




Hopefully it does in the situation I presented earlier. If the enemy is holding your sister at his chest, hopefully you'd want to hit him in the shoulder.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's an interesting fact to know.  But not required by any stretch of the imagination.  And if described every single time might cause it to take months instead of weeks(in real time) for me to save that princess.




Not really. Takes me about two seconds to describe my blue bolts of force striking at Lord Baltu's shoulder. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Because part of the game is seeing IF you succeed.  You might die.  One of your allies might die.  The NPC you've been protecting might get kidnapped in the battle.




Ok. Sure. How does this go against anything I said? 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's also fun to fight things because you enjoy combat mechanics.  I love the idea that my characters has the ability to shoot fireballs out of his hands.  I like seeing if I can tactically outsmart the monsters and use my powers as effectively as possible to reduce the damage me and my allies take while maximizing the damage my enemies take.




Sweet. Glad to know. Irrelevant to the conversation though. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I derive the same fun out of playing through a battle as I do playing a game of Warhammer 40k or playing a game of Starcraft on my PC.  With the added benefit that I get to spend time with more friends this way and the battle has a context behind it.




There is no context if there's no fiction. Unless your fiction is simply window dressing... 

"This is the scenario guys... You're all on an airship because Lord Baltu has kidnapped Majoru's sister. Fight!" 

We could play a boardgame with that exact premise. What makes it roleplaying is that our fight has fictional weight. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I get to play a character who has a personal stake in the fight.  I get to think of it from his point of view.  Which fulfills some of my desire to be someone else for a while.




Sure. Let's describe that. When you use your Magic Missile against Lord Baltu, do you SAY anything to him first? What about your sister? Is she crying? Are you scared for her? 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> To me, the fun parts of combat are being smart enough to use my immobilizing power on the big damage melee creatures on the back so they are effectively out of the battle while we take care of the ranged enemies before finishing off the melee enemies second.  I like the idea that we used teamwork in order to defeat a challenge put before us.




Yeah. What does this have to do with fiction? You can still do this with fiction. Tactics and powers and skills, these things are all methods for resolving the fiction. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which is part of the reason having a DM tell me "Sorry, your immobilizing power is shooting arrows at the enemies and pinning them to the ground.  You can't pin Oozes to the ground, they flow around it" is so annoying.  It takes my good plan and turns it around on a whim because my powers don't fit the sensibilities of the DM.




Like I've said about 100 times in this thread. The DM is just as responsible. If you're fighting an ooze that is not immune to immobilize, I would have described that...

"You strike the ooze with your arrows and while they go straight through it, tearing away globs of it's composition, your arrows strike into the gorund creating a barrier that it struggles to move past." 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Imagination doesn't get you out of every bind.  At least it shouldn't.  I find it equally bad when a player can get away with murder simply by anticipating the DMs thoughts or when the DM restricts the players simply because they weren't creative enough.




You still need to roll Bluff checks to succeed at bluffing.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> For instance, it's annoying when 3 players use their biggest daily powers against an enemy, each doing around 30-40 damage a piece against a big, nasty creature, realizing this is going to be hard.  Then one PC suddenly has an idea.  The roof of the cave was described as being unstable.  He shoots a basic ranged arrow at the roof.  The DM says "Excellent, you are being creative, the roof collapses and immediate does the other 500 points of damage needed to kill the monster."




There are rules that cover this on page 42 of the DMG. Check 'em out. 500 points of damage would have to be a pretty high level custom maneuver.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> What really happened is that the DM planted an idea by giving a hint of what he wanted the players to do.  Then rewarded them for coming up with the idea that he gave them.  As soon as that happened, they ceased playing D&D and began playing the "Guess what the DM was thinking" game.  Since, guessing what the DM is thinking lets you do 500 points of damage while everyone else has to roll to hit in order to do 30 damage.




So, if I put terrain powers on the battlefield as a DM, that's a BAD thing? Wtf... Naw. Sounds like you're making a poor example. There are clearly defined rules for terrain powers and custom stunts (page 42 of the DMG). You're making an exaggerated example to try to prove your point. It's not working. 

Check out this website: Sly Flourish

Has tons of nice terrain power examples and suggestions for their rules. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> The reverse can be true as well.  If you come up with an explanation your DM likes, you get to use your powers.  This requires knowing your DM well enough to know what he likes.  The players who are better at reading the DM get to be more powerful in game.




Nah. That's not what I'm saying at all. Some DMs (like suggested above) might give small bonuses (the DMG suggests this - +2 bonus for especially creative methods for doing things - or another example is page 42 of the DMG where they suggest a lower DC for the rogue doing his stunt because you want to encourage "creativity"), but I've never suggested disallowing something because you DID something and it wasn't "good enough". I am saying, you have to DO something. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> It ceases to be a game about playing a character who has cool powers in a fantasy universe and instead becomes a game about being yourself and attempting to use your power of imagination in order to wow your DM.




Not at all. I think we've exemplified that your examples are gross exaggerations and the DMG and rules clearly support the truth.


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 1, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> BTW is "I threaten to rip his arms off if he doesn't do what I want" enough to replace "I use my Intimidate skill." in your opinion? If not, then you are saying "Your RP wasn't good enough, you can't do what you want." = assessing.




Yeah. That's perfect. Good job. Roll to see if it works. 

Why do people assume the fiction is subject to "good enough" because I'm asking you to describe something in the fiction? 

That makes no sense to me. 

It sounds like many of you have severe negative associations with describing things. That's something that I find dysfunctional in a roleplaying game thread. 

You don't have to "actually" be Intimidating to use the skill. I have absolutely no clue where this idea came from. I never once alluded to anything of the sort. Do you need to describe how _your character_ is intimidating? Sure. And, I don't think that's out of line in a roleplaying game whatsoever. It happens every time we play at my table.


----------



## Nichwee (Sep 1, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> You don't have to "actually" be Intimidating to use the skill. I have absolutely no clue where this idea came from. I never once alluded to anything of the sort. Do you need to describe how _your character_ is intimidating? Sure. And, I don't think that's out of line in a roleplaying game whatsoever. It happens every time we play at my table.




This draws a fine line tbh between being just "I ues my .... skilll" by any other name, and actually being a description. With an Intimidate roll it is no biggie - pick the first scary thing you can think of and say you threaten that. With Diplomacy it gets harder, as Diplomacy varies from culture to culture and by mood of those involved.
Complement a Klingon on his smooth skin and he will try to kill you (smooth skin is an insult to Klingons), so you suddenly find that some skills are easy to describe in basic form "I threaten him with ..." = Intimidate, "I move behind him slowly and quietly ..." = Stealth, but can get complex for others "I comment his ...." = wrong choice of words for a Diplomacy check.

So if you can just say "I complement him and discuss how he has been for 5 minutes and then ask him what I want to know" you may as well have just said "I use my Diplomacy skill" and saved the extra 20 odd words. If you actually have to come up with an idea what you should say to complement the guy and get on his good side it just became your OOC diplomacy that matters not your character's.

Roleplay can exist much more in the choice to use a given skill or power imo than in how you say you are using it.
Example:
Players want info from a barman.
Party Bard asks, barman lies, Bard thinks he is hiding something.
Bard heads back to his friends, and mentioned his concerns, and that he thinks he may be able to talk the guy round given some time.
Party Barbarian gets up half way through the planning and says "DM, I try to intimidate the barman to tell me what we want to know".
Barbarian PC rolls mediocare, and fails.
Barman gets shirty and calls for a local guard to throw the Barbarian and his friends out.
Bard Player laments the lost chance to smooze the barman with his insanely high Diplomacy skill.
Barbariab Player shrugs, and says "Sorry, I know it would have been better to let you do a Diplomacy roll, but my character gets annoyed when he thinks people are keeping things from him and tends to react agressively when it happens."
Bard Player shrugs and says "oh well, can't fault you for Rping your character properly".
End Example.
In this both the Bard and Barbarian were RPing well, it doesn't matter that the Barbarian Player just said "I use Intimidate on the barman". The attempt was good roleplay considering the player knew the odds were better leaving it to the Bard, but the character wouldn't be that patient. 
Roleplay is in the decisions (playing the role), not how they are acted at the table or how the are resolved by the rules. Bonuses for good RP and dramatic explainations can be good - but should be a secret thing behind the DM Screen imo, or you get those who are good storytellers abusing the fact to their advantage (I knew a player who would try to never "lie" but would always "persuade the target to believe them" as they had merit bonuses to persuading - it was in Mage:Ascension iirc, which allows dice pools to gain numerous bonuses and penalties for all sorts of things)


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 1, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> This draws a fine line tbh between being just "I ues my .... skilll" by any other name, and actually being a description. With an Intimidate roll it is no biggie - pick the first scary thing you can think of and say you threaten that. With Diplomacy it gets harder, as Diplomacy varies from culture to culture and by mood of those involved.
> Complement a Klingon on his smooth skin and he will try to kill you (smooth skin is an insult to Klingons), so you suddenly find that some skills are easy to describe in basic form "I threaten him with ..." = Intimidate, "I move behind him slowly and quietly ..." = Stealth, but can get complex for others "I comment his ...." = wrong choice of words for a Diplomacy check.




I don't think there's a fine line. The fiction can be simple or complex. I'm not dictating either way. You can say, "I get in his face and say, 'Tell me where the girl is!'" or, you can elaborate much more... That's not the point. The point is: rolling my Intimidate skill doesn't = my character intimidating someone. Rolling Intimidate is a player action that occurs to resolve a character action. If there is no character action, there shouldn't be any rolling. 

As for Diplomacy, I would suggest that a character trained in Diplomacy knows that a Klingon doesn't like to be complemented on their "smooth skin". As a DM, it's completely fine to say, "Actually, you'd know that to Klingons saying they have smooth skin is more of an insult and maybe an Intimidate."

Again, this is also goes with setting/character expectations and what we're deciding on at the table. 



Nichwee said:


> So if you can just say "I complement him and discuss how he has been for 5 minutes and then ask him what I want to know" you may as well have just said "I use my Diplomacy skill" and saved the extra 20 odd words. If you actually have to come up with an idea what you should say to complement the guy and get on his good side it just became your OOC diplomacy that matters not your character's.




Not at all. Are we skipping past this whole conversation? Is it really that much of a brush off? If so, why are we rolling in the first place. Is that really Diplomacy or is it Bluff? 

If you did want to compliment the guy, I'd ask you, "Sure. What do you say to him?" Otherwise, why even have this encounter/skill check/challenge. 

Honestly, I think this is why for some people Skill Challenges "fall flat". Because they're going around in a circle... "I use Diplomacy - sweet I succeed." DM, "Good job. You convince him. Sam, what do you want to do?" "Oh, I use Acrobatics." DM, "Oh, right on. Gimme a roll!" 

And so on. 

Of course it's not interesting. There's no fiction backing it up. 



Nichwee said:


> Roleplay can exist much more in the choice to use a given skill or power imo than in how you say you are using it.
> Example:
> Players want info from a barman.
> Party Bard asks, barman lies, Bard thinks he is hiding something.
> ...




Sounds like a good 30 second recap of an actual play that may have taken 30 minutes. Hopefully you're describing things during this time. 

I really hope you're not suggesting the player playing the Bard literally said, "I want info from the barman. I ask." With the DM replying, "He lies." 

... I sincerely hope not. 



Nichwee said:


> In this both the Bard and Barbarian were RPing well, it doesn't matter that the Barbarian Player just said "I use Intimidate on the barman". The attempt was good roleplay considering the player knew the odds were better leaving it to the Bard, but the character wouldn't be that patient.




Your example above doesn't include much roleplay. It includes as summary of what might have been roleplay. 



Nichwee said:


> Roleplay is in the decisions (playing the role), not how they are acted at the table or how the are resolved by the rules.




I believe it encompasses all of those things. The decision you make, how it affects the fiction, how the rules resolution makes an impact and how that is portrayed at the table to all the other players. It's all an element of roleplaying. 



Nichwee said:


> Bonuses for good RP and dramatic explainations can be good - but should be a secret thing behind the DM Screen imo, or you get those who are good storytellers abusing the fact to their advantage (I knew a player who would try to never "lie" but would always "persuade the target to believe them" as they had merit bonuses to persuading - it was in Mage:Ascension iirc, which allows dice pools to gain numerous bonuses and penalties for all sorts of things)




Just for the record, I don't give bonuses to "good roleplayers". I think that's a poor method and doesn't encourage roleplaying. However, it was suggested earlier and I think it's a step in the right direction. 

A better suggestion is to simply ask the player... "Hey cool, how does your character do that?" 

And it works.


----------



## Nichwee (Sep 1, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> I don't think there's a fine line. The fiction can be simple or complex. I'm not dictating either way. You can say, "I get in his face and say, 'Tell me where the girl is!'" or, you can elaborate much more... That's not the point. The point is: rolling my Intimidate skill doesn't = my character intimidating someone. Rolling Intimidate is a player action that occurs to resolve a character action. If there is no character action, there shouldn't be any rolling.



So you are just asking for a different way of saying "I use .... skill" or you are assessing the RP and saying "Not good enough, you don't get a roll".
Basically you have
"I threaten him" = "I use Intimidate", "I massage his ego" = "I use Diplomacy" etc. Or you are asking someone who may not like to have to think up entire conversation to do so just so he/she can do a roll. You don't ask the players to cook so they can "roll to find food" do you. You just let them say "We need food, I'll go hunting. I got a .... on my Nature roll" - or I would hope so, or you just went from playing D&D to playing the Sims Tabletop, as D&D isn't about the minute moments, it is about the grand scheme of things being heroic - Bards inspire armies, Fighters defend nations they do so as a string of miniscule events but most can be glossed over and if you don't gloss them you have "buying a bun for as little as I can" becomes a 20 minute event the has the players just going "Sod it, I'll eat a trail ration instead".



P1NBACK said:


> As for Diplomacy, I would suggest that a character trained in Diplomacy knows that a Klingon doesn't like to be complemented on their "smooth skin". As a DM, it's completely fine to say, "Actually, you'd know that to Klingons saying they have smooth skin is more of an insult and maybe an Intimidate."
> 
> Again, this is also goes with setting/character expectations and what we're deciding on at the table.



If you will correct a player using the skill wrong, why not just let them say "I use Diplomacy" and describe what the conversation was like dependent on the success or failure of the roll - don't need to tell them if it succeeded or failed, just how the situation now stands?



P1NBACK said:


> Not at all. Are we skipping past this whole conversation? Is it really that much of a brush off? If so, why are we rolling in the first place. Is that really Diplomacy or is it Bluff?
> 
> If you did want to compliment the guy, I'd ask you, "Sure. What do you say to him?" Otherwise, why even have this encounter/skill check/challenge.



I have little to no social skills (as evidenced by my very formal attempts on these boards I expect) so I don't want, or feel I need, to know and state how a highly charismatic character I am playing chooses to be diplomatic - I just know that is what he does.



P1NBACK said:


> Honestly, I think this is why for some people Skill Challenges "fall flat". Because they're going around in a circle... "I use Diplomacy - sweet I succeed." DM, "Good job. You convince him. Sam, what do you want to do?" "Oh, I use Acrobatics." DM, "Oh, right on. Gimme a roll!"
> 
> And so on.
> 
> Of course it's not interesting. There's no fiction backing it up.



I am all for good narrative description, and from the DM it is very important, but as the players are limited in what happens by the rules I feel the description from the players should be "What I want to achieve" and the DM should fill in the "How it actually played out considering the rolls". This doesn't mean a player shouldn't put in some extra bells and whistle in the description, but they shouldn't HAVE to if they are not that kind of player.



P1NBACK said:


> Sounds like a good 30 second recap of an actual play that may have taken 30 minutes. Hopefully you're describing things during this time.
> 
> I really hope you're not suggesting the player playing the Bard literally said, "I want info from the barman. I ask." With the DM replying, "He lies."
> 
> ...



The example I gave invovled roleplay, it didn't involve indepth descriptions - not the same thing.



P1NBACK said:


> I believe it encompasses all of those things. The decision you make, how it affects the fiction, how the rules resolution makes an impact and how that is portrayed at the table to all the other players. It's all an element of roleplaying.



As roleplaying encompasses all the things why is not simply "playing the role" good enough - why do you ask all your players to be storytellers as well?



P1NBACK said:


> Just for the record, I don't give bonuses to "good roleplayers". I think that's a poor method and doesn't encourage roleplaying. However, it was suggested earlier and I think it's a step in the right direction.
> 
> A better suggestion is to simply ask the player... "Hey cool, how does your character do that?"
> 
> And it works.



But what if the player says "By using my character knowledge of the ..... skill to do it right."? 
Eg.
DM : "How does your player want to pick the lock?" 
Player: "By picking them. He has lockpicks and a lifetime's worth of experince at Theivery, does he need anything else?".

DM: "How does he try to analyse the conjuration?"
Player: "Look at it, think about it a bit, roll my Arcana check to see if it rings any bells with his studies."

Personally, this is how I think it should play out at a table:
DM: "How are you going to get the information"
Player: "Complement him a bit, chat casually for a while, and then ask nicely. My Diplomacy roll is ..."
DM: "He still isn't forthcoming but you think he is warming up to you."
Player: "I roll Sense Motive to see if I think he might be more open if I offer a bribe or if he would be insulted or suspicous if I tried it. I got ...."
DM: "You think a bribe would probably help, but you also sense he is worried people may realise he told you"
Player: "Offer him a bribe and assure him I wouldn't let anyone find out he was the one who told. I got a ... on my Diplomacy score"
DM: "That does it. He looks about nervously for a few seconds to make sure no one else can hear and he tells you ...."
This amounts to about 2minutes of gameplay and invovles some interaction and dynamic thinking and reactions, but at no point is the player required to justify how any roll worked or provide specifics beyond "My current goal is ..".



And to the OP issue. If the rules let you try to grab a swarm, then you should be allowed to try. If you succeed you or the DM can give a "hand-wavey" explaination of how you managed it (quite possibly a literal "I wave my hand fast and the insects are caught in the vortex") and if you fail you or the DM state you tried to grab it in the normal manner and swatted straight through the swarm. Your character realises that he is going to have to try a different tactic if he wants to restrain a swarm (so you can retry "grabbing" and maybe succeed next time).


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 1, 2010)

Nichwee said:


> So you are just asking for a different way of saying "I use .... skill" or you are assessing the RP and saying "Not good enough, you don't get a roll".




No. "I threaten him..." is not an answer to "How do you do that?" Ok, you threaten him. We've established that this is what your intentions are. How do you threaten him? 



Nichwee said:


> Or you are asking someone who may not like to have to think up entire conversation to do so just so he/she can do a roll.




I'm going to stop posting in this thread because I've listed several ignored examples that are in no way shape or form an "entire conversation". 



Nichwee said:


> You don't ask the players to cook so they can "roll to find food" do you. You just let them say "We need food, I'll go hunting. I got a .... on my Nature roll".




"I go hunting..." is a description. That's acceptable. Unacceptable: "I use my Nature skill..."



