# How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition



## Hexmage-EN

Fourth Edition had gotten rid of almost all the problems that had been plaguing me during Third Edition. However, there was one new problem that marred my enjoyment of the new game and still bugs me to this day: the removal of utility magic. I had been hoping that Arcane Power would introduce elements that would relieve my discontentment, but after taking some time to look through it in the store tody I found that it did no such thing. 

In Third Edition martial characters had a few options: Attack, Full Attack, Charge and Bullrush, Disarm, Trip, Sunder, and a few class features (Rage for the Barbarian, Sneak Attack for the Rogue, etc.). By contrast spellcasters, especially arcane spellcasters, got a few spells at first level with different types of applications. Spellcasters were the "glass cannons" that the martial characters protected at low levels. By the time the party reached high levels the martial characters were merely tag-alongs that followed the unstoppable god-kings that were the spellcasters. Not only did the spellcasters' offensive capabilities render the martial characters nearly useless in combat, but various other spells could render the out-of-combat specialties of non-spellcasters useless. There were various other problems as well, such as the amount of time it would take to resolve the effects of spells.

Come Fourth Edition every class received a similar number of powers. Martial characters finally have more to do during combat and are on even-footing with spellcasters, and that's fanastic. However, I can't help but feel disappointed somewhat. Sure, Third Edition spellcasters were far too powerful compared to their companions in the party, but with Fourth Edition I feel like the designers have gone a smidgen too far in the opposite direction. I feel like their capability in combat is where it should be, but I can't help but miss the types of spells that could be used in creative, novel ways. 

I think a big part of the problem I've having stems from the fact that Third Edition suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder. Dungeons and Dragons to me is about teams of fantasy-archetype characters doing battle with the forces of evil. Despite this the game has included types of spells that can be used for applications other than combat. The reason for this is because the game was also meant to be a simulation of fantasy media. In my opinion this may have been an error in terms of game balance: It's strange when a game of team-based combat has certain party members whose capabilities are far greater than his peers. However, it's consistent with fantasy media for spellcasters to have such great power. After all, whom is more impressive: A dark champion of great martial prowess who can defeat thousands of oncoming soldiers by himself, or an archwizard who can stand on top of the tower he had built in a day by bound elementals and cause an entire army to turn to stone with a wish? Which one of these two is more likely to be the villain of a campaign and which is more likely to be his subordinate?

Fourth Edition finally decided to break tradition and focused on the game's core concept: teams of fantasy-archetypes killing monsters and looting treasure. The designers essentially shucked off many of the simulationist elements of Dungeons and Dragons (especially non-combat spells) in order to make a more gamist system. I don't think this is a negative thing: it makes sense that a game, especially one centering on combat, would be designed with a gamist philosophy.

Where does that leave me, though? I miss the unique and creative non-combat spells, but at the same time I recognize that they caused more harm than good to the game as a whole. I'm not sure what I could do to satisfy my craving for more magic, but then again maybe I'm putting too much importance on versatile magic in the first place.


----------



## Kask

Hmm.  Well I bought it and our group tried it.  The consensus was that magic that had been with D&D MUs since the beginning was toast and all classes were now "MUs".  We decided to drop 4.0 except as something to play when we occasionally got burned out playing D&D.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

4th Edition Combat Magic does not include all magic.  Rituals add most of what you seem to be missing.


----------



## fanboy2000

I think that you are placing the right amount of importance on non-combat magic. I think, however, you are forgetting a few things about 4th. 

Prestidigitation: The best thing, flavor wise, about wizards in 4th is that Prestidigitation is an at-will power. I know a guy who, after every combat, uses Prestidigitation to clean his clothes. Tea cold? Prestidigitation. Table at the Inn dirty? Prestidigitation. Want to impress some peasant with magic? Prestidigitation. 

Rituals: You haven't forgotten about the new home of _Raise Dead, Shadow Walk, Passwall, Comprehend Language, Traveler's Feast_, have you? 

Utility Powers: The home of _Dimension Door, Spectral Hound_, and that paragon of non-combat spells: _Mordenkainen's Mansion_.

All 4th did was take the non-combat spells and divide them up among new categories.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Charwoman Gene said:


> 4th Edition Combat Magic does not include all magic.  Rituals add most of what you seem to be missing.