Nichwee said:


> or I would hope so, or you just went from playing D&D to playing the Sims Tabletop, as D&D isn't about the minute moments, it is about the grand scheme of things being heroic - Bards inspire armies, Fighters defend nations they do so as a string of miniscule events but most can be glossed over and if you don't gloss them you have "buying a bun for as little as I can" becomes a 20 minute event the has the players just going "Sod it, I'll eat a trail ration instead".




I JUST said that you should gloss over (and that means, not rolling) those things that aren't important to the narrative. If "finding food" is not important, why even roll for it? "Sweet. You have food. Now what?" 



Nichwee said:


> If you will correct a player using the skill wrong, why not just let them say "I use Diplomacy" and describe what the conversation was like dependent on the success or failure of the roll - don't need to tell them if it succeeded or failed, just how the situation now stands?




And this is the crux of it. Because whether you are using Intimidate or Diplomacy is important in the fiction. If you're ignoring those defined, unique skills, why have them as skills at all? Why not just have my "talking" skill (which some games do...)? 



Nichwee said:


> I have little to no social skills (as evidenced by my very formal attempts on these boards I expect) so I don't want, or feel I need, to know and state how a highly charismatic character I am playing chooses to be diplomatic - I just know that is what he does.




It doesn't take any social skills to describe how your character is diplomatic. 

"I want to use Diplomacy on this girl to get her to open up to me about her father's mistress." 

"Sure. How do you do that?" 

"Well, my character approaches her and in his most suave voice woos her with a poem dedicated to her beauty." 

"Oh that's good. Roll to see if you woo her." 

Player rolls Diplomacy check. 



Nichwee said:


> I am all for good narrative description, and from the DM it is very important, but as the players are limited in what happens by the rules I feel the description from the players should be "What I want to achieve" and the DM should fill in the "How it actually played out considering the rolls". This doesn't mean a player shouldn't put in some extra bells and whistle in the description, but they shouldn't HAVE to if they are not that kind of player.




If they want their character to accomplish something in the fiction, shouldn't their character take fictional action? "I roll Intimidate" is not a fictional action. 



Nichwee said:


> The example I gave invovled roleplay, it didn't involve indepth descriptions - not the same thing.




Once again, you don't need "in-depth" descriptions for it to be fiction. Where did you get this? 

I'll say it again, for those of you who aren't getting it: 

In order for your character to do something in the fiction, you'll need to describe how they're doing it. Plain and simple. 



Nichwee said:


> As roleplaying encompasses all the things why is not simply "playing the role" good enough - why do you ask all your players to be storytellers as well?




Here we go with this "good enough" thing. For real? Have I not addressed this enough? 



Nichwee said:


> But what if the player says "By using my character knowledge of the ..... skill to do it right."?
> Eg.
> DM : "How does your player want to pick the lock?"
> Player: "By picking them. He has lockpicks and a lifetime's worth of experince at Theivery, does he need anything else?".




First of all, there's no "Pick the Lock" skill. There's a thievery skill. "I want to use my thieves tools to pick the lock" is a fictional description that invokes "Roll Thievery" mechanic. 

The player has ALREADY used fiction to invoke the mechanic by saying. "I use my thieves tools to pick the lock." 



Nichwee said:


> DM: "How does he try to analyse the conjuration?"
> Player: "Look at it, think about it a bit, roll my Arcana check to see if it rings any bells with his studies."




Again, "I analyze the conjuration" is a fictional description of "Roll Arcana". 

I wouldn't let the character say, "I want to make an Arcana check" without supplying the "By analyzing the conjuration". That's the fictional element. 



Nichwee said:


> Personally, this is how I think it should play out at a table:
> DM: "How are you going to get the information"
> Player: "Complement him a bit, chat casually for a while, and then ask nicely. My Diplomacy roll is ..."
> DM: "He still isn't forthcoming but you think he is warming up to you."
> ...




Complementing him = Fiction
Roll Diplomacy = Mechanic

Seeing if he is susceptible to a bribe = Fiction
Roll Insight = Mechanic

Offer a bribe = Fiction
Roll Diplomacy = Mechanic

Use my shield to pin down the swarm = Fiction
Make Grab Check = Mechanic

How are you not seeing this? You're arguing against me when you're saying exactly what I am saying... I'm confused by this. 



Nichwee said:


> And to the OP issue. If the rules let you try to grab a swarm, then you should be allowed to try. If you succeed you or the DM can give a "hand-wavey" explaination of how you managed it (quite possibly a literal "I wave my hand fast and the insects are caught in the vortex") and if you fail you or the DM state you tried to grab it in the normal manner and swatted straight through the swarm. Your character realises that he is going to have to try a different tactic if he wants to restrain a swarm (so you can retry "grabbing" and maybe succeed next time).




I literally said in my original post that started all this, "If you can fictionally justify "grabbing" or "restraining" something, then do it. Otherwise, no." 

Fiction is not "hand-wavey". It's very important to the game. Otherwise, you might as well be playing a board game (like people apparently do when they enter combat in 4E) using "Condition Red" and "Condition Blue"... Except, "Condition Blue" requires you to be lying down... (weird... you mean me? No, silly... Your character. IN THE FICTION).


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 1, 2010)

P1nback said:
			
		

> And, the next time "Mike" says he wants to Bluff the vizier, simply ask him, "Awesome. How is your character doing that?" I bet you see results.






Solvarn said:


> Try giving out a +1 or +2 bonus depending on how good the description is to any skill checks made during a skill challenge. You'd be surprised what your power gamers can come up with.





 Been there, done that. You just don't know Mike.
He really enjoys the mechanical aspect of the game, the challenge of building characters, and the stacking of various elements. He does not enjoy being descriptive and doesn't think a piddly +1 or +2 is worth the effort when his character only needs a 3 or better in the first place.
 He has fun playing this way. He enjoys it.

 Should I force him to play in a style that is less fun for him when the impact of his style on the rest of the group is neglible?
  I don't think so. 

 P1nback, my personal experience with DMs that require description has had some poor examples in which the game turned into a 'guess the strategy to win', with the DM being inconsistant with the effects of the PC powers based on descriptions. As such, I prefer a system like 4e that ensures the player that the power will accomplish what the player thought it would, regardless of the DM.
 As both player and DM, that makes it more important to flavor those mechanics in an entertaining and descriptive fashion in order for some gamers to enjoy it... but not all gamers are the same.

As you said you are no longer posting here, speaking for myself at least.. this would be a good place to say we agree to disagree in some aspects of this.
Thanks for the dialog, see you in the next thread!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 2, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> This is false. It's not a roleplaying game if what you do fictionally has no impact on what you do mechanically. Plain and simple.



That is a very narrow - and, oddly, mechanical - definition of an RPG.  Surely, an RPG is a game in which you assume a role.  Much broader.




> You simply CANNOT impact what you do in Monopoly by roleplaying things out in the fiction.



Well, you could let your assumed role influence your decision as to which property to buy "My, uh, shoe, really likes the beach, and his mother was run over by a train, so he'll buy the Boardwalk, but never a railroad...."  


Anyway, if you assume the role of an Heroic uh, wretstler, of herculaen proportions (Brawling Fighter), you're going to want to grab a lot of stuff.  The rules say what you can and can't grab and what grabbing does.  Swarms are in the former set, so you can grab them.   How you grab them, 'fictionally,' is up to you.  Whether you choose to grab them is also up to you, so if you really can't wrap your head around it, you can choose not to use a power that grabs when you attack a swarm.  On the other extreme, you might want to 'fictionally' say "I grab the orc by the throat and crush his windpipe," but if the Orc isn't a minion, that's not going to happen.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2010)

I think the thing that needs to be remembered with regards to D&D is that it is 100%, from top to bottom, a power fantasy.

It isn't trying to recreate anything BUT a power fantasy.  It -fails- at recreating anything but a power fantasy.

That's WHY it's okay to say 'You grab the swarm' and WHY it's okay for the reasoning to be 'Cause he's that awesome'.   The dice say 'In this instance, Gromax the Everburning has done an awesome impossible thing' and your choice is to either deny it, or just run with it.

Power fantasy errs towards the awesome, not the mundane.

Let that inform your decisions.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 2, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> This is false. It's not a roleplaying game if what you do fictionally has no impact on what you do mechanically. Plain and simple. You simply CANNOT impact what you do in Monopoly by roleplaying things out in the fiction.



You're right, you don't have all the choices you have in real life.  Which isn't a requirement for a role playing game.  You can't choose to get a job as a computer programmer in a D&D game, since computers don't exist.  You also can't choose to settle down and stop adventuring in most D&D games, since that would cause you to leave the group and stop playing the game.  You need to accept certain limitations as part of playing a game.

In the same way, you wouldn't be able to to stop rolling dice and moving forward in a Monopoly RPG.  That's the way the game world works.  Stop doing that, and you aren't playing the game anymore.  The "fiction" of this world is about a bunch of nomads moving from place to place as they buy properties.  If you stop being one of these nomads, then you aren't existing in the "Fiction".  This world doesn't have people who aren't nomads.



P1NBACK said:


> The same thing applies to D&D. By not allowing fiction in the game to impact the mechanical functions of the game, you're turning it into a board game. That's fine if you want to have that experience. I'm not knocking it. But, let's not be naive and call it roleplaying.



Unless you change the "Fiction" of the game to conform to the rules of the game so there is no gap.  Since the fiction of the game only exists in the head of the DM and the players, it can be changed at will.  You are assuming you need lock picks to open locks because you need those things in real life.  You are assuming no one should be able to grab swarms because it works that way in real life.

No where in any D&D book does it say these things.  In fact, Thievery works just fine without lock picks.



P1NBACK said:


> I think you need to broaden your horizons as far as RPGs. What games have you played?



D&D 1e, D&D 2e, D&D 3e, D&D 3.5e, D&D 4e, Shadowrun, Star Wars(WEG and D20), Gamma World, Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, Paranoia(both old and new), Beyond the Supernatural, Champions, Heroes Unlimited, GURPS, Legend of the Five Rings, Mech Warrior, D20 Modern, Ninjas and Superspies, Vampire: The Masquerade(both tabletop and LARP), Havok(a LARP system), Call of Cthulu(old and D20), Dragonstar, Middle Earth RPG(old version), Marvel Super Heroes, World of Warcraft RPG, HARN, Star Trek RPGs(all versions), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and an RPG made up by my friend for fun (the Smurfs RPG).

I've read through but not played the Everquest RPG, Hackmaster, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Lord of the Rings(Decipher version), Ninja Burger RPG, Pathfinder, Sengoku, and Mage: The Ascension.

Also, a large number of video RPGs.  Although, I'm assuming that you don't consider those RPGs.



P1NBACK said:


> If you want to play a "anime" oriented game, and I'm interested in a more classic fantasy experience, we need to reconcile those differences and figure out what kind of theme we're going for in the campaign.



My philosophy, after playing as many different games as I have is to use the best system for what you want.  "Classic fantasy" works pretty well with any edition of D&D before 3rd, or with a system like HARN or Palladium Fantasy.  Gurps and Hero can be made to emulate that genre pretty well.

4e D&D is meant to simulate a way higher level of fantasy than previous editions.  And it does it well.  But when you attempt to apply genre conventions from older editions of D&D directly onto 4e, you run into a couple rough edges.  I realized this shortly after reading the books and decided I needed to go into 4e with a different philosophy on DMing than I have previous games.



P1NBACK said:


> I never once said anything about realism, except that I don't give a  about it.
> 
> It's coming from your imagination. The same as where mine is coming from. And, when we tell this story, when we describe our actions and our characters, we're created a shared story.



This here IS my point.  Yes, it's coming from your imagination.  But who decides whether I am capable of destroying the entire world with my mind or not?  I'm sure that there are creatures within the fiction who might be capable of that.  There are Psionics, people can use the power of their mind to kill people.  Who is to say I don't have the power to blow up the whole world with my mind?

Normally, it is a combination of the DM's imagination and the rules.  Anything not said in the rules has to come from the DM's imagination(and possibly a player's IF the DM allows it).

So, if the rules say "you can grab any creature" and you're DM says "You can only grab a creature if you can give me a valid explanation as to how you do that, and I get to decide what is valid or not based on my image of how the world works", then the fiction comes entirely from the DM.

In which case, you aren't playing the game anymore.  You are playing the DM.  If the DM feels that stretchy hands which expand to cover the swarm are "Plausible" in his eyes, then you win.  If he thinks that isn't "Plausible" then you fail.  But nothing in the game says if that's plausible or not.



P1NBACK said:


> You're right. So describe it for me.



And if someone says, "I don't want to.  There's a description of how the power works in the book.  You want to know, you look it up.  I'm tired and not in a great mood today.  I just want to grab this creature so that he doesn't kill our Cleric next round."  Then what do you do?  Do you kick the player out of your game because he isn't good with descriptions?  I know a number of my friends are bad at them.



P1NBACK said:


> Nope. The rules are there to resolve the fiction. Fiction is the fiction. Seriously. Saying, "I roll my Intimidate skill" is NOT fiction. There's NOTHING there that is fictional. That is a real world thing you are announcing.



Saying "I roll my Intimidate skill" IS fiction.  The intimidate skill and how it works in the fiction world is described in the book.  It explains the kind of things you do with Intimidate.  Saying "I use my Intimidate skill" is basically saying "My character, who is much better at Intimidating people than I am comes up with an appropriate insult that would REALLY scare the crap out of the guy.  I mean, he'd do anything we want him to.  My character is that good at Intimidating people.  I can't come up with threats that would affect people nearly as well as him though, so I'll just rely on his skill instead of mine."

Which doesn't affect the "fiction" at all.  The fiction is what happens IN the game world.  The character still comes up with an appropriate threat and the guy he was intimidating still spills the beans.

The only difference is what I said in real life.  The fiction is the story created by what we say in real life.  No one is jotting down everything we say and making a book out of that.  Instead we say "I Intimidate him" and in the game world my character does somethings.  We all use our imaginations to imagine exactly WHAT was said.



P1NBACK said:


> Not if we're playing a roleplaying game. You're not masturbating with your voice if your fictional actions with your character(s) has a direct impact on the game (see my Monopoly example above).



So, what's the difference in impact on the game between:

Player: "I Intimidate him!"
DM: "He squirms away from you, clearly afraid.  He says 'Please don't hurt me.  I'll tell you what you want to know!  Anything!'"
Player: "I ask him if he's seen the guy we're chasing."
DM: "Oh, yes...him.  He was here 2 days ago.  I saw him leave to the east.  He said he was heading to Eastfair."

AND

Player: "I pull out my sword and sharpen it, slowly sliding the whetstone up and down the blade.  I say 'It would be a shame if I were to drop this sword right now.  It's very sharp and likely to cut you in two if it were to fall on you."
DM: "He squirms away from you, clearly afraid.  He says 'Please don't hurt me.  I'll tell you what you want to know!  Anything!'"
Player: "I say, 'Have to seen a man, human, about 5'6 tall who was wearing leathers and a blue cloak.  I am looking for him!'"
DM: "Oh, yes...him.  He was here 2 days ago.  I saw him leave to the east.  He said he was heading to Eastfair."

Other than the length the words took to say, and how much we might enjoy hearing one set of words other than the other...what difference did my words have on the "fiction" of what was happening in game?  I don't disagree that some people have a preference for the second one because it is easier to imagine what might have been said when you have someone narrate it to you word for word and it's a little more immersive.

However, when I play I just imagine the second one even when the first one is said.  My imagination doesn't need help.  In fact, since the extra text didn't have any direct impact on the game, by your definition it is "masturbating with your voice".



P1NBACK said:


> I think that depends on the magical power and the sword.



This just proves my point.  It doesn't matter about any of that.  It matters whether the rules say you are capable of shooting the planet into the sun.

Let's say that you have an average +6 sword and are a level 30 fighter.  Your most powerful ability hits a lot of people with your sword and knocks them down and stuns them, if you are lucky.  If you are a wizard with a +6 wand, you likely have an ability that brings down meteor from the sky in order to hit your enemies.  It's RULES effect is perfectly balanced with the fighter power.  It hits some enemies, knocks them down and stuns them.

However, it's much easier to say "I call down a meteor that knocks the planet out of it's orbit and hits the sun" than it is to say "I...hit the planet with my sword.  It's magical remember...and knock it out of orbit."  Some DMs might allow both things to work, but 90% of DMs are going to rule that the first is "plausible" and supported by the "fiction" while the second is not.



P1NBACK said:


> This is an issue with 4E, not roleplaying.



Some roleplaying adds to the problem, however.  If it takes an hour to play a battle with everyone saying "I hit Reflex 22 with magic missile for 15 damage" then it takes two hours to get through the same combat with everyone saying "I wave my hands and chant as power channels up my arms.  They glow blue which coalesces at the end of my wand and then bursts out in a blue, glowing missile that smacks the enemy in the chest, searing it.  I hit Reflex 22 for 15 damage."

And considering all the extra text doesn't affect the in game world at all, it isn't needed other than as verbal masturbation.



P1NBACK said:


> That's fine. If you're playing "I roll to hit. I roll damage. Next?" Which is more boring? I don't want to hear that 50 times in a row. THAT to me is boring.



You're going to have to hear it one way or another.  It's not like using a flowery description is going to prevent the need to say what defense you hit, what you rolled, and how much damage you did.  Would I prefer it if no one had to speak to relay critical information in order to make the game faster?  I would love it.  I'd be one of the people that would love to take the dice entirely out of people's hands and have a computer do all the calculation so the player just decided the power and what targets to hit and we could avoid the needless looking up of attack bonuses, defenses and hitpoints.  But until then, I must hear at least that minimum amount of information.



P1NBACK said:


> I want to hear how you're using that Magic Missile NOW in THIS situation in THIS moment on THIS particular enemy.



The thing is, there are only SO many ways to say "A blue bolt streaks across the battlefield and hits the guy."  After a while, you are doing nothing but repeating the same thing.  Everyone at the table knows what a magic missile looks like at that point.  We can all imagine it.



P1NBACK said:


> Does it really take that much time to say, "Two bolts of bluish force streak out of my staff and strike at the two minions."



It can if it is being done by every player on every one of their actions.  If it's quick enough, I don't care if someone describes their power.  Sometimes it's nice to get a little color in the game.  I'm not going to require it to use your powers, however.



P1NBACK said:


> Really? That was hard? You're telling me you want to hear. "I use my At-Will attack power Magic Missile. I got a 20. For 6 damage..." "Ok, The minions die."



No, I'm saying it doesn't matter what I want.  Just because I'm the DM doesn't make me an overlord.  If my players don't feel like giving descriptions of their powers, that's perfectly fine with me.  I'll use my own imagination.  If they describe their powers, I'd prefer they not go too far with it, both for time sake and just in case they decide to stomp on my narrative with their over describing.

The last thing I want someone to do is start saying "I stab the creature in the heart, spraying blood all over the place, and he falls to the ground dead."  Especially when, I'm the one that gets to decide if you stabbed the creature in the heart.  I describe things, not my players.  Also, the player has no idea how many hitpoints the monster has left, he doesn't get to decide when the monster dies.  Also, the creature might not even have a heart.  As the DM, I get to decide if it does or not.



P1NBACK said:


> The DM must adhere to the rules and fictionally justify it as well. I never said the DM could give monsters powers fictionally. I said you have to justify your actions it fictionally. If the fire elemental is not immune to poison, the DM must supply a reason why, fictionally. Plain and simple.
> 
> You tell me, Majoru, why is a Fire Elemental not immune to poison?



Don't get me wrong, I can justify it like 20 different ways that aren't very plausible.  I know that poison contains chemicals that interact with the molecules of a human body in bad ways, killing off the cells.  Since Fire Elementals aren't made up of the same things humans are, it likely would have no effect on it at all.  Anything else just isn't very plausible.

On the other hand, maybe the word "poison" means something different in the game world than it does in real life.  Maybe poison consists of chemicals that work the same way against every living creature in existence.  Maybe fire elementals ARE made of the same things humans are.  No way to tell, since they don't actually exist.  None of that is all that plausible.  The laws of physics don't work that way.  But they work as stop-gap explanations of the rules.

However, this started as a discussion about the ability for a DM to restrict the use of a grab on a swarm.  Since it isn't immune to grabbing, it's the DM's job to supply a reason why you can grab it, fictionally, plain and simple.  Exactly the same as the poison immunity case.



P1NBACK said:


> Not at all. I gave a perfect example earlier in the thread. Powers are never the whim of the DM. I never said that. I said, "To do something with your character mechanically, you need to do something fictionally."



But just above, you said that a fire elemental isn't immune to poison so it was the DM's responsibility to justify why poison works on it.  But in order to use my grab power on a creature who isn't immune to grabs, it's the player's responsibility to justify it?

And even if it's the player's responsibility, who gets to decide if it is suitably justified?  That was my point here.  You are saying "You need to do something fictionally to do it mechanically.  You need to come up with a proper justification, or you can't do it(i.e. if you can't justify it, it can't grab a swarm)"  The DM decides if something is properly justified.  Therefore, whether you can use your power or not depends on your DM.



P1NBACK said:


> Again. No.  no. Where in my example above did the Rogue _not_ get to attack the elemental with poison? Please. Show it to me.



You did not.  However, another DM might.  Based on the idea that in their "fiction" fire elementals don't have hearts and therefore, the description isn't justified enough to allow you to poison them.  My point is, that each case becomes different from DM to DM.  If you use the right words and impress the DM, he's likely to say "Awesome, I like that description, you get to use your power", if you use the wrong words(even if they sound justified to you), the DM says "No, you can't do that..it makes no sense in the fiction".



P1NBACK said:


> I like fiction, i.e. roleplaying. Sure. I also like board games, but when I play D&D, I don't want to play a board game.



Roleplaying is playing a role.  That's why it's called that.  Fiction is a story that isn't real.  If I say "The man walked down the street, he then died as a piano fell on him", that's fiction.  A game has rules and goals and you attempt to accomplish those goals by following the rules.

Combine the 3 together and you get a Roleplaying Game.  Where you play a character in a fictional world and write a story by attempting to accomplish your goals using the rules.

"A man walked down the street." is fiction.

"A dark, scary man with brown hair and a scar on his face walked down the streets of New York." is also fiction.

The same way "I shoot him with a magic missile" is fiction.

One is just more descriptive.  You don't like fiction, you like description.



P1NBACK said:


> How is this relevant at all? It's not.



I was trying to illustrate that when I was taught to play D&D, it was with even less description and I never once thought I wasn't playing a roleplaying game.  That it was also not the opinion of the other 13 people in our group that we were doing anything other than playing a roleplaying game.  And, that the issue of description wasn't an edition thing.  Also, that I like description to, that's why I decided to actually add more to the game than I was used to when I first started playing.



P1NBACK said:


> Everything has changed, hopefully. You're telling me every battle you get in has the same enemies? The same circumstances? The same whatever? I find that hard to believe.



No.  But the description of a magic missile hitting the enemy doesn't change simply because I'm fighting an orc instead of a goblin.  It's just that I substitute the word "orc" for "goblin".

"A blue bolt streaks out of my hands and hits the <insert word here> for X damage."



P1NBACK said:


> "Majoru, your wizard steps up onto the deck of the hovering airship. Lord Baltu is there and he has your sister in his arms, using her as a human shield. Now how do you use your Magic Missile?"



I'm a Fighter/Thief, not a Wizard.  Heh.  But, sure, Let's say this was the situation.

"How big of a penalty do I apply to my attack roll, DM?  If it's really big or if I think I have a chance of hitting my sister, I won't use it.  But if I think I can do it, then I shoot the magic missile at Lord Baltu, trying to avoid my sister."



P1NBACK said:


> The description is not masturbating with your voice, because your description directly impacts the fact that you are using the power in the fiction.



No it doesn't.  When I tell the DM that I am using the power, that effects that I am using the power in the fiction.  The description doesn't have any effects at all.



P1NBACK said:


> No. It's heavily dependent on what's in YOUR head.



Only if your DM allows it.  90% of what happens in game happens because the DM planned it, the DM thinks it's plausible, the DM has decided that the "fiction" of his world includes whatever description you've given and so on.



P1NBACK said:


> Are you kidding? You don't think spirits and undead have weak points?



I don't care if they have weak points or not.  But, they were immune to sneak attacks in 3e under the justification that they didn't have weak points.  So, it isn't me, it's the designers of 3e D&D that believe they don't have weak points.  And because the designers thought so, a LOT of DMs I know think so as well.

I know DMs that if you told them "In D&D, players HAVE to justify their actions in the fiction or they can't do it" then sneak attacks would immediately no longer be allowed against undead, since they don't have weak points.



P1NBACK said:


> "I strike at the zombie's sinewy tissue that connects it's neck with it's head."
> 
> Bam. Sneak attack. It took me about 2 seconds of game time to come up with and say that.



Until your DM says "That doesn't allow you to sneak attack.  You are telling me that you think the sinewy tissue that connects it's neck with it's head is somehow more vulnerable in a zombie than anywhere else on it's body?  That's stupid.  It's magically held together by evil magic that keeps it moving even though it has taken enough wounds to kill it.  You can cut it's head off and that wouldn't matter.  You don't get your sneak attack against it."

You justify it, but your DM doesn't have to accept your justification.

Same thing applies to grabbing a swarm.  If I justify it simply by saying "I grab the swarm, with my hand.  I hold it tight and it can't leave" then the DM should either accept the justification.  If he doesn't, then whether you can use the power is up to the whims of the DM again.



P1NBACK said:


> Omg... The designers relied on fiction?? HOW DARE THEY!



I'm telling you that in 4e, they did NOT rely on fiction.  That fiction ceased to be THE deciding factor on what abilities an enemy has.  I'm saying that all of the "fiction" based reasons why Oozes, Undead, and Constructs were immune to sneak attack went away in 4e when they realized they were hurting game balance.  All of the fiction based reasons why fire elementals were immune to fire went away when they realized players were having no fun being the "fire based wizard" and not being able to harm the fire elementals.

So fiction got thrown out in exchange for game balance and fun.  At that is the root of 4e D&D.  I'm HAPPY that's the root of 4e D&D, that's why I play it.  I was that player being the "fire based wizard" in 3e and having no fun as none of my powers would work.

Which is why I don't like the idea of DMs throwing "fiction based restrictions" back into the game.  When I am no longer able to grab swarms because I can't come up with a reason it would be allowed, it'll be like I'm playing 3e again.



P1NBACK said:


> Why are you trying to argue with me about things I never said and things I agree with?



My point was...if you allow the lack of justification to prevent you from using a power(i.e. you can't grab that swarm, you haven't justified it) thus breaking the rules, then the reverse should be true.  You should be able to use a justification to allow you to do things the rules say you can't.



P1NBACK said:


> No. We just established that if a creature is immune to fire, it is immune to fire. Period. The DM should explain this in the fiction, just like you should.



I don't know it's immune to fire.  I'm not the DM.  I'm just a guy playing a game of D&D.  I just describe my power as shooting out and hurting the enemy like I always do.  It's up to the DM to describe the effects of my powers, since I don't know 90% of what happens in the game world.  That's the DMs job.



P1NBACK said:


> How is that possible if you don't describe anything? Doesn't make any sense to me.



Because cinematic things happen in the game.  We leap over large chasms while being chased by nasty creatures.  We survive things that no human could survive in a larger than life, movie-like way.  We climb the highest mountains in the world surviving days of snow storms.  They are all cinematic scenes.  Given that cinematic means "movie-like" and often implies grand visuals.

If someone made a movie about what was going on in our games, it would be extremely grand and visually impressive.

We only describe it in terms of "I shoot a magic missile at the orc" but the "movie of our game" shows the magic missile in all of it's CGI glory.  But those special effects are all firmly in our own minds, we don't need to narrate them in order to get the image in our imaginations.



P1NBACK said:


> Wrong. You never knew about the ember heart if you didn't describe it. Hell, I never imagined a fire elemental with an ember heart until this very thread where the fiction demanded we describe it. So, don't tell me that we'd have all imagined that somehow if we never described it.



I'd have imagined something.  Maybe not a ember heart, but maybe I'd have imagined the rogue sticking his dagger in the back of the elemental and the elemental roaring in pain as the Rogue's dagger glowed with magic and the fire around it became darker.

Either way, whether he hit it in an ember heart or in its back doesn't really change the fiction dramatically.  In the end, it's one of 10 or 20 hits it takes to bring down the elemental.  And it certainly isn't an important part of the story.  Even if every player at the table imagines something slightly different, it doesn't matter to the story in the long run, and each one is probably an equally good version of what happened.



P1NBACK said:


> I'd probably help you out if you were struggling and tell you about the shimmering parts of the ghost that seem to come in and out of the material world, beckoning to be brought forth from its ethereal state.



The thing is, you are a very allowing DM.  Most DMs I know would say no if you didn't come up with a reason that fit their version of the fiction.  They are the arbiter of the rules and they get the final say.

Plus, you've already said that "I stab it with my dagger" isn't enough justification for you.  So there's a point where you would say no as well.  Or at the very least, a point where you'd do the describing for me.



P1NBACK said:


> Not at all. Justify how you use fireball underwater? The fighter doesn't have this problem.



It's easy.  It's magically hot.  It's not real fire, it's magic fire.  It's summoned from a plane of pure fire, hotter than anything in existence.  It gets to burn anywhere it wants.



P1NBACK said:


> Didn't we already cover this? I think so. Suit the fiction to YOUR group's preference. It's not the control of the DM the style of fiction your group wants to tell. It's your group's control.



And I think we get down to the real point here.  It seems as if you are playing in a weird sort of extremely narrative game where the players get to make up the fiction.  When we play there is only one fiction, that made up by the DM.  You get to suggest ideas to him and he gets to say yes or no.

If you say "I grab the swarm using the wall of force I magically conjure around it" the DM has the right to say "You are a fighter, you can't conjure any walls of force.  You don't have any way to grab the swarm.  You can't use that power."  As in, what you can and can't do is decided by the fiction of the world, which is decided by the DM.

Whether the DM bases the fiction of the world on books he's read, "common sense", "realism", "plausibility", or the rules of the game is up to him.  Any addition to the "fiction" of the world by me requires approval of the DM.  If the DM feels that my description doesn't fit the criteria he is using for the "fiction" of his or her game, then it doesn't get added.



P1NBACK said:


> Hopefully it does in the situation I presented earlier. If the enemy is holding your sister at his chest, hopefully you'd want to hit him in the shoulder.



That's what dice and modifiers are for.  If I roll well enough, I hit the enemy.  If I roll too low, I miss.  Whether I hit the enemy in the head or shoulder in the above example doesn't matter, as it does the same amount of damage and doesn't hit the sister.  It's a useless fact.



P1NBACK said:


> Not really. Takes me about two seconds to describe my blue bolts of force striking at Lord Baltu's shoulder.



No problem with that.  Be quick about your descriptions and I'm happy to have them.  Just don't require I come up with a description good enough to impress you before allowing me to use my powers.



P1NBACK said:


> Ok. Sure. How does this go against anything I said?





P1NBACK said:


> Sweet. Glad to know. Irrelevant to the conversation though.



You were saying that the game ceased to be any fun or even a roleplaying game if I said "I stab it with Deft Strike" rather than "I stab it in the left shoulder with my blade and then tear out the blade and watch him squirm in pain".

You asked me why you would even run a combat if you weren't going to describe it in detail.  I was explaining why combat happens.  None of which involved the description of my Deft Strike at all.  I was trying to make the point that there ARE reasons to run a combat that don't involve describing whether you hit someone in the left shoulder or not.



P1NBACK said:


> We could play a boardgame with that exact premise. What makes it roleplaying is that our fight has fictional weight.



I agree.  All of the fights in my game have fictional weight.  They can determine whether we defeat the evil archmage or not.  Whether I describe hitting an enemy in its shoulder or not doesn't change the fictional weight the combat has.



P1NBACK said:


> Sure. Let's describe that. When you use your Magic Missile against Lord Baltu, do you SAY anything to him first? What about your sister? Is she crying? Are you scared for her?



No, I don't say anything at all.  I'm the strong, silent type.  I'm worried about my sister, but I'm stoic looking and no one can tell.  She might be crying, but it's not my job to describe anything other than what my character says and does.  My sister is an NPC and I'm not allowed to describe her actions, only the DM can.



P1NBACK said:


> Yeah. What does this have to do with fiction? You can still do this with fiction. Tactics and powers and skills, these things are all methods for resolving the fiction.



You asked how I could possibly have fun unless I was describing things.  I was explaining that my fun doesn't come from describing things.  It comes from other areas of the game.  But it's still the same game.



P1NBACK said:


> There are rules that cover this on page 42 of the DMG. Check 'em out. 500 points of damage would have to be a pretty high level custom maneuver.



Well, this point wasn't really leveled at 4e.  But then, it can apply equally.  Keep in mind that all the rules are guidelines.  If you can tell a player "No, you can't grab that swarm because you can't justify it in the fiction" then you can equally say "I think a collapsing cave could do enough damage to kill an enemy outright.  At least, that's what makes the most sense in the fiction.  It seems completely contrary to the fiction that anyone should be able to survive that."

If the fiction drives the rules, then then rules get out of the way as soon as the fiction makes more sense with different rules.  If the rules drive the fiction then I should be able to grab a swarm no matter what the fiction says.



P1NBACK said:


> but I've never suggested disallowing something because you DID something and it wasn't "good enough". I am saying, you have to DO something.



I did do something.  I used my Grappling Strike power.  It grabs an enemy with one hand and attacks it with the weapon in your other hand.  You were saying that you wouldn't allow me to do that because I haven't described it well enough for you.



P1NBACK said:


> Not at all. I think we've exemplified that your examples are gross exaggerations and the DMG and rules clearly support the truth.



My entire discussion was because I disliked the idea that a DM would tell me "the rules don't apply here, only game fiction applies.  If game fiction doesn't support the rules, then the rules are wrong and will be ignored in this situation."

I like the rules, as long as we continue to follow them and no one makes strange demands on me beyond the rules then I'm good with them.  I just don't like being told "That description wasn't good enough.  Try again." or "Game fiction implies there's no way you could poison them.  I'm not going to allow poison to work even though the rules say it can."


----------



## eamon (Sep 2, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> So, if the rules say "you can grab any creature" and you're DM says "You can only grab a creature if you can give me a valid explanation as to how you do that, and I get to decide what is valid or not based on my image of how the world works", then the fiction comes entirely from the DM.
> 
> In which case, you aren't playing the game anymore.  You are playing the DM.  If the DM feels that stretchy hands which expand to cover the swarm are "Plausible" in his eyes, then you win.  If he thinks that isn't "Plausible" then you fail.  But nothing in the game says if that's plausible or not.






> Don't get me wrong, I can justify it like 20 different ways that aren't very plausible.  I know that poison contains chemicals that interact with the molecules of a human body in bad ways, killing off the cells.  Since Fire Elementals aren't made up of the same things humans are, it likely would have no effect on it at all.  Anything else just isn't very plausible.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe the word "poison" means something different in the game world than it does in real life.  Maybe poison consists of chemicals that work the same way against every living creature in existence.  Maybe fire elementals ARE made of the same things humans are.  No way to tell, since they don't actually exist.  None of that is all that plausible.  The laws of physics don't work that way.  But they work as stop-gap explanations of the rules.



Ah, but the risk it that what will happen in practice here, is that the DM will screw it up if he tries to explain it.  After all, generally a fire-elemental will _not _be the first thing that's poisoned and that when he describes the poisoning of the hobgoblin he'll use an explanation that just doesn't work with a fire-elemental.  He'll use the _obvious_, natural explanation, because "poison" is not a meaningless phrase but a real word with meaning in the real world.  And then when the same poison is used on the fire elemental, he has a choice: be inconsistent, retconn, or break the rules.

And precisely because it's not that easy to get this kind of consistency right, help from the game would be appreciated.  Perhaps there is a consistent explanation, but it's non-trivial and easy to mess up; as such the game should provide it - or conclude it's nonsense and thus doesn't work.



> However, this started as a discussion about the ability for a DM to restrict the use of a grab on a swarm.  Since it isn't immune to grabbing, it's the DM's job to supply a reason why you can grab it, fictionally, plain and simple.  Exactly the same as the poison immunity case.



And exactly as in the poison immunity case, if the DM tries to explain this away in the wrong fashion, he's likely to dig his own grave.  Stretchy hands that are big enough to grapple with a swarm - even potentially with one that's several size categories larger - and to thus immobilize it (even though swarms can move through small holes) - those sound like hand you can do other useful things with.  And in any case, it does not sound like the _obvious, natural_ state of affairs - an interesting fluff, but not the expected fluff.

If you need weird or otherwise complex and tricky fluff to explain game mechanics, the game rules should include that fluff to avoid inconsistencies.  Anything else is just a DM trap.

If you come up with explanations like "stretchy hands" often enough, players will get the hint an utterly ignore fluff since they correctly surmise that the fluff is not what matters.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 2, 2010)

I don't necessarily recommend describing each and every attack in 4e, because combats are long enough. It's nice when the DM describes your killing blow or critical though, as it adds to the player experience.

When it comes to skill challenges though, it's almost a requirement. Challenges, as initially portrayed, were a dry rotation of die rolling around the table, which really wasn't an enjoyable experience. We've tried to make them more free flowing by describing the experience, rather than simply saying, "I roll Endurance of 24." Interaction encounters, for example, become a conversation between characters and NPCs, in which the DM asks for appropriate skill rolls at appropriate times. This is a much more organic and enjoyable form of skill challenge, without really slowing play. 

Of course it helps, in this form of play, if the Fighter doesn't roll a 6 intimidate while cutting the captive's hand off, just before your 28 bluff roll that threatens to do the same.

*EDIT* There are times when descriptions of events are appropriate in combat though. Two cases come immediately to mind: (1) The stated situation in which the mechanic doesn't seem to match the task (ie. grabbing a swarm), and (2) When performing a "stunt."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 3, 2010)

It shouldn't take any special effort to visualize poisoning a hobgoblin.  The dragonborn breaths a spray of poison on him or the thief stabs him with a poison dagger, and he's poisoned.

If a fire elemental /isn't/ immune to poison, then, well, it's "living flame" or something, and poison affects it .  Poisons are more often than not liquids, maybe poison is strongly associated with the opposed element of water?  

It'd be nice if the rules were perfectly consistent with what everyone thought was reasonable, but, as that's completely impossible (as everyone doesn't agree on what's reasonable), just trying to work within the rules as best you can, and rationalize, gloss over (or just ignore, and let everyone else continue to have fun) the bits you can't quite wrap your head around, is the best you can do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 3, 2010)

I also believe, saying: "i grab the swarm is not sufficient..." as I believe "I use the xxx skill" is no role playing. This is pressing buttons.

Mechanics should help you resolve actions. The correct order looks like this:

PC: "I try to throw the blanket over the swarm and hold it fast" 
DM: "cool, make a grab check and replace strength with dexterity"

or:

PC: "I try to intimidate the goblin, pointing my weapon at it and shouting at him"
DM: "Ok, roll"

or:

PC: "I try to hide behind the bed"
DM: "Ok, roll a stealth check"

When you wonder if saying: "I use intimidate" is sufficient, you should have the last example in mind: would you allow someone to hide when he is standing in the open and says: "I use the hide skill"? Or do you allow someone to say: "I attack the most dangerous enemy with an appropriate weapon" when having no weapon in hand, and no enemy is adjacent"?

As Ryujin pointed out: description is not always necessary, but you need to at least specify, what you want to achieve and what means you try to use...

and IMHO you should just describe what you do, and it is the DM´s respnsibitiy to let you roll an appropriate skill check...


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 3, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Mechanics should help you resolve actions. The correct order looks like this:
> 
> PC: "I try to throw the blanket over the swarm and hold it fast"
> DM: "cool, make a grab check and replace strength with dexterity"



 Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Replace strength with dexterity?  Now you're suggesting that all I have to do to powergame at your table is cleverly describe my actions?  I no longer need feats for things like Melee Training because I just have to describe better how I swing the sword?

I really, really, really don't like that example.  If I'm trained in grabbing, then by you forcing me to "roleplay," I just got gimped in my attack.  Thanks.  No more freakin' "roleplaying" then.  Or, as has already been mentioned, it because a game of "guess how the DM will interpret my roleplaying" to get the benefit I want.  That's complete and utter BS.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2010)

Infiniti2000 said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Replace strength with dexterity?  Now you're suggesting that all I have to do to powergame at your table is cleverly describe my actions?  I no longer need feats for things like Melee Training because I just have to describe better how I swing the sword?
> 
> I really, really, really don't like that example.  If I'm trained in grabbing, then by you forcing me to "roleplay," I just got gimped in my attack.  Thanks.  No more freakin' "roleplaying" then.  Or, as has already been mentioned, it because a game of "guess how the DM will interpret my roleplaying" to get the benefit I want.  That's complete and utter BS.




Agreed.

Not to mention, roleplay doesn't mean 'describe your intent'.  It means 'describe your role.'

Anyone who thinks that it is better roleplay to describe things before you know what happens rather than after is failing to understand what roleplay is.  It's just that... playing a role.  Waiting to see how the dice land before describing what happens is no less valid than describing things and getting overruled by the dice.

Not to mention, are you requiring a wizard to describe the methods by which he summons fire before he casts a spell against a fire elemental?  No.  Because it's fantasy and you just assume wizards can do fantastic things.  (Also, fire elementals being immune to fire is logically the same as things of the natural plane being immune to nature.  Think about that for a second.)

So the wizard gets the 'he does awesome things' pass because his powers say 'I can do this awesome thing.'  Fighters get the -exact same- consideration.  I don't need to explain how my grab-expert fighter can grab a swarm, because I am not an expert in grabbing, and couldn't begin to explain it.  But the fighter IS, and he does so, because he has a power that says 'I can do this awesome thing.'   Summoning fire gets a pass.  Grabbing doesn't?

Give me a break.  This is D&D not MMA-Simulation-System.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 3, 2010)

Wow, there i invoked a lot of hate...

so we seem to have a different understanding of roleplaying. I don´t call your way BS. I don´t think calling what I do is bullsit is anywhere polite.

I usually don´t  up my players. It is usually clear that when anyone says, he wants to sneak up the foe, that it results in a stelath check. But grabbing a swarm by throwing something at him... it is a page 42 stunt. A dex vs reflex attack that immobilizes.


----------



## Alex319 (Sep 3, 2010)

> When you wonder if saying: "I use intimidate" is sufficient, you should  have the last example in mind: would you allow someone to hide when he  is standing in the open and says: "I use the hide skill"? Or do you  allow someone to say: "I attack the most dangerous enemy with an  appropriate weapon" when having no weapon in hand, and no enemy is  adjacent"?




Well, no, because the rules specifically state that you have to have cover to make a stealth check and that you have to be adjacent to an opponent to attack him. So by saying "no" to these I am not making up any new rules. But the rules DO specifically state that you can grab a swarm, because they state that you can grab creatures and a swarm is a type of creature. So by saying "no" to this I am making up a new rule in the middle of the game.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 3, 2010)

[MENTION=8777]Draco[/MENTION]: Sorry, there are some things, that just don´t work. Grabbing 1000 little centipedes with bare hands... no!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 3, 2010)

Alex319 said:


> Well, no, because the rules specifically state that you have to have cover to make a stealth check and that you have to be adjacent to an opponent to attack him. So by saying "no" to these I am not making up any new rules. But the rules DO specifically state that you can grab a swarm, because they state that you can grab creatures and a swarm is a type of creature. So by saying "no" to this I am making up a new rule in the middle of the game.



Ok, you won. But i guess no sane person would even try it, so it won´t come up at the table.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 4, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> _Draco_: Sorry, there are some things, that just don´t work. Grabbing 1000 little centipedes with bare hands... no!




You know, I could have sworn this got covered alot upthread. If PC has a power that grab a foe on a hit, and the foe happens to be a swarm and the dice indicate a hit.. then it is up to either the player or the DM to provide the fiction that supports the mechanical result of 'grabbed' against the swarm.

  "The monk strikes the middle of the swarm, knocking many of them over and scattering the others. Some of the centipedes swarm up the Monks arm.. biting and crawling into places they are not meant to be..." could be the fiction behind this;
PC turn - Monk  hits swarm with power that 'grabs' opponent with an unarmed attack
Swarm turn - Swarm is immobilized, but attacks the Monk with its aura and basic attack

or;
"The Monk strikes in a quick pattern at the edges of the swarm, causing the creatures to crawl over themselves, mounding up higher than normal and trying to keep away from the Monks lethal feet."

or;... well, your imagination is the limit to this list.

Same goes for prone oozes, critical hits on animated boulders, and damaging a fire elemental with a fireball.... 4e presumes that the player can expect the conditions listed on the card will happen and enables a more tactical approach to combat.

Regardless, the players ability or inablity to explain how a 4e power inflicts a mechanical condition on the target should not affect how the target is affected.
 Now, if you are playing a more free-form game system... then yes.. some rules even leave all the mechanical results of an attack to the description by the player.


 That being said.. I agree with Infiniti... when using skills or stunts.. the decsription comes first and the DM determines which skill, DC and effect.. altho he/she should state those prior to the player commiting to the roll.

ie: [sblock]
Player: I want to stop these critters from moving, I am going to toss a blanket over them!
DM: Okay, that sounds like a good move {and I want to encourage this in my game}, so make a DEX based attack against the swarms REF, gain +2 if you are trained in Theivery. On a hit you will immobilize and blind the swarm until the end of your next turn.
Player: That works for me!.. _reaches for dice_
[/sblock]


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> [MENTION=8777]Draco[/MENTION]: Sorry, there are some things, that just don´t work. Grabbing 1000 little centipedes with bare hands... no!




Who says you have to grab a thousand bugs?  You don't have to kill a thousand bugs to dissipate a swarm.

Realistic way of grabbing a swarm:  'I run about the insects, when a multitude of bugs try to escape out the side, I kick, push, and sweep the bugs back into the original pile.'  Bam.  Grabbed swarm.

Fantastic way of grabbing a swarm:  'FELGAR OF THE TEN LEAGUES ROARS AS HE GRABS ALL THE INSECTS WITHIN HIS MIGHTY GRIP.'  'Felgar, you're not...'  'FELGAR CAN WALK TO ANY LOCATION IN THE MULTIVERSE IN A DAY.  YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AS FELGAR DOES.  DO NOT PREACH TO FELGAR OF THE TEN LEAGUES ABOUT HOW SIZE AND DIMENSION WORK.'  'Seriously, you don't have the--'  'FELGAR GRABS THE COLONY'S QUEEN AND BEGINS TO BROWBEAT HER INTO SUBMISSION, AND THE REST OF THE INSECTS GO WHERE THE QUEEN IS.'  'Those bugs are on fire.'  'FELGAR IGNORES PAIN.'

'It does not work' is a cop-out answer.  You know what does not work?  Fantasy does not work.  *Rhe entire point to power fantasy is that it's doing stuff that does not work but is awesome anyways.*

'It's fantasy' is damn well a good enough counter to that.  'It does not work' is what -makes- it fantasy.  If I'm playing a character that can potentially grab gods and tarrasques, and all manner of otherworldly things... -really-... drawing the line at a pile of bugs is quite arbitrary and makes no sense given the milieu of what he deals with.

It's a matter of versimilitude.  It doesn't matter if it's realistic.  Indiana Jones jumping into a fridge to avoid a nuclear blast is not realistic.  It's not even believable.  But it's awesome, and that's why we buy it. 

We buy it, because despite the fact that it is unrealistic, it would be cool if it were.

People can grab swarms, not because it makes sense, or is realistic, but because it is awesome.  Because it is cool.  Because a world where heroes could do that is awesome.  Because it's fun to play that superhero.  Because it's an escape from limitations.

Versimilitude has to take into account the world in question, not our world.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 4, 2010)

If the player provides ideas... ok, i don´t know how to provide fiction support... and you know, i don´t want to. Sorry.


----------



## eamon (Sep 4, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Who says you have to grab a thousand bugs?  You don't have to kill a thousand bugs to dissipate a swarm.
> 
> Realistic way of grabbing a swarm:  'I run about the insects, when a multitude of bugs try to escape out the side, I kick, push, and sweep the bugs back into the original pile.'  Bam.  Grabbed swarm.
> 
> ...



And in the world in question, not everything is possible.  It is not a free-form realm, and you may not have your PC walk through walls merely because you think it's cool.

If FELGAR the 1st level fighter starts talking about how he sees the multiverse and how this lets him control a swarms position - despite the swarm being able to move through tiny holes - then he'll earn a tidy penny as entertainer.  He will not, however, actually succeed in his nonsensical atttempt.  At least - not in my game.

As for sweeping and pushing a swarm back onto the original pile, should this work, then by similar logic forced movement should too - which the rules don't permit.  What you're describing actually sounds more to me like an immobilizing effect to due a close burst - not a single target effect, but a _sweeping_ effect.  And if indeed a PC were indeed capable of such an effect, that'd be fine.  A single-target grab-to-immobilize, on the other hand, does not make sense.

All these explanations about how a grab is supposed to affect a swarm rely on the notion that the explanation of the effect is not valid in any other circumstance.  That's not how it works; whenever the necessary preconditions for that explanation is met, you should permit it to function.  If your explanation of controlling the swarm rests on it having a queen and you being able to identify and target her to hold her, then why can't you target and perhaps kill the queen with a melee attack?  Why can you push the queen somewhere?  What happens with swarms without a queen?

If your explanation rests on "control of the multiverse" - well, can all PC's control the multiverse?  If you can control thousands of creatures like this, can't you do anything else with that control?  How 'bout whirling up a dust cloud to create concealment?

Grabbing a swarm simply doesn't make sense in game.  You can make up some kind of magical pseudobabbel or gameworld effect as to why this works, but then the question arises as to how the mechanics you've just invented interact with the rest of the world - and probably they don't interact at all since they don't make sense.

So, you can permit grabbing a swarm - but by doing so you accept that fact that in-game consistency doesn't matter, and by extension that the fluff doesn't matter - these things are only window dressing to be discarded when convenient.

Which will it be, relevant fluff and consistency, or the game rules?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 4, 2010)

Consistant rules that a player can depend on for the win!

The fluff should support the rules and its the gms job to ensue it does...its not the gms job to randomly nerf an ability.

Can a halfing grab..and hold.. a storm giant in your game?

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2010)

eamon said:


> And in the world in question, not everything is possible.  It is not a free-form realm, and you may not have your PC walk through walls merely because you think it's cool.




If my character has powers that say 'walk through walls' then I bloody well -can- and -do- expect him to walk through walls.  If my character sheet says 'This guy can do such and such a thing' then it is fair to expect such and such a thing to occur whenever I use that power.

If we're talking about a fighter who is an expert at grabbing being able to attempt grabs at swarms, then yes, he is capable of doing so.  



> If FELGAR the 1st level fighter starts talking about how he sees the multiverse and how this lets him control a swarms position - despite the swarm being able to move through tiny holes - then he'll earn a tidy penny as entertainer.  He will not, however, actually succeed in his nonsensical atttempt.  At least - not in my game.




Felgar doesn't want to play in your game tho.  Felgar can't be heroic in your game because you apply arbitrary and non-sensible restrictions on him just because they violate your sense of literalism.  

[/quote]And that is fair; provided you have equally logical and consistant restrictions for character classes that don't rely on the martial power source.  



> As for sweeping and pushing a swarm back onto the original pile, should this work, then by similar logic forced movement should too - which the rules don't permit.




So... your logic says I can't grapple a swarm, but that same logic says I can't sweep bugs?  That's something I -can- damn well do in the real world.  Take broom.  Sweep bugs.

It's not hard.

Here's the inconsistancy... you're saying that logically, because the rules say you can't do one thing, something else can't be used to explain some other completely unrelated thing.

Either you apply the rules and use them (grab works on swarms) or you go for descriptions that adequately describe what is happening (the above example works to grab swarms).

Your stance is that grabs don't work simply because you don't want them to, and nothing more.  It's arbitrary, and has no actual basis in the fiction OR the game rules.



> What you're describing actually sounds more to me like an immobilizing effect to due a close burst - not a single target effect, but a _sweeping_ effect.  And if indeed a PC were indeed capable of such an effect, that'd be fine.  A single-target grab-to-immobilize, on the other hand, does not make sense.




Nothing single target makes sense.  We're talking about a swarm here.  The very fact you're dealing with a swarm means that you have to abandon all precepts of one-on-one combat.



> All these explanations about how a grab is supposed to affect a swarm rely on the notion that the explanation of the effect is not valid in any other circumstance.  That's not how it works; whenever the necessary preconditions for that explanation is met, you should permit it to function.  If your explanation of controlling the swarm rests on it having a queen and you being able to identify and target her to hold her, then why can't you target and perhaps kill the queen with a melee attack?  Why can you push the queen somewhere?  What happens with swarms without a queen?




1)  Using a queen to immobilize or control a swarm of bees is realistic.  See a picture of a man wearing a beard made of bees.  It's not only realistic, it's a goddamn real hobby.

Ergo, adapting that technique imagintively to a combat situation is MORE than kosher.  

2)  Killing the queen is a perfectly legitimate way of defeating a swarm.  That is a perfectly valid way to describe the defeat of a swarm creature.  It doesn't even have to be the queen.  Those swarms probably have some sort of alpha dominant critters, so if you incapacitate/control the alphas, then the betas and omegas run in terror.

3)  Using sweeping to keep a swarm's outliers from escaping the square the swarm is in is not the same as using sweeping to move a swarb 100 feet across the room.  There is a large difference in scale.

To demonstrate the principle, take a handful of cravel.  Now take a btoom.  Sweep the gravel.  SUCCESS!  That's keeping outliers from escaping the swarm.  

Next, take a large 6-foot tall pile of gravel.  Try to sweep that pile away.  FAIL!  That's because that sort of technique doesn't work to move a large scale of gravel.

But, let's say someone disturbs that pile, and some of it falls to the side.  Try to sweep the parts back into the pile.  SUCCESS!  That's because of the scale involved.

Swarms, by the way, are not immune to restrains or immobilizes.  That's not the same thing as forced movement.



> If your explanation rests on "control of the multiverse" - well, can all PC's control the multiverse?  If you can control thousands of creatures like this, can't you do anything else with that control?  How 'bout whirling up a dust cloud to create concealment?




It honestly depends on the milieu of fantasy, to be honest.  I don't expect something based on George R R Martin to have that sort of capability.  I also don't expect swarms of insects with a hive mind and singular intellegence either.  

However, if it's based on myth and lore, or high fantasy, or wuxia, I would be disappointed if my cunning sneak rogue didn't have the ability to whirl up a dust cloud to describe his concealment powers.  That sort of thing is -exactly- what one expects in those genres.



> Grabbing a swarm simply doesn't make sense in game.




Bullocks.  It makes as much sense as any other rules abstraction necessary to account for the 'swarms are single creatures' rule in the first place.  Grabbing makes no less sense than any other thing that you're explicitly allowed to do to a swarm.



> You can make up some kind of magical pseudobabbel or gameworld effect as to why this works, but then the question arises as to how the mechanics you've just invented interact with the rest of the world - and probably they don't interact at all since they don't make sense.




Obviously it doesn't make sense to use the same technique on a swarm of bees as it does... say... a terrasque.  But let's reduce that logic to its bare components:

I am using technique A to describe when I use effect B on creature C.
Technique A works to describe effect B on creature C.
There exists a creature D that Technique A does not work on, therefore 

therefore

Technique A does not make sense as a description of effect B.

That is your logic, broken down into its components.  Now... let's use the same argument form and other valid premises:

I am using the technique 'Stab him in the belly' to describe when I use the effect 'melee attack' on 'The Baron of Blades.'
'Stab him in the belly' works to describe 'melee attack' used on 'Baron of Blades.'
There exists a creature 'Swarm of Bees' that 'Stab him in the belly' work on.

Therefore

'Stabbing in the belly' does not make sense as a description of 'Melee attacks'

....however stabbing someone in the belly is a perfectly legitimate way to describe a melee attack.  Therefore, the argument form does not hold, and therefore it is an invalid argument.

The point is... the moment you're dealing with a swarm, the most basic effects, such as a normal melee basic attack, require some form of comprimise in order for them to work in terms of the fiction of the game.  If you can't accept that you can grab a swarm, then you can't attack a swarm either with non-area/close effects by the same logic.

Your 'this doesn't make sense' is a legitimate concern, but how you apply it is arbitrary at best.  It has nothing to do with what makes sense, it has to do with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that swarms require allowances at its most basic level.  Grabs are no exception to that... and if you can make allowances for stabbing to mean something different for a swarm, then you have no reason not to give the same consideration for grabbing.



> So, you can permit grabbing a swarm - but by doing so you accept that fact that in-game consistency doesn't matter, and by extension that the fluff doesn't matter - these things are only window dressing to be discarded[ when convenient.




No, by allowing the grabbing of swarm, I -allow- consistancy, by giving those who apply physical techniques the same amount of fantasy and heroism as those who rely on magical stuff.

And the game is designed with that allowance intended.



> Which will it be, relevant fluff and consistency, or the game rules?




I chose both.  You've chosen -neither-.

That's the difference here.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> Consistant rules that a player can depend on for the win!
> 
> The fluff should support the rules and its the gms job to ensue it does...its not the gms job to randomly nerf an ability.
> 
> ...




There's halflings, and then there are HALFLINGS.

But looking at the same sense of scale... 

the question could be asked... 'Could a human grab a terrasque?'

Realistically?  No.

But D&D is more about:







and less about:


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 4, 2010)

No, a halfling cannot grab a giant preventing him from moving... but he can grab a giant and move with it.

With a power that allows him to grab, i would allow it, with the standard grab maneuver... no.

Your D&D may be different than mine... i might be doing it wrong 

[MENTION=14053]ST[/MENTION]ab a swarm of bees in the belly... you should come up with a better description for your attack. Sorry.


----------



## eamon (Sep 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Obviously it doesn't make sense to use the same technique on a swarm of bees as it does... say... a terrasque.  But let's reduce that logic to its bare components:
> 
> I am using technique A to describe when I use effect B on creature C.
> Technique A works to describe effect B on creature C.
> ...



Your abstraction doesn't clarify things - quite the contrary.  If you believe the argument I made - namely that your claim to be able to grab a swarm _by means of_ moving the swarm back into its square when it attempts to leave implies that you can force it to move with what is a single target (melee) attack - doesn't make sense, feel free to address the argument, not some made-up combination of A's and B's which serves no purpose other than to obscure common sense behind meaningless abstraction.

In doing so, you seem to have missed the key element of my complaint entirely, being that _abstractions_ risk dissociation from the underlying fluff, and doing so while explicitly ignoring the fluff in favor of the rule undermines the essence of D&D which is (to me) it's story and fluff.

You do see the irony of trying to convince me that the abstraction is appropriate by means of another abstraction that's even further dissociated from the in-game world?



> The point is... the moment you're dealing with a swarm, the most basic effects, such as a normal melee basic attack, require some form of comprimise in order for them to work in terms of the fiction of the game.  If you can't accept that you can grab a swarm, then you can't attack a swarm either with non-area/close effects by the same logic.



Details matter; a melee strike through a swarm might conceivably hit many creatures, more than the handful a grab might hold - and even were the quantity the same, it then makes sense that hitting a few creatures reduces the swarm's size (thus damaging it) whereas holding and perhaps crushing creatures in a grab doesn't immobilize the rest of the swarm, but rather (at best) merely damages the swarm to the extent that missing those members matters.  Admittedly, I find melee attacks vs. swarms tricky - which is why I'm happy to note that there _is_ a compromise in that aspect; swarms take half-damage from melee attacks.  As far as I'm concerned, a reasonable compromise would be if swarms were immune to all non-damaging effects from melee and ranged attacks.



> Your 'this doesn't make sense' is a legitimate concern, but how you apply it is arbitrary at best.  It has nothing to do with what makes sense, it has to do with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that swarms require allowances at its most basic level.  Grabs are no exception to that... and if you can make allowances for stabbing to mean something different for a swarm, then you have no reason not to give the same consideration for grabbing.



There's no question about it: how I apply "what makes sense" is arbitrary in the sense that it's not some quantifiable optimum.  It's a judgement call that is a required part of game-design.  Such arbitrary judgement calls are evidently present in 4e - such as the fact that swarms are immune to forced movement by melee and ranged attacks.

I'm saying that the judgement the current rules represent is ill-chosen, and that the motivation to "explain away" the inconsistencies caused by such poor choices by selectively applying in-game logic causes the in-game consistency to suffer and is thus the wrong solution.  The right solution is to actually fix the problem as best as you can, rather than to unintentionally undermine the game by introducing yet more inconsistencies.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 5, 2010)

eamon said:


> Your abstraction doesn't clarify things - quite the contrary.  If you believe the argument I made - namely that your claim to be able to grab a swarm _by means of_ moving the swarm back into its square when it attempts to leave implies that you can force it to move with what is a single target (melee) attack - doesn't make sense, feel free to address the argument, not some made-up combination of A's and B's which serves no purpose other than to obscure common sense behind meaningless abstraction.




wut

No.  No.  No.

My point was that the argument 'Grabbing simply doesn't make sense on a swarm' is as equally as valid as 'single target attacks don't make sense on a swarm.'  That it actually makes no sense to say that one game construct requiring accomodation (the ability to make single target attacks on a swarm) makes sense while another equal game construct (the ability to grab a swarm) is senseless, when both taken literally make the same amount of sense.

The argument form used is called 'disproof by contradiction' where you take the exact same argument form they have, replace the details, and show that the argument form itself is flawed.



> In doing so, you seem to have missed the key element of my complaint entirely, being that _abstractions_ risk dissociation from the underlying fluff, and doing so while explicitly ignoring the fluff in favor of the rule undermines the essence of D&D which is (to me) it's story and fluff.




But the fluff isn't being ignored.  The fluff of D&D 4th edition, at its heart, is heroes doing greater and greater deeds until they join the immortals.  That fluff informs everything from the levelling process, to how powers work, to page 42, to the general suggestion that DMs give allowances to players attempting to do heroic deeds.

My argument is that saying, arbitrarily, that you cannot grab a swarm not only makes no logical sense, but also makes no sense from the basic fluff roots of the game, that doing so needlessly and arbitrarily castrates certain character concepts simply due to their power source.



> You do see the irony of trying to convince me that the abstraction is appropriate by means of another abstraction that's even further dissociated from the in-game world?




The problem here is you've got a cognitive dissonance.  You're allowing the game rules to use the swarm as a singular creature, but you're disallowing interactions that treat it as a singular creature... and then complain that it's abstraction of those interactions that are faulty.

The reality is, the swarm *itself* is the offending abstraction.  You've already, once you've allowed the swarm to become that abstraction, gone over the limit, and now you have to explain *everything that happens* in terms of post-attack fluff.  Even Ranged Basic Attack breaks down in this manner.

So thusly, the burden of proof is on you to explain why abstracting Ranged Basic Attack, Reaping Strike, Furious Smash, Magic Missile, Oath of Emnity, Combat Challenge, and all these other abilities is OKAY, but suddenly grab offends your sensibilities because, in your words, "_abstractions_ risk dissociation from the underlying fluff."

Why does abstracting a ranger shooting a swarm with an arrow to something appropriate for a swarm make sense... but abstracting a grab does not?

The onus is on you to prove that one, because if you cannot, you have an invalid (and almost hypocritical) argument.



> Details matter; a melee strike through a swarm might conceivably hit many creatures, more than the handful a grab might hold - and even were the quantity the same, it then makes sense that hitting a few creatures reduces the swarm's size (thus damaging it) whereas holding and perhaps crushing creatures in a grab doesn't immobilize the rest of the swarm, but rather (at best) merely damages the swarm to the extent that missing those members matters.  Admittedly, I find melee attacks vs. swarms tricky - which is why I'm happy to note that there _is_ a compromise in that aspect; swarms take half-damage from melee attacks.  As far as I'm concerned, a reasonable compromise would be if swarms were immune to all non-damaging effects from melee and ranged attacks.




Immunity is a tricky word tho... it means 'This is now impossible.'  However, D&D's central fluff is growing to accomplish the impossible.  Such a comprimise would damage and strike at the heart of the game itself.

Plus, conditions on swarms are completely possible.  Grabbing the alphas in a swarm might cause the betas to remain... using a herd instinct to your advantage on a swarm is -very- plausible.  Hey, look, grabbing in a way that affects a swarm!  Using mundane methodology!






Here is a picture of a woman using control of a central figure, or alpha, of a literal swarm of bees, to literally control them and keep them in one place.

REALITY allows for this to happen, so the LEAST imaginative explanation for grabbing/controlling a swarm "I grab/control the swarms alphas" is not only plausible, there are *people who do this for a fun and interesting if somewhat scary hobby.*

So, something that is plausible, and doable, at the University of Minnesota, by the act of putting a bee in a box... is somehow implausible and breaks your sense of the fantastic if it's done on a floating continent threatening to drop and destroy Waterdeep by people who can move in bursts of 27 kms per hour (little over 16miles per hour) while wearing heavy armor.

I just think you lack imagination.



> There's no question about it: how I apply "what makes sense" is arbitrary in the sense that it's not some quantifiable optimum.  It's a judgement call that is a required part of game-design.  Such arbitrary judgement calls are evidently present in 4e - such as the fact that swarms are immune to forced movement by melee and ranged attacks.




Yes, but that's a matter of scale.  Keeping something from escaping an area is not the same thing as removing it from that area.  The same swarm is not immune to immobilizes, or even slows from melee and ranged attacks.  Grabs are closer to an immobilize than they are to forced movement... the comparison itself is arbitrary.



> I'm saying that the judgement the current rules represent is ill-chosen, and that the motivation to "explain away" the inconsistencies caused by such poor choices by selectively applying in-game logic causes the in-game consistency to suffer and is thus the wrong solution.  The right solution is to actually fix the problem as best as you can, rather than to unintentionally undermine the game by introducing yet more inconsistencies.




Except there IS no problem.  

The burden on you to prove is this:

That a hero on his way to immortality cannot grab a swarm.  That such things are impossible in the milieu of heroic legend and high fantasy.

If you can do that, then you can actually start to introduce the premise 'It does not fit the fluff.'

The fact is, you cannot do so.  High fantasy is filled with rediculous stuff like that, and that high fantasy is the main inspiration informing D&D4th, with an emphasis in the rise to immortality.  Grabbing a swarm fits that central concept -perfectly-.  Therefore, it cannot violate the fluff.


----------



## Aegeri (Sep 5, 2010)

The real debate though is she grabbing the bees or are they grabbing her?

I mean, this could get pretty deep here. Deep in bees that is.



			
				[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ungeheuerlich.html" said:
			
		

> UngeheuerLich[/URL]]I also believe, saying: "i grab the swarm is not sufficient..." as I  believe "I use the xxx skill" is no role playing. This is pressing  buttons.




Okay. I say "I grab the swarm" and you say "You're going to have to explain that".

I say "Karrok roars with fury at the swarms attempt to escape from him and begins stuffing great handfuls of bugs down his pants while sealing his trousers. Is this sufficient?"


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 5, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> The real debate though is she grabbing the bees or are they grabbing her?
> 
> I mean, this could get pretty deep here. Deep in bees that is.
> 
> ...




In an unrelated story, we actually, in a recent 3.5 game, had to take out a swarm of hellfire wasps... and we had no magic weapons.  So we were screwed.  We DID have a door that we could open to random other places (like a portable hole+4) so we wheeled it down there (cause yes, we put that thing on wheels) opened her up with me standing in the room going 'NOT THE BEES!  AAAHHHH!' and the swarm went after me, I ran out, door shut, bees cut off in its own underground oubliette.

Then we used that as a threat against other monsters, that should they fail to negotiate, we would open up this room of bees, or toss them in it, or what have you.

Not related to the argument, but this thread reminded me of 'the Nicholas cage' as we christened it.


----------



## Someone (Sep 5, 2010)

Personally, I find that grabbing isn't exactly the stuff of legends. All it requires is a Str check and being of the right size (now that I think of it, I find amusing in the context of this thread that humans can by the rules grab a swarm of bees but titans can't grab one single human. They could, if enough humans gathered at one point to make a single Large swarm, the titan could grab their leader, making the rest of them follow mindlessly. But I digress) 

As I was saying, everyone can do it. Joe Commoner can grab bees. A dog can grab bees, unless it's a pekinese; then it's be tiny and too small to grab a Medium swarm. A piercer could, if anyone suffered a mental breakdown and converted them to 4e _and it doesn't even have arms_. Though perhaps they are in their way to archieve immortality. 

However Bob the Godslayer, who recently made Cthulhu his bitch, when he tries to bull rush these same bees couldn't. Poor Bob bounced on them like he hit a wall of bricks: harder actually, since he can crash through brick walls like if they were made of tissue paper. The next round Bob, enraged, punched off the top of a mountain and crushed the bees under it, but unless he invokes page 42 and puts himself at the mercy of the DM, he can't push these bees, or even walk through a swarm of them.

So I find much more consistent to make swarms that can't be grabbed and let the players justify a stunt if they really want to grab or push them (which must be a staggering rare circumstance, since it's the first time it's come in these forums) than having swarms that are in principle impossible to push but that everyone can grab.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 5, 2010)

Someone said:


> Personally, I find that grabbing isn't exactly the stuff of legends. All it requires is a Str check and being of the right size (now that I think of it, I find amusing in the context of this thread that humans can by the rules grab a swarm of bees but titans can't grab one single human. They could, if enough humans gathered at one point to make a single Large swarm, the titan could grab their leader, making the rest of them follow mindlessly. But I digress)
> 
> As I was saying, everyone can do it. Joe Commoner can grab bees. A dog can grab bees, unless it's a pekinese; then it's be tiny and too small to grab a Medium swarm. A piercer could, if anyone suffered a mental breakdown and converted them to 4e _and it doesn't even have arms_. Though perhaps they are in their way to archieve immortality.
> 
> ...




It's not that you can't push bees, individually, and I think that's the mistake people are making.

You can push the individual bees, but that's not the same as pushing a swarm, in the same sense that throwing a rock is not the same thing as throwing a pile of rocks.  A bullrush would obviously involve the individual running -into- the bees, rather than causing the bees to move.  That make sense.  But a complete lack of ability to control the swarm of bees is not so plausible, given the evidence posted above of a girl controlling a swarm of bees.


----------



## Someone (Sep 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> It's not that you can't push bees, individually, and I think that's the mistake people are making.
> 
> You can push the individual bees, but that's not the same as pushing a swarm, in the same sense that throwing a rock is not the same thing as throwing a pile of rocks.  A bullrush would obviously involve the individual running -into- the bees, rather than causing the bees to move.  That make sense.  But a complete lack of ability to control the swarm of bees is not so plausible, given the evidence posted above of a girl controlling a swarm of bees.




So you find dogs (not pekinese, though) grabbing swarms plausible in the context of super high fantasy, but can't wrap your mind around the concept of Bob the Godslayer forcing a piddly swarm of bees to move 5 feet? 

Also, he doesn't move through the swarm of bees when he tries to bull rush them. You can't pass through your enemie's squares. Bob is literally stopped on his tracks.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 5, 2010)

Someone said:


> So you find dogs (not pekinese, though) grabbing swarms plausible in the context of super high fantasy, but can't wrap your mind around the concept of Bob the Godslayer forcing a piddly swarm of bees to move 5 feet?
> 
> Also, he doesn't move through the swarm of bees when he tries to bull rush them. You can't pass through your enemie's squares. Bob is literally stopped on his tracks.




Actually, you can pass through a swarm.  They are not impenetrable barriers:

_A swarm can enter or move through an enemy’s space; this movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. An enemy can enter a space occupied by a swarm, but the space occupied by the swarm is considered difficult terrain, and doing so provokes an opportunity attack._

And swarms are not immune to bullrushes... the bull rush just doesn't do very much.  The swarm is immune to the push, but the shifting into the square the swarm is in part of the bull rush is perfectly legal.  So... pretty much as described.  The rules, as written, have this guy charge them, push into the swarm, the swarm goes no where, and now he's in swarm.

One thing to note tho, you can grab a swarm... but you can't use the Move a Grabbed Creature action with it.  The extent of what you can do is immobilize the swarm.


----------



## Someone (Sep 6, 2010)

Ah, sorry, I missed the verses on moving through them. It doesn't change the crux of the matter, though, which is that the rules forbid Bob the Godslayer to force the bees to move 5 feet but allow Fido the dog to grab these same bees and not allow them to move. Think on it; Bob was attacked yesterday by the tarrasque and found it mildly amusing, but he's helpless when he faces the simple task of moving a mere swarm of bees 5 feet, unless his DM says it's OK with him. Fido the dog is entitled by the rules to do a perfectly simple Str check to keep the bees in place. There's no reason, based on the pro-grabbing arguments repeated about three hundred times in this thread, to keep Bob from moving the bees. 

To make this abundantly clear, if it was allowed in the rules, when asked how he bull rushes the swarm Bob's player could say simply "I move them back... with my awesomeness!" and really, it'd not be more ludicrous than coming from he dead once per day. However, right now, if he wants to bees to move he has to invoke page 42, explain how he does that, and his DM could say anything from "No, that's stupid" to "Make so and so check, totally unlike a regular bull rush" or "ok". I just ask why. Why is so important to keep most people from bull rushing swarms, but allowing everyone to grab them? It doesn't make sense from the character balance side: it makes characters with reliable area attacks overpowered when dealing with them, and people who use melee or ranged attacks and forced movement near useless. It doesn't make sense from the heroic fluff perspective that Bob, who makes gods nervously check with their lawyers about "armed assault", can't move the bees if his DM is in a particularly sour mood. What makes sense is, perhaps, that the writer didn't though about anyone wanting to grab a swarm: after all the Enworld comunity seems to not have though on it for 2 years.

Really, houseruling that on the fly doesn't look so bad. IMO is not that bad to see that Fido can bite swarms of bees in place, but Bob can't move them and declare that Fido after all can't grab those bees unless he comes up with a good excuse, the same I'd allow Bob to swat the bees 5 feet with his shield.

(On a side note, now that I'm on it and checked the grab rules I'll allow creatures to grab enemies much smaller then them:


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 6, 2010)

Someone said:


> Ah, sorry, I missed the verses on moving through them. It doesn't change the crux of the matter, though, which is that the rules forbid Bob the Godslayer to force the bees to move 5 feet but allow Fido the dog to grab these same bees and not allow them to move. Think on it; Bob was attacked yesterday by the tarrasque and found it mildly amusing, but he's helpless when he faces the simple task of moving a mere swarm of bees 5 feet, unless his DM says it's OK with him. Fido the dog is entitled by the rules to do a perfectly simple Str check to keep the bees in place. There's no reason, based on the pro-grabbing arguments repeated about three hundred times in this thread, to keep Bob from moving the bees.




Who cares about Fido the dog?  Fido the dog is not a character at your game table.  All this talk about Fido the dog is clouding the issue.

What you SHOULD be looking at is whether Bob the Godslayer can grab those same bees that he cannot bullrush.  The fact is... he can.  Easily.

Bob is not helpless at all before these bees.

He can still, say, Vorpal Tornado, or Come and Get It, or Shift the Battlefield.

Fighters do have close attacks, and many of those close attacks do have the ability to force things to move.

Bob is not helpless at all.



> To make this abundantly clear, if it was allowed in the rules, when asked how he bull rushes the swarm Bob's player could say simply "I move them back... with my awesomeness!" and really, it'd not be more ludicrous than coming from he dead once per day. However, right now, if he wants to bees to move he has to invoke page 42, explain how he does that, and his DM could say anything from "No, that's stupid" to "Make so and so check, totally unlike a regular bull rush" or "ok".




Invoking page 42 is quite acceptable.  Describe a way to use the environment or handy tools that it qualifies as an area or close attack, and the push is quite doable.  That's -exactly- what page 42 is for.  There's a reason why page 42 is getting expanded in scope in Essentials.



> I just ask why. Why is so important to keep most people from bull rushing swarms, but allowing everyone to grab them?   It doesn't make sense from the character balance side: it makes characters with reliable area attacks overpowered when dealing with them, and people who use melee or ranged attacks and forced movement near useless.




I wouldn't call 5 extra points of damage and the ability to use forced movement overpowered.  And the answer to fix that is 'you can't use grabs either'?

Explain that... area and close effects are 'overpowered' against swarms, so therefore you cannot grab swarms.

My brain exploded from that one.



> It doesn't make sense from the heroic fluff perspective that Bob, who makes gods nervously check with their lawyers about "armed assault", can't move the bees if his DM is in a particularly sour mood.




I can't disagree.  The restriction against forced movement is somewhat odd... but it does make sense in a way.  Regardless, it's irrelevant to the central point.



> What makes sense is, perhaps, that the writer didn't though about anyone wanting to grab a swarm: after all the Enworld comunity seems to not have though on it for 2 years.




And perhaps they did.  Perhaps someone, generally a player, went... 'Hey, it dsoesn't say I can't grab a swarm of bees.  Can I grab the swarm of bees?'  And the guy running the game, one of the designers of the game went... 'AWESOME!' and thus it was allowed.

Cause... fourth edition IS the most playtested roleplaying game ever made.  



> Really, houseruling that on the fly doesn't look so bad. IMO is not that bad to see that Fido can bite swarms of bees in place, but Bob can't move them and declare that Fido after all can't grab those bees unless he comes up with a good excuse, the same I'd allow Bob to swat the bees 5 feet with his shield.




Except holding a swarm of bees in place is no more like swatting them 5 feet than using vines to restrain them with a druid spell is changing them into a newt.  Unrelated things are unrelated.

That's the problem with this stretch of logic... the dots do not connect.

More over... who the hell is Fido?  Bob can grab those bees.  Who gives a crap about some dog?  



> (On a side note, now that I'm on it and checked the grab rules I'll allow creatures to grab enemies much smaller then them:




Well, yes, that's allowed in the rules, explicitly.

Regardless, your argument points out something completely irrelevant, and uses it as an appeal to emotion so that we go 'Well this other guy can't do this other unrelated thing, therefore NO GRABS FOR ANYONE.'  It's a very weak argument.  Contrast with this:


----------



## Someone (Sep 6, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Who cares about Fido the dog?  Fido the dog is not a character at your game table.  All this talk about Fido the dog is clouding the issue.




I care because the basic rules describe actions that everyone can do; everthing can basic attack, bull rush, grab, jump, etc. Not everyone can fly, come back from the dead once per day or load a handful of bolts in the crossbow and shoot everyone in sight. Basic rules tend to describe things that fall under Earth Physics, not Awesome Physics and that everyone and everything can do.



> What you SHOULD be looking at is whether Bob the Godslayer can grab those same bees that he cannot bullrush.  The fact is... he can.  Easily.




He "esily" can because the rules allow him. If the rules said that he can bull rush the bees, you'd be arguing how the Awesome Physics of D&Dworld justofy that move.



> Bob is not helpless at all before these bees.
> 
> He can still, say, Vorpal Tornado, or Come and Get It, or Shift the Battlefield.
> 
> ...




Not relevant. 



> Invoking page 42 is quite acceptable.  Describe a way to use the environment or handy tools that it qualifies as an area or close attack, and the push is quite doable.  That's -exactly- what page 42 is for.  There's a reason why page 42 is getting expanded in scope in Essentials.




Not relevant. Bob can always grab the bees, regardless of the table he plays at. If he tries to bull rush the bees he needs to aks the DM to make a house rule on the spot. There's *no* justification whatsoever for that; it's inconsistent. Game balance doesn't jusify it. Awesome Physics don't justify it. That's the issue I'm bringing to the thread and you keep dodging. 




> I wouldn't call 5 extra points of damage and the ability to use forced movement overpowered.




ROFL! Say that at the CharOp forums.



> And the answer to fix that is 'you can't use grabs either'?




That'd be my house rule, based on my honest interpretation of the author's intetion. It comes very, very close ahea of "you can bull rush swarms."



> Explain that... area and close effects are 'overpowered' against swarms, so therefore you cannot grab swarms.
> 
> My brain exploded from that one.




Nice strawman. Have a cookie.





> I can't disagree.  The restriction against forced movement is somewhat odd... but it does make sense in a way.  Regardless, it's irrelevant to the central point.




No, it isn't. It's *the* central point. Please don't ignore it.



> And perhaps they did.  Perhaps someone, generally a player, went... 'Hey, it dsoesn't say I can't grab a swarm of bees.  Can I grab the swarm of bees?'  And the guy running the game, one of the designers of the game went... 'AWESOME!' and thus it was allowed.
> 
> Cause... fourth edition IS the most playtested roleplaying game ever made.




Many errata documents fixing powers and how basic skills work tend to make that statement not so appealing. Nobody used Stealth when they were playtesting the game, but lots of people wrestled bees?





> Except holding a swarm of bees in place is no more like swatting them 5 feet than using vines to restrain them with a druid spell is changing them into a newt.  Unrelated things are unrelated.
> 
> That's the problem with this stretch of logic... the dots do not connect.




I don't quite undertsand what you wrote there.



> More over... who the hell is Fido?  Bob can grab those bees.  Who gives a crap about some dog?




I could write Generic Non-Heroic NPC instead of Fido if you don't like the poor dog. GNHNPC, using close-to-earth-physics, can grab swarms without problems, and Bob, whose exploits include performing a rather violent vasectomy on Orcus, can't bull rush swarms even with Awesome Physics. And not only he just need to ask his DM to page 42 the action; he needs to aks his DM to explicitly break a rule ("Thou shall not Bull Rush swarms"). You can't seriously say it doesn't boggle your mind.



> Well, yes, that's allowed in the rules, explicitly.




My bad, you're right on this.



> Regardless, your argument points out something completely irrelevant, and uses it as an appeal to emotion so that we go 'Well this other guy can't do this other unrelated thing, therefore NO GRABS FOR ANYONE.'  It's a very weak argument.




No it isn't. The argument is more like 'The rules on swarms are inconsistent. This simple house rule harms no one and fixes that.'


----------



## eamon (Sep 6, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Why does abstracting a ranger shooting a swarm with an arrow to something appropriate for a swarm make sense... but abstracting a grab does not?
> 
> The onus is on you to prove that one, because if you cannot, you have an invalid (and almost hypocritical) argument.
> 
> ...



This fluff is potentially reasonable.  However, for reasons discussed in a previous post which you haven't yet responded to, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  As to there being any kind of "onus" on me to somehow resolve this dispute - that's just childish.  I have named several possible resolutions, one of which being to, you know, _not allow grabbing a swarm_.  If anything, since I'm stating that there is to my knowledge no fluff that adequately explains how grabbing is possible yet forced movement is not, it would be rather much simpler for _you_ to find a counterexample that _does_ make sense.

Not that you'll be able to, since I'm almost positive such a fluff doesn't exist, but if you can find a fluff you'd be willing to use yourself that is consistent, feel free to post it.



> I just think you lack imagination.



If you say so, it must be true.  That's your argument with respect to grabbing swarms too, right?




> Yes, but that's a matter of scale.  Keeping something from escaping an area is not the same thing as removing it from that area.  The same swarm is not immune to immobilizes, or even slows from melee and ranged attacks.  Grabs are closer to an immobilize than they are to forced movement... the comparison itself is arbitrary.



Not the same, but related.  Using your own example of swarm "alphas" - how would they be different, again?





> The burden on you to prove is this:
> 
> That a hero on his way to immortality cannot grab a swarm.  That such things are impossible in the milieu of heroic legend and high fantasy.




Not all PC's are epic tier; and all explanations you have so far put forward don't hold water.  It doesn't fit the fluff because there is no in-game mechanic or explanation for why this should be possible; yet it is a generic combat ability possessed by all.




> High fantasy is filled with rediculous stuff like that...



 My fantasy is internally consistent, insofar as I'm sane and willing to spend the effort to think about it.

I find that immersion into the story and the characters is greater and more interesting when I feel like the challenges they face are meaningful and solvable.  Out-of-the box solutions are more likely when people understand not just the numbers on their character sheet, but also how they translate to the game-world.

The rules are a means to provide a consistent and fun gameplay experience, not an end.  The grabbing rules wrt swarms aren't critical to overal tactical enjoyment (grabbing is way to rare and tactically dubious for that) and aren't consistent, and as such they are means that are better avoided - i.e. don't use the rules as written for grabbing swarms.


----------



## eamon (Sep 6, 2010)

Someone said:


> DracoSuave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I also get the impression that DracoSuave real argument here is "the rules say so".  He keeps on repeating how uber-cool these heroes are so that they can do things that don't make sense without breaking a sweat, yet he happily applies this "anything goes" logic very selectively - namely only whenever the rules happen to say something is possible and without regard for the in-game world.

Metagaming FTW.



> Not relevant. Bob can always grab the bees, regardless of the table he plays at. If he tries to bull rush the bees he needs to aks the DM to make a house rule on the spot. There's *no* justification whatsoever for that; it's inconsistent. Game balance doesn't jusify it. Awesome Physics don't justify it. That's the issue I'm bringing to the thread and you keep dodging.



_Exactly._




			
				Someone said:
			
		

> DracoSuave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As would be mine.  Actually, I think I'd go further and prohibit all non-damage effects of ranged and melee attacks.



> I could write Generic Non-Heroic NPC instead of Fido if you don't like the poor dog. GNHNPC, using close-to-earth-physics, can grab swarms without problems, and Bob, whose exploits include performing a rather violent vasectomy on Orcus, can't bull rush swarms even with Awesome Physics. And not only he just need to ask his DM to page 42 the action; he needs to aks his DM to explicitly break a rule ("Thou shall not Bull Rush swarms"). You can't seriously say it doesn't boggle your mind.



And in any case, Awesome Physics is a pretty terribly game mechanic.  The PC's are strong, powerful, fast, superhuman - but they are _limited_ and not all-powerful, even at level 30.  Unless they're Pun-pun, say.  Pun-pun must be fine, since the rules say so - it's Awesome Physics!


----------



## Nytmare (Sep 6, 2010)

Someone said:


> I care because the basic rules describe actions that everyone can do; everthing can basic attack, bull rush, grab, jump, etc.




To be fair, the rules have absolutely nothing to do with fights that do not involve player characters.  If you want to have a dog and a swarm of anythings get into a fight, the outcomes are dictated by whatever the hell you want the outcomes to be, not by the zoomed in rules and details that govern player character interactions with the world.

If you want to insist on having someone's pet schnauzer show up mid PC populated fight, just to show how silly it is to have a little dog to grab a swarm of needlefang drakes, feel free.  While you're proving that point, I'd urge you to heap on all the other combat world and battle map inconsistencies you can just to get all the BS out of the way at once.

At our table, there's no sense of responsibility for the player to figure out how the "grab" is happening.  They usually do, but if they can't there are 4 other people there who are fully capable of patching the hole.  Even if that patch is to ignore trying to find a suitable narrative to explain how a guy with a stick "grabs" a million bugs in the middle of an empty field, and instead just have the bugs not freaking move.  

It's all abstraction, there is no spoon people.


----------



## Aegeri (Sep 6, 2010)

I've already given the answer to that, just stuff the bugs down your pants and that's more than good enough. If you can't solve something by stuffing it down your trousers, it is frankly an unsolvable problem.


----------



## eamon (Sep 6, 2010)

Nytmare said:


> To be fair, the rules have absolutely nothing to do with fights that do not involve player characters.  If you want to have a dog and a swarm of anythings get into a fight, the outcomes are dictated by whatever the hell you want the outcomes to be, not by the zoomed in rules and details that govern player character interactions with the world.



The combat chapter rules apply in general to combat - although it would be odd to resolve combat in such detail if it doesn't involve PC's, any combat that is resolved generally uses those rules.  There aren't any others; and monsters get to shift, move, flank etc. just as PC's do.  Of course, literally having "someone's pet schnauzer" show up mid battle just to prove a point would be ridiculous - although not nearly as ridiculous as grabbing a swarm.

People do have dogs, and they might well get involved in a fight.  On the other hand, people don't have trans-dimensional reality dysfunctional grabbing abilities, even in epic tier, let alone in heroic.



> While you're proving that point, I'd urge you to heap on all the other combat world and battle map inconsistencies you can just to get all the BS out of the way at once.



Some of those problems are actually _solvable,_ such as, say, the grabbing rules.

We don't need perfection.  We just need to _strive_ for it, and that means fixing the problems we can fix, particularly those that are easy to fix.  It doesn't get much easier to fix than the rules concerning swarms; doing so won't screw pretty much any PC worth mentioning (unless you overuse swarms, that is), particularly if you're helpful and honest upfront about house-rules such as this.  If you feel melee & ranged characters are too weak in your campaign, you can compensate in other ways.

You could even remove the general grab and bull-rush rules from the game entirely without serious consequences; due to their poor attack scaling they become meaningless beyond the earliest levels anyhow.  However, I prefer to fix swarms, since that makes more sense and is closer to the root cause here.  Fixing grab and bullrush might be worth another house rule - if that's the kind of thing that matters to your group.


----------



## Aegeri (Sep 6, 2010)

> doing so won't screw pretty much any PC worth mentioning



You mean except for the brawler fighter whose complete class build breaks and is utterly useless? The problem with this logic is then why can he grab phasing creatures? How can he grab an amorphous ooze or a gelatinous cube? Once you begin bringing in exception based design, it's time to start applying it more or just admit you're doing it based on arbitrary preferences. Arbitrary preferences are an extremely poor way of making rules, as 3rd edition demonstrates so wonderfully for us (IMO).


----------



## Nytmare (Sep 6, 2010)

eamon said:


> Some of those problems are actually _solvable,_ such as, say, the grabbing rules.




Solvable is another forum.  This one is for rules as written, not _should_ be written.


----------



## Nichwee (Sep 6, 2010)

eamon said:


> It doesn't get much easier to fix than the rules concerning swarms; doing so won't screw pretty much any PC worth mentioning (unless you overuse swarms, that is), particularly if you're helpful and honest upfront about house-rules such as this.  If you feel melee & ranged characters are too weak in your campaign, you can compensate in other ways.
> 
> You could even remove the general grab and bull-rush rules from the game entirely without serious consequences; due to their poor attack scaling they become meaningless beyond the earliest levels anyhow.  However, I prefer to fix swarms, since that makes more sense and is closer to the root cause here.  Fixing grab and bullrush might be worth another house rule - if that's the kind of thing that matters to your group.




The first part of this quoted section suggests that Swarms don't happen enough for a change in rules to matter much - so why do they occur enough to require a change in rules?

Plus you seem to think that grabbing is something only done as part of the "generic grab" which is the type of grab an average jo-bag (or their dog) does, but it also crops up in fighter powers as a common and integral part of a given build type - if the PC is that kind of character he is the type to "be able to" _potentially_ grab a swarm - via arm swinging to suck in insects, constant sweeping up the swarm with his free hand or just spotting the ones that the others seem to be taking a cue from and restraining this handfull of them.

Summery:
Can you grab a swarm?
RAW = Yes.
RAI = I think so, considering they made swarms immune to some stuff but left grabbed off this list.

Does it make sense?
Not in real life but it makes as much sense as a lot of D&D does - i.e. It does if you dress it up right.

Does it need changing?
IMO, no. It isn't a big enough issue to warrent possibly unbalancing a player's build just to help with a bit of fluff-fitting. Especially as this is an example where Melee power sources can end up getting hosed by excessive use of "But how does that work?" while all other power sources often get a free pass. Thus I am loath to justify this thinking, save where it stops abusive play (which this certainly isn't).
YMMV.

Beyond this I think we have covered the issue from every angle and it is about time this thread died.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 7, 2010)

eamon said:


> This fluff is potentially reasonable.  However, for reasons discussed in a previous post which you haven't yet responded to, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.




The problem with this is that, as I said, your 'scrutiny' when applied to anything you do to a swarm, does not get applied.  In otherwords, your 'scrutiny' is applied to one thing while ignoring all the other things.

Here's my logic:



> As to there being any kind of "onus" on me to somehow resolve this dispute - that's just childish.  I have named several possible resolutions, one of which being to, you know, _not allow grabbing a swarm_.




Except your logic for doing so has itself failed scrutiny... your logic 'that grabbing the swarm doesn't make sense' when applied fairly, also disallows melee attacks, immobilizes, slows, restrains, dominates, stuns...

In other words, your scrutiny is being applied arbitrarily to one condition while allowing the rest to remain unchecked.

That is called 'inconsistant.'

The onus is on you to prove that it is not, because it's YOUR job to prove your point when presented with strong rebuttal.  It's not MY job to prove your argument for you.



> If anything, since I'm stating that there is to my knowledge no fluff that adequately explains how grabbing is possible yet forced movement is not, it would be rather much simpler for _you_ to find a counterexample that _does_ make sense.




And I have.  Numerous times.  Here it is in a nutshell:

Swarms are herds.  Immobilizing the alphas in a herd will ensure that the betas do not go along with it.  That's pretty simple.  The alphas decide where the herd goes, and they go there.

However, forcing an alpha to move out of the herd does not have the same response.  The herd still remains where it is, until the alphas decide on a new direction.  The betas follow the alpha, not an external player.  In order to move those betas, you require an effect that hits the entirety of the swarm, for the same reason that throwing a rock, no matter how big or important that rock is, is not the same thing as throwing a pile of rocks.

Controlling the alphas is a much simpler task than controlling all members of a swarm, and it is effective at what you want to do.

This has been explained before.



> Not that you'll be able to, since I'm almost positive such a fluff doesn't exist, but if you can find a fluff you'd be willing to use yourself that is consistent, feel free to post it.




Post it, yet again, you mean.



> If you say so, it must be true.  That's your argument with respect to grabbing swarms too, right?




Moving a swarm and preventing the motion of a swarm are simply not the same thing.  I don't understand how you have found correlation.  By your same logic, freezing something must be the same as burning it.

The fact is... things that are opposite to each other are not the same thing, and sometimes it is more possible to keep something still than it is to make something move... and vice versa.  There might exist monsters that are elementals of motion, that are immune to immobilization but where forced movemet works fine.  It makes sense because stopping something from moving, and making something move are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

The thing is, swarms are NOT immune to immobilization in any way shape or form.  Grabbing is an immobilization, it is not forced movement.  



> Not the same, but related.  Using your own example of swarm "alphas" - how would they be different, again?




No, they are NOT related.  They're not in the same ballpark.  They're not even in the same city.  One is forcing something to move, the other is the prevention of motion.  They are diametric opposite effects.  If you can't understand how 'move' is different from 'not move' then I don't know how to explain this.



> Not all PC's are epic tier; and all explanations you have so far put forward don't hold water.  It doesn't fit the fluff because there is no in-game mechanic or explanation for why this should be possible; yet it is a generic combat ability possessed by all.




There is an in-game mechanic.  It's called the Grab action, combined with Specific beats General.  In this case, no specific rule indicates that swarms are immune to grabs, or for that matter, any immobilization or restraining effects.  Nothing in any book printed in 3 years gives any indication that swarms can or should be immune to 'stay the hell put'.  

Does there need to be a special exemption for swarms to exist for you to believe that they are grabbable?  No.  That's not how the game is designed.  So to insist on that, of course you're going to be able to go 'Yeah, there's no in-game explanation!'

The truth is tho... out of every monster that is not immune to grabs, 100% of them have absolutely no rules explanation as to why they can be grabbed.  None.  Not one.  So, by your logic, no monster can be grabbed.

Extending that to the point of absurdity, look at the kobold minion!  It has text that says it takes no damage from misses!  I also don't see any text stating it takes normal damage from hits!  There's no in-game explanation why it should take damage from a hit!  Therefore it must be immune to attacks!

What you are asking the game to do is have a special exemption in cases where something is already stated to be perfectly legal.  Swarms do not need a special 'you can grab a swarm' rule, because it's already legally grabbable as a creature.  No special explanation is necessary in an exception-based design, because it's NOT special.  What you are asking of the game's ruleset is absurd.  It's just not possible, plausible, or even reasonable.



> My fantasy is internally consistent, insofar as I'm sane and willing to spend the effort to think about it.
> 
> I find that immersion into the story and the characters is greater and more interesting when I feel like the challenges they face are meaningful and solvable.  Out-of-the box solutions are more likely when people understand not just the numbers on their character sheet, but also how they translate to the game-world.




The problem here is that those numbers are not relating to the game world.  You've set an arbitrary limit on them for no other reason than some OTHER unrelated condition doesn't work on them.  So therefore you've illogically extended that to include other, unrelated conditions.

If I sit at your table, and I look at how my numbers translate into the game-world, I run into a wall of arbitrary limitation that isn't based on anything that I've said or done or roleplayed.. you've already said 'Nope, can't be done' before I've even announced my intention to translate my character's sheet into agency.

If I create a character who is a grabbing expert, unless your name is Anderson Silva, he knows more about it than you do.  I'll defer to HIS expertise over yours.



> The rules are a means to provide a consistent and fun gameplay experience, not an end.  The grabbing rules wrt swarms aren't critical to overal tactical enjoyment (grabbing is way to rare and tactically dubious for that) and aren't consistent, and as such they are means that are better avoided - i.e. don't use the rules as written for grabbing swarms.




Brawler Fighters, and Monks, disagree with you on this tactically dubious question.

In fact... an Avenger against an artillery monster with low reflexes pretty much loves the grab.

Tactically dubious?  Immobilizes with sustain minor are bad these days?  Who knew!


----------



## eamon (Sep 7, 2010)

*Nichwee: *My preferred house rule is to ban by default all single-target non-damaging effects on swarms.  An alternative house rule would be to simply remove their immunity to forced movement.

As to whether swarms are common enough to be worth bother house-ruling: well, it depends on how often you use them.  If you _never_ do, for instance, it's obviously not worth it.  If you only very rarely use them, removing their special forced movement protection may be preferable.  If you use them and find that the "swarm" distinction should be a defining characteristic, you could go whole hog and prevent all single-target effects.

I'm arguing about what the rules should have been all along; in practice simply not using borked bits of rules is just as practical; there's enough other creatures out there.

*Nytmare:* uhm, what?

*Aegeri:* Don't spring this house-rule as a surprise on a party including a Brawler.  I've yet to see a party with a brawler, and until now I've never included a house-rule without advance discussion and agreement by all players involved.  Also, in such a campaign, a brawler is still perfectly playable since swarms aren't that common, and note that other single-target powers are similarly tricky.  So, if a player still wants to play a brawler despite the swarm change, that's likely to work just fine.  Finally, I'd be quite happy to permit a magic item or feat to specifically address swarms, e.g. by turning some attacks into close attacks, or by specifically providing a means to hurt or hamper a swarm in other ways.

I'm really not out to get the players. If this is perceived as a major balance shift to the player's detriment, I'll find some other way to compensate; it's not that hard to do and in a previous post I suggested a few possible avenues one could explore to achieve that.

[sblock=In-the-why-do-I-bother-column]DracoSuave: you're simply ignoring  what I say at times and at other times presenting (then rebutting) arguments as mine  that I'm just not making.

The "alpha" fluff doesn't work because (a) not necessarily all swarms  follow that structure; using this interpretation would limit swarm mechanics to being applicable to swarms which have a very small number of leaders. A more fundamental issue is (b) because it's inconsistent with the  restriction on forced movement.  Your idea that moving the "alpha's" away doesn't move the swarm but holding them in place does immobilize the swarm is a neat idea, and is better than the previous fluff you proposed.  I'm still not satisfied with it, however; it doesn't explain what happens once you've moved the "alpha's" away.  The swarm only follows if alphas move voluntarily (itself a tricky concept) but what then - is a swarm that has been subject to forced movement which removed the alpha's leaderless?  Does it provoke CA?  Is it immobilized?  Can the individual alpha's be targeted outside of the swarm - i.e. what happens if for any reason they can't rejoin the swarm?  What happens when they die?

Your description of the tactical utility of grabs is so incompletely as to be worthless.  Describing a grab as a sustain minor immobilize is missing all the relevant bits.[/sblock]


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 8, 2010)

eamon said:


> *Nichwee: *My preferred house rule is to ban by default all single-target non-damaging effects on swarms.  An alternative house rule would be to simply remove their immunity to forced movement.



That's not so unreasonable. It sounds like a more even-handed  house rule, and serves to further underscore the role of the controller in dealing with swarms.  

Of course, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'non-damaging effects.'  Is the slow effect of Ray of Frost 'non damaging' because being Slowed doesn't do damage, or damaging because ray of frost inflicts damage, for instance?


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 8, 2010)

DracoSuave: you're simply ignoring what I say at times and at other times presenting (then rebutting) arguments as mine that I'm just not making.

The "alpha" fluff doesn't work because (a) not necessarily all swarms follow that structure;[/quote]

No, and just like how you have to refluff tripping when dealing with monsters with six legs, or oozes, or what-not, you have to tailor everything to each individual swarm.  Every attack in the game has to be tailored in this fashion because of the differences in each swarm.

You expect consistancy in the fluff for an attack, but this is impossible to do for even a melee basic attack, because the swarms -themselves- are inconsistant.

The line you require for fluff to qualify is impossible for -any- single target attack.  What you ask for is unreasonable and unrealistic.  The problem you're dealing with isn't the inconsistancy resultant from the fluff of a grab; the problem is, and always was, the inconsistancy resultant from the fluff of the swarm.  If inconsistancy is the reason to ban grabs, then you have only one logical conclusion:

Ban swarms.  That's the source of inconsistancy.



> using this interpretation would limit swarm mechanics to being applicable to swarms which have a very small number of leaders. A more fundamental issue is (b) because it's inconsistent with the restriction on forced movement.




I don't understand why you keep bringing up this point.  Grabs don't have to be consistant with forced movement.  I know I keep having to say this, but they aren't related.  Grabs are a form of immobilize.  Grabs are not forced movement-related.  They are related to immobilizes and restrains.

Not moving is the opposite of moving. 



> Your idea that moving the "alpha's" away doesn't move the swarm but holding them in place does immobilize the swarm is a neat idea, and is better than the previous fluff you proposed. I'm still not satisfied with it, however; it doesn't explain what happens once you've moved the "alpha's" away. The swarm only follows if alphas move voluntarily (itself a tricky concept) but what then - is a swarm that has been subject to forced movement which removed the alpha's leaderless?




No, it's a large swarm of angry animals.  Again, the forced movement of individual members does not affect the entire pile.



> Does it provoke CA?




No.  It's still a large swarm of angry animals.  The betas aren't suddenly not biting any more just because they're waiting that couple seconds for those alpha critters to return back.



> Is it immobilized?




No.  On its turn, there's more than enough time for the alphas to rejoin/direct the herd in another direction.  The individual components of the swarm move very quickly, it's only the collective that does not.



> Can the individual alpha's be targeted outside of the swarm - i.e. what happens if for any reason they can't rejoin the swarm?




Sure they can.  Attack the swarm as usual.  Given the fluff also includes that most single target attacks on the swarm are only effective when applied against alphas, then you already have a mechanical explanation for how to hit the alphas.



> What happens when they die?




The swarm dissipates.  That is what is happening when you destroy a swarm, you're not killing each and every individual creature, you're killing enough of the swarm that it 'loses steam' and goes away.  Killing the alphas of a swarm is more than enough fluff to describe the depletion of the swarm's hit points.



> Your description of the tactical utility of grabs is so incompletely as to be worthless. Describing a grab as a sustain minor immobilize is missing all the relevant bits.




Hi.  I'm a fighter.  My job is to keep things away from squishier combatants.  One way of doing so is with marks combined with Combat Challenge or Agility.  Those are pretty cool abilities. 

Or, I could execute a grab action, keeping one enemy adjacent to me.  Next turn, I can use a pull to bring in a second foe who needs less level of control, only using my minors to keep the first enemy adjacent.  Of course, he'll have to beat my Fortitude or Reflex defense in order to get free... if only fighters had a build (sword and board cough) that emphasized Strength and Dexterity (tempest cough)

Hi.  I'm an artillery monster.  I do high amounts of damage with my ranged attacks.  I like to move to positions, and my melee attacks are weak.  If there's an attack that a) immobilizes me, and b) keeps me at melee range, then that attack is pretty much going to ruin my day.  Oh and using an action to escape a grapple?  Well, that doesn't take me out of attack range unless I forgo my attack... and if my attacks are getting negated that's pretty much negating my contribution to the battle....

Hi.  I'm a rogue.  I don't like monsters that move around too much, cause it's harder for me to take them down through flanking.  Good thing my fighter friend has that guy grabbed!  He's not going anywhere for a while!  


Of course, yes, there is an action you can take with a grabbed creature that forces them to move... but you can't do that to swarms, and that's the -least- of the grab's tactical use.  The most important part of a grab is the fact it immobilizes a creature, and doesn't require a saving throw to maintain.  It's of primary use to defenders, for when it's more important to keep an enemy still than to do a round of damage.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 10, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> That's exactly what I am saying. Read my previous post. No fiction = no mechanics. Otherwise, you're just playing a boardgame.
> 
> If one of my players says, "I use my 'Grappling Strike' power to immobilize the swarm!"
> 
> ...




I'm coming a bit late to this and DS has said just about everything I would say other than this (which may have also been said and I missed it):  The players are NOT their characters.  Characters have abilities and skills that the players do not have and the reverse is also likely true that the players have skills and knowledge that the character does not have.  What you are doing here is asking the "player" to justify something that the "character" can do according to the games "rules".  Your phrasing here is basically "If you can't justify your characters abilities to my satisfaction within the fiction of the world then I am nerfing your character and ruling that your "characters" ability doesn't work.  While this may satisfy your need for "the fiction" (or whatever word/description you prefer here) it is a horrible use of DM fiat at the table and on the fly.  Later in the thread you changed your tune somewhat, but understand that this here is why so many came down on you so hard.



Odhanan said:


> So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is a mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this _specific_ move again? I'm sorry, but the rule vs. the explanation does not compute with me. I mean, it's not an unsurmontable leap to just forget about it and not care and just play the game, as I said earlier, but if you're not seeing the disconnect, then I don't know what to say.




I like to think of "The Karate Kid" when I think of martial encounter powers.  His use of "Crane Technique" in the final fight to win the match is something he could not have done more than once to a given opponent in a given fight because they would be looking for it from then on.  I agree with you that I have a harder time with Martial Dailies.  The real issue is that the people who seem to be irritated by this the most are prior 3.x players.  I demand that my game is fun and everything else sort of takes a back seat.  Trying to explain game mechanics is lowest on the list, because as a player I know why they are there.  If I can't accept a few outlier rules (like dailies) and gloss over them I'll play something different or if we really like everything else we'll try to house rule.  Ad lib DM fiat is a bad way to run a game.



P1NBACK said:


> Oh god, wherein he tries to define "roleplaying game"... Gimme a break. I can "roleplay" my banker in Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a roleplaying game? It has some rules and I'm playing a character...
> 
> No. Absolutely not.
> 
> ...




I think that what you're talking about varies from group to group.  Some groups (like mine) are more like roleplay, combat, roleplay, combat.  The combat isn't really role playing, but it does have an effect on "the fiction" or as some might say "the narrative".  It's part of a bigger picture where the party might be trying to save the princess from the local band of goblins.  I could probably invent a bunch of fictional story around this like how you met the prince or that the goblins are really working for the evil duke or other stuff like that and  how all the parties actions have "consequences" in "the fiction".  I'm not as concerned with "how did you swing your sword" as I am with "now that the goblins are dead you've garnered the (secret) hatred of the duke and a new BBEG.

Having re-read that a couple times I think what I'm getting at is at what "level" do you want your "fiction" to be?  Do you want the party to explain every sword thrust or spell they cast (that's not as interesting to me) or do you want to know what groups they pissed off when they killed the duke?

If I was to guess I'd say you're more simulationist in your leanings and I'm pretty sure I'm a mix of gamist/narrativist.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 10, 2010)

Well, we now know a rat swarm PC cannot be knocked prone. But still grabbed. 

I can see that. But it would be really gross. 


You may return to your regularly scheduled discussion.


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 11, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> I'm coming a bit late to this and DS has said just about everything I would say other than this (which may have also been said and I missed it):  The players are NOT their characters.  Characters have abilities and skills that the players do not have and the reverse is also likely true that the players have skills and knowledge that the character does not have.  What you are doing here is asking the "player" to justify something that the "character" can do according to the games "rules".




Hey CovertOps, nice of you to join. I quit this thread earlier because people were ignoring my posts (but we've taken it up again in the "4E realism" thread... lol, so ... I may be going insane  ) however, since you seem to be actually reading my posts and asking me questions, I'll respond to my best ability. 

I know the players aren't their characters. When I ask, "How do you do that?" I'm directing myself to the character, not the player. I often call my players by their character names. It's a habit. What I'm really asking is, "How does your character do that?" 

A player can justify their character's actions in any way they see fit. I just don't want to hear, "I use Thromgard's Spinning Assault." Or... Whatever. Why? For one, it doesn't do anything for me to note the effect and how it works. I don't have every power memorized, so I need to know as a DM what's happening in the fiction in order to respond correctly. Secondly, the circumstances will often depend on the fiction of how the actual mechanics are implemented in the game world. This is supremely important for skill checks (more so than combat attacks) and custom maneuvers (like you would adjudicate from page 42 of the DMG - which I suspect most of these "rules hardliners" have never and have no interest in using...). 

So, it's kind of important on a couple levels. Like I've said millions of times, I'm not going to disallow a power to function because of the "goodness" of the description. Just give me _any_ description. 



CovertOps said:


> Your phrasing here is basically "If you can't justify your characters abilities to my satisfaction within the fiction of the world then I am nerfing your character and ruling that your "characters" ability doesn't work.




Not at all. I'm saying, "If you want to use the Intimidate skill, have your character do something intimidating." That's about it.  



CovertOps said:


> While this may satisfy your need for "the fiction" (or whatever word/description you prefer here) it is a horrible use of DM fiat at the table and on the fly.




There's no DM fiat here. There are mechanics and fiction coinciding. You can say, "I bluff him" all day. But, how do I know what the NPC says in response if you don't tell me what your character says? Does the player have to be convincing? Not at all. That's what the dice are for. But, does the player have to describe their character saying or doing something to invoke the mechanic? Of course! 

That's not DM fiat. That's called roleplaying. 



CovertOps said:


> Later in the thread you changed your tune somewhat, but understand that this here is why so many came down on you so hard.




I never changed my tune, although I did try to clarify my position (and continue to do...). Many people, yourself included, have made rash conclusions based on my simple statement of "to do it mechanically, do it fictionally" - as if these mechanics aren't _supposed _to be adjudicating the fiction... 

What do you do if a player says, "I run up to him and sweep his legs from underneath him, tripping him!" 

You don't say, "Sorry! You can't do that! It's not a power you have!" 

You say, "Sure! Do you have a mechanical power that does that? If not, let's do a custom move using page 42! If so, roll the dice for me!" 

It's the opposite if someone says to me, "Hey, I use Lion's Tail Sweep." 

I say, "Awesome! How do you do that?" 

"I run up to him and sweep his legs from underneath him, tripping him!" 

Same thing. 



CovertOps said:


> I think that what you're talking about varies from group to group.  Some groups (like mine) are more like roleplay, combat, roleplay, combat.  The combat isn't really role playing, but it does have an effect on "the fiction" or as some might say "the narrative".




Sure. Of course different groups have varying levels of narrative in there. 4th Edition is definitely a "Step On Up" game, designed for player's to overcome challenges with their characters. That's a HUGE part of the game. However, you can play a board game with that effect too. To get it into that roleplaying territory, you need those extra bits of fiction and consequences.



CovertOps said:


> It's part of a bigger picture where the party might be trying to save the princess from the local band of goblins.  I could probably invent a bunch of fictional story around this like how you met the prince or that the goblins are really working for the evil duke or other stuff like that and  how all the parties actions have "consequences" in "the fiction".  I'm not as concerned with "how did you swing your sword" as I am with "now that the goblins are dead you've garnered the (secret) hatred of the duke and a new BBEG.




Yeah. See, that's where you're missing me. I agree with all of that. And, "I swing my sword" is fiction. "I use Twin Strike" is not. You feel me? 

On the one hand, you have the player describing a fictional action his character is taking. On the other, you have the player describing a power on his sheet. Know what I mean? 

"I swing both my swords at the kobold!" 

Fiction. 

"I use Twin Strike on the kobold!" 

Mechanic. 

I'd just rather hear "swing both my swords" than "twin strike". It means less work for me as a DM as I try to think up the responding description. 



CovertOps said:


> Having re-read that a couple times I think what I'm getting at is at what "level" do you want your "fiction" to be?  Do you want the party to explain every sword thrust or spell they cast (that's not as interesting to me) or do you want to know what groups they pissed off when they killed the duke?




I agree. Sometimes, you may just want to say, "Twin Strike!" and roll dice. I'd rather you say, "I drive both swords into him!" and roll dice. Obviously, it's up to the group preference. But, I don't think it's as evil as people are making it out to be to ask for some fiction. 



CovertOps said:


> If I was to guess I'd say you're more simulationist in your leanings and I'm pretty sure I'm a mix of gamist/narrativist.




I don't classify myself. I strive for different creative agendas depending on the game I'm playing. If I'm doing 4E, I love gamist Step On Up play. If I'm doing Dogs in the Vineyard or Apocalypse World or Sorcerer, I love me some narrativist Story Now play. I don't think I've ever once played a "simulationist" game as far as I understand simulationist. 

However, in all those games, I'm interested in the fiction. Having one creative agenda doesn't mean you prefer fiction over the other.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 11, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> I know the players aren't their characters. When I ask, "How do you do that?" I'm directing myself to the character, not the player. I often call my players by their character names. It's a habit. What I'm really asking is, "How does your character do that?"
> 
> A player can justify their character's actions in any way they see fit. I just don't want to hear, "I use Thromgard's Spinning Assault." Or... Whatever. Why? For one, it doesn't do anything for me to note the effect and how it works. I don't have every power memorized, so I need to know as a DM what's happening in the fiction in order to respond correctly. Secondly, the circumstances will often depend on the fiction of how the actual mechanics are implemented in the game world. This is supremely important for skill checks (more so than combat attacks) and custom maneuvers (like you would adjudicate from page 42 of the DMG - which I suspect most of these "rules hardliners" have never and have no interest in using...).




One reason I like to hear "I use Twin-Strike" more than "I hit it with both my swords" is because then there is no question what mechanical effect the player is doing.  It's sad that I have to do that for the 1-2 players at my table who do stuff like...I rolled 20...sweet....umm...I was using my daily...yeah that's the ticket.  Now I'm not trying to imply that every table has these kinds of players, but when the player says "I hit it with both my swords" it could me "I Twin Strike" or it could mean quite a few other powers that they have to choose from that allow the player to "hit it with both swords".  It removes a layer of ambiguity.



P1NBACK said:


> So, it's kind of important on a couple levels. Like I've said millions of times, I'm not going to disallow a power to function because of the "goodness" of the description. Just give me _any_ description.




This here is the first time I've seen you make a comment like this.  Your other posts have been of the form..."if you don't justify it in the fiction then it doesn't work".  That reads as pure DM fiat and this is what I've been trying to point out, but you're not seeing it.



P1NBACK said:


> Not at all. I'm saying, "If you want to use the Intimidate skill, have your character do something intimidating." That's about it.
> 
> There's no DM fiat here. There are mechanics and fiction coinciding. You can say, "I bluff him" all day. But, how do I know what the NPC says in response if you don't tell me what your character says? Does the player have to be convincing? Not at all. That's what the dice are for. But, does the player have to describe their character saying or doing something to invoke the mechanic? Of course!
> 
> That's not DM fiat. That's called roleplaying.




I was never talking about skill usage.  Only powers where there is a clear mechanical effect.  Where (as some are annoyed by this part of 4e) the effect drives the fiction and sometimes you have to "refluff".



P1NBACK said:


> I never changed my tune, although I did try to clarify my position (and continue to do...). Many people, yourself included, have made rash conclusions based on my simple statement of "to do it mechanically, do it fictionally" - as if these mechanics aren't _supposed _to be adjudicating the fiction...
> 
> What do you do if a player says, "I run up to him and sweep his legs from underneath him, tripping him!"
> 
> ...



Here here....pg 42 FTW!



P1NBACK said:


> Sure. Of course different groups have varying levels of narrative in there. 4th Edition is definitely a "Step On Up" game, designed for player's to overcome challenges with their characters. That's a HUGE part of the game. However, you can play a board game with that effect too. To get it into that roleplaying territory, you need those extra bits of fiction and consequences.
> 
> Yeah. See, that's where you're missing me. I agree with all of that. And, "I swing my sword" is fiction. "I use Twin Strike" is not. You feel me?




First, I'm so glad I know what "You feel me" means.   When the player says "I use Twin Strike" it is the same as saying "I swing both my swords" (or in the case of the archer "I shoot him twice")


P1NBACK said:


> On the one hand, you have the player describing a fictional action his character is taking. On the other, you have the player describing a power on his sheet. Know what I mean?
> 
> "I swing both my swords at the kobold!"
> 
> ...




I pretty much covered this above.


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 12, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> One reason I like to hear "I use Twin-Strike" more than "I hit it with both my swords" is because then there is no question what mechanical effect the player is doing.  It's sad that I have to do that for the 1-2 players at my table who do stuff like...I rolled 20...sweet....umm...I was using my daily...yeah that's the ticket.
> 
> Now I'm not trying to imply that every table has these kinds of players, but when the player says "I hit it with both my swords" it could me "I Twin Strike" or it could mean quite a few other powers that they have to choose from that allow the player to "hit it with both swords".  It removes a layer of ambiguity.




I just let my players tell me what happens. I don't memorize every  power, so I assume if they tell me, "Yeah, I run up and sweep his legs.  Does 25 hit? Well, it does 15 damage and he falls down." Well, then that's what their power does. 

I don't say, "Well, what's that power name? Is that an encounter or  daily?" Etc... I just don't care. I trust my players to track all that  stuff, just like I trust them to track all of their surges and HP. 



CovertOps said:


> This here is the first time I've seen you make a comment like this.  Your other posts have been of the form..."if you don't justify it in the fiction then it doesn't work".  That reads as pure DM fiat and this is what I've been trying to point out, but you're not seeing it.




Nah. That's what I have been saying since post 1 on page 3. I think people are getting "justify" in their brains and getting all out of whack and having hernias about whack-job tyrannical DMs or something. It's a gross overreaction. 

When I say justify, I mean, "say how you do it." 

That's it. So, in order to use a power/skill/etc... you have to say how you do it. If you want to Bluff someone, you have to say how you bluff them, not just "I bluff them." (And, because I know someone will try to pull this argument out again for the hundredth time, no _you don't have to bluff me_, you just have to _say how your character bluffs the NPC_. It has nothing to do with "player skill" or whatever.)



CovertOps said:


> I was never talking about skill usage.  Only powers where there is a clear mechanical effect.  Where (as some are annoyed by this part of 4e) the effect drives the fiction and sometimes you have to "refluff".




I agree. The effect can drive the fiction, or vice versa. But there are to BE fiction. End of story. 



CovertOps said:


> Here here....pg 42 FTW!




I'm glad someone agrees. 



CovertOps said:


> First, I'm so glad I know what "You feel me" means.   When the player says "I use Twin Strike" it is the same as saying "I swing both my swords" (or in the case of the archer "I shoot him twice")




No, it's not the same. Again, "I use Twin Strike" is a _player-action_. And, "Legolas fires two arrows at the orc" is a _character-action_. 

What it sounds like to me is people "skip" the _character-action_ part of the equation - and that sounds boring to me (and I think this is why skill challenges fall flat the way they are written and the way people use them).

Instead, I'd rather skip the _player-action_. 

To each his own. 

Now, way, way back in this thread I said I can see how people would do that because 4E's combat mechanics are somewhat divorced from the fiction. It's a flaw of 4E. But, I'm still going to strive for that fiction, otherwise I might as well play D&D Minis with a "backdrop" for saving a princess or whatever.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> A player can justify their character's actions in any way they see fit. I just don't want to hear, "I use Thromgard's Spinning Assault." Or... Whatever. Why? For one, it doesn't do anything for me to note the effect and how it works. I don't have every power memorized, so I need to know as a DM what's happening in the fiction in order to respond correctly.



What?  Are you just freestyling it?  You don't want to hear what power a character is using?  How are you supposed to DM if you have to guess at what your players are doing based on IC descriptions?


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 12, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> What?  Are you just freestyling it?  You don't want to hear what power a character is using?  How are you supposed to DM if you have to guess at what your players are doing based on IC descriptions?




Did you even read my posts? The _name_ of the power is irrelevant. It does nothing for me to determine the effect of the power mechanically, or fictionally. 

I'd rather hear the description of the action in the fiction (I try to push him), and its effects at the table (he is shoved back 1 square). I don't care that that attack is called "Bull Rush".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> The _name_ of the power is irrelevant. It does nothing for me to determine the effect of the power mechanically, or fictionally.



Really?  Hm.  I find that the names are usually fairly evocative of what they do, and that they become quite familiar in the course of a campaign.  I guess if you run a lot one-offs with different characters each time, the latter wouldn't be the case.  But, really, the names of the powers are the system (almost unique) identifiers - I know there's a /lot/ of 'em, but having at least a vague idea of what the powers of the PCs you're running for at the moment are shouldn't be too tough.


----------



## nookiemonster (Sep 13, 2010)

Having actually played a brawling fighter that encountered a swarm (the Mul in Dark Sun Encounters), I feel that this is all a storm in a teacup. Sure, the Mul _could_ have grabbed the damn swarm, but it had a damaging aura, which made that a pretty stupid idea. It doesn't make sense that a humanoid could grab a swarm of rats or bugs. It also doesn't make any tactical sense _for_ the humanoid to do that, in many cases, so it balances out. 

I mean, if you want to argue about common sense, it's possible for a small-sized creature (say, a halfling fighter) to grab a gargantuan creature and move it around. You could argue, "Well, it's all about which part you grab!", but even so, it makes little sense.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 13, 2010)

nookiemonster said:


> Having actually played a brawling fighter that encountered a swarm (the Mul in Dark Sun Encounters), I feel that this is all a storm in a teacup. Sure, the Mul _could_ have grabbed the damn swarm, but it had a damaging aura, which made that a pretty stupid idea. It doesn't make sense that a humanoid could grab a swarm of rats or bugs. It also doesn't make any tactical sense _for_ the humanoid to do that, in many cases, so it balances out.
> 
> I mean, if you want to argue about common sense, it's possible for a small-sized creature (say, a halfling fighter) to grab a gargantuan creature and move it around. You could argue, "Well, it's all about which part you grab!", but even so, it makes little sense.




I think someone a couple pages back had a CS response or FAQ or something that said that powers that allow you to "grab" still have to follow the normal rules for grab (ie no more than 2 sizes larger) so a Halfling could grab something of size Large or smaller and that's it.


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 13, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> I think someone a couple pages back had a CS response or FAQ or something that said that powers that allow you to "grab" still have to follow the normal rules for grab (ie no more than 2 sizes larger) so a Halfling could grab something of size Large or smaller and that's it.




I emailed WotC CS because Aegeri vehemently claimed that those of us who followed the normal rules for the Grab attack on powers that allowed you to "grab the target" were, in his words, "confused" on the way it worked. 

It turns out, he was confused. 

Grab states, "You can attempt to grab a creature that is smaller than you, the same size category as you, or one category larger than you."

A halfling is small. So, by RAW, they can _*only grab a medium creature*_ at the largest. They cannot grab a large or huge or gargantuan creature (unless, imo, the fiction dictated it).


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 13, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Really?  Hm.  I find that the names are usually fairly evocative of what they do, and that they become quite familiar in the course of a campaign.  I guess if you run a lot one-offs with different characters each time, the latter wouldn't be the case.  But, really, the names of the powers are the system (almost unique) identifiers - I know there's a /lot/ of 'em, but having at least a vague idea of what the powers of the PCs you're running for at the moment are shouldn't be too tough.



I'm with P1NBACK, here. I really cannot be bothered to memorize the bazillion names of powers my players are using. Note that I've been pretty lax about retraining when we started playing. If they didn't like a power, I allowed them to switch any number of them after an extended rest.

I also actually approve if they describe their actions in their own words followed by the mechanical effects. It adds a tiny bit of roleplaying to what would otherwise be just an exercise in rolling dice. Reskinning powers and making them your own is fun!


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 14, 2010)

It's damn impossible to quote someone from an XP comment.  But yes P1NBACK I am also very lax about that.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 14, 2010)

GM:  There is a giant pile of snakes in the town.  They are threatening the locals.  Your character has been given the quest to get rid of the snakes from the town for 15gp.

Player (Playing St. Patrick the Human Bard):  How many snakes?

GM:  I dunno...hundreds.  Lets just say these 9 squares are a huge hoard of snakes...a swarm.

Player:  So, there is a Huge snake swarm, right?

GM: Sure

Player:  OK...I want to grab the snakes.

GM:  What???  That's ridiculous!!!  You can't grab a swarm.

Player:  Well, I am not actually grabbing the snakes with my hands...I am playing a ditty on my flute and the snakes are sorta hypnotized.  This makes them immobilized, right?

GM:  OK, I guess, sure.  Roll.

Player:  Cool, I got a 20, so I think I have the swarm immobilized...now I want to lead it off a cliff.

GM:  OK, now thats just sorta cheating...I let you "grab" them but now you want to actually pick up and move the snakes?

Player:  Not pick them up, no.  I just want to make Grab checks each round and move the snakes slowly towards the cliff edge.  I figure i'm slowly retreating towards the cliff edge and the snakes are following me hypnotized.

GM:  Sweet...Awesome job St. Patrick.  The 15gp and sainthood are yours!

DS


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm with P1NBACK, here. I really cannot be bothered to memorize the bazillion names of powers my players are using.



A 1st level character has 2 at-wills, an encounter and a daily.  That's 4 powers.  Times 5 players is 20.  They use those 20 powers for 13 encounters before they each add a utility.  I'd think that in 13 encounters - about a month of weekly play - you couldn't help but become familiar with those 20 powers, or, at least, the ones that get the most use.  Certainly, I found myself becoming quite familiar with most of my fellow players' powers in a campaign running from 1st-11th, and that was with 6 characters besides my Warlord.  

Of course, if you're running a different set of characters every week, or starting at higher level, or playing two or three campaigns concurrently, I could certainly see a lot of potential for confusion and power-overload...


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 15, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Certainly, I found myself becoming quite familiar with most of my fellow players' powers in a campaign running from 1st-11th, and that was with 6 characters besides my Warlord.




Do remember that in addition to those 20 powers you mention...the players probably all have one item power and one racial power each.

And, also, during that experience level you probably fought 12-20 different monsters that all had multiple powers as well.

As a GM...you really DON'T get too familiar with all the players powers.  You are too busy trying to keep your monsters powers straight during each battle.

DS


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 15, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Of course, if you're running a different set of characters every week, or starting at higher level, or playing two or three campaigns concurrently, I could certainly see a lot of potential for confusion and power-overload...




For a several months, I was running a West Marches style 4E game with up to 11 different players at a time, some of which had multiple characters.


----------



## vic20 (Sep 16, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> For a several months, I was running a West Marches style 4E game with up to 11 different players at a time, some of which had multiple characters.




How many rounds of combat did you end up getting through?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> I emailed WotC CS because Aegeri vehemently claimed that those of us who followed the normal rules for the Grab attack on powers that allowed you to "grab the target" were, in his words, "confused" on the way it worked.



Unfortunately, Customer Service isn't a very good source for rules questions.  Alas, they aren't given much support.  They are given a database of rules and commonly asked questions.  Otherwise, they are just people like you or me reading the descriptions from their copy of the PHB and interpreting the same as everyone else.

Even Living Forgotten Realms stopped allowed Customer Service to be a Primary Rules Source.  In other words, if your DM and Customer Service disagree on how a rule should work at an official LFR event, the DM wins.  This is because even WOTC doesn't have a huge amount of faith in their responses.

I've gotten all sorts of weird answers from them before.  One even told me that shifting still provoked opportunity attacks.



P1NBACK said:


> Grab states, "You can attempt to grab a creature that is smaller than you, the same size category as you, or one category larger than you."



That's what the PHB entry on Grab says.  It's likely that Customer Service isn't reading from the Rules Compendium yet, which has a much clearer entry on grab.  WOTC has said that one of the primary reasons for printing the Rules Compendium was to clarify rules that were too easily misread.  This appears to be one of them.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2010)

nookiemonster said:


> Having actually played a brawling fighter that encountered a swarm (the Mul in Dark Sun Encounters), I feel that this is all a storm in a teacup. Sure, the Mul _could_ have grabbed the damn swarm, but it had a damaging aura, which made that a pretty stupid idea. It doesn't make sense that a humanoid could grab a swarm of rats or bugs. It also doesn't make any tactical sense _for_ the humanoid to do that, in many cases, so it balances out.



I played that same encounter.  It made perfect tactical sense for me.  If I could grab it, then i was the ONLY one in the damaging aura, not any of my allies.  Since I wasn't able to grab it, it often moved to a location where it caught 2 or 3 of us in the aura.  And almost every round, it would move away from me before attacking anyone else so that I couldn't get my fighter attack in.

If it had worked like I wanted to, the fight would have been significantly easier.  Instead, we barely survived.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 16, 2010)

Sabathius42 said:


> snip




And still this is page 42, not gabbing.

You can use the rules for grab as a guideline and allow the bard to make charisma vs will checks instead of strength vs. reflex...

Actually when i think about that, grab should not be a hard and fast rule, but should instead be a fitting ability check vs an appropriate defense... rule 42 ftw.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 16, 2010)

Sabathius42 said:


> Do remember that in addition to those 20 powers you mention...the players probably all have one item power and one racial power each.
> 
> And, also, during that experience level you probably fought 12-20 different monsters that all had multiple powers as well.
> 
> ...




And as a player I found it difficult to keep track of all of our Ranger's powers that sounded similar; Thunder Tusk Boar Bear Claw Cunning Evasion of Doom.


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 16, 2010)

vic20 said:


> How many rounds of combat did you end up getting through?




They didn't all play at the same time. We'd do parties of 4-5 and rotate players in. We played 1-3 times per week. Players would "party-up" with other characters in their same level range (1-4, 2-5, 3-6, 4-7, etc...). When you reached 5th level you got a second character. 

It was a persistent sandbox. So if one party did something, it had a lasting effect on the other characters. 

I would run a West Marches style game again, but not with 4th Edition. The combat just lasts too long.


----------



## vic20 (Sep 16, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> They didn't all play at the same time. We'd do parties of 4-5 and rotate players in. We played 1-3 times per week. Players would "party-up" with other characters in their same level range (1-4, 2-5, 3-6, 4-7, etc...). When you reached 5th level you got a second character.
> 
> It was a persistent sandbox. So if one party did something, it had a lasting effect on the other characters.
> 
> I would run a West Marches style game again, but not with 4th Edition. The combat just lasts too long.




That sounds like a ton of fun!


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 16, 2010)

vic20 said:


> That sounds like a ton of fun!




It was! We even had a forum set up for "in-character" town banter. One character, a kobold paladin of bahamut, actually organized a party to defeat this red dragon who had a group of kobolds following him. The kobolds that remained were converted (during a skill challenge we roleplayed on the forums) and basically became a new settlement dedicated to bahamut. 

But, man, after like 4-5 months of DMing 1-3 times per week, I got SUPER burnt out. 

Now, I just DM a monthly Dark Sun campaign and play in an Apocalypse World game.


----------