This,

To the OP: If you have a 3e spell that you want to re-introduce it make it a ritual and if you are not too bothered about balance then shorten the casting times of the rituals to rounds and minutes. This would make some of them avialable in combat, although with considerable risk of interruption. 
I know there is no concentration but you could use endurance or even attacks against the caster's will defense in conbination with the 3e or earlier concentration rules adapted to what ever mechanism you choose.


----------



## Cadfan

Its hard for me to comment without knowing which spells you considered important "utility" spells.  

Some of the spells you might call "utility" I really liked.  Some of them are rituals now.  Some I really hated.  Some I think destroyed the creativity that everyone attributes to them by rendering actually creative solutions irrelevant in comparison with spells that functioned as victory buttons.  None of it really affected my view of the game as simulationist or non simulationist, since other than a little bit in Eberron, magic never seemed to be taken to logical conclusions.


----------



## Mallus

Put it this way, 3.5e style magic was very important in our long-running 3.5e campaign. There was a _lot_ of creative, if not full-on insane magic used to solve problems in that game, despite my initial (and foolish) notion of running a lower-magic game.

But our new 4e campaign gets on fine without it. We still find creative, if not full-on insane, solutions to problems. But they don't all originate from the fellow with the pointy hat...


----------



## alleynbard

Did you happen to see the response I gave in that previous thread?  It follows pretty much everything that has already been said but, here it is:



alleynbard said:


> I was the same way at first.  I really struggled with this. I am not going to lie, it took a fundamental shift in the way I thought about these classes before it clicked.
> 
> The one way to preserve caster flexibility is through rituals.  I know it is not a perfect fix, but it is a pretty good one. While anyone can become a ritual caster the spell casting classes get it for free.  Wizards even gain bonus rituals starting at 5th level.
> 
> It took me a while to convince my players that they should be using their rituals.  But now we get at least one Tenser's Floating Disk every session.  I can't wait to see Amanuesis (which is essentially the old Scribe spell) in action.
> 
> I am encouraging the use of rituals by giving out a few rituals for free, mostly through enemy ritual books.  I stray slightly outside the wealth guidelines to make it happen, but that is a trade-off I am willing to make.  I do make sure I read each ritual carefully before I place it in a treasure hoard.
> 
> Some of this tactic is to just get the players used to the idea of rituals.  Once that is achieved I think they will see, and I will see, that wizards (and other spellcasters) can still be remarkably flexible classes without being overpowering.  Kind of the "first hit is free" tactic that I hope will encourage ritual purchasing in the future.




Or was this not what you were looking for?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

fanboy2000 said:


> Prestidigitation: The best thing, flavor wise, about wizards in 4th is that Prestidigitation is an at-will power. I know a guy who, after every combat, uses Prestidigitation to clean his clothes. Tea cold? Prestidigitation. Table at the Inn dirty? Prestidigitation. Want to impress some peasant with magic? Prestidigitation.




Sounds fantastic. 

And that's just four examples. 

Really, the fun is only limited by your ability to think up creative new ways to use this one spell.


----------



## alleynbard

Some of the utility powers might also be more easily used outside of combat, depending on the power and the situation.

Arcane Power brought back a ton of the old spells in the form of utility and attack powers.


----------



## alleynbard

fanboy2000 said:


> Prestidigitation: The best thing, flavor wise, about wizards in 4th is that Prestidigitation is an at-will power. I know a guy who, after every combat, uses Prestidigitation to clean his clothes. Tea cold? Prestidigitation. Table at the Inn dirty? Prestidigitation. Want to impress some peasant with magic? Prestidigitation.




Great stuff.


----------



## GlassJaw

fanboy2000 said:


> Prestidigitation: The best thing, flavor wise, about wizards in 4th is that Prestidigitation is an at-will power. I know a guy who, after every combat, uses Prestidigitation to clean his clothes. Tea cold? Prestidigitation. Table at the Inn dirty? Prestidigitation. Want to impress some peasant with magic? Prestidigitation.




Wow!  That's awesome.  I never realized that.  I _definitely _want to play 4E now.

Seriously though.  Why can't I do this in 3ed?  Because it's not at-will?


----------



## alleynbard

GlassJaw said:


> Wow!  That's awesome.  I never realized that.  I _definitely _want to play 4E now.
> 
> Seriously though.  Why can't I do this in 3ed?  Because it's not at-will?




Who said you can't do that in 3e?  No one did.  That isn't even what this thread is about.

Or am I misinterpreting your snark?


----------



## Aus_Snow

GlassJaw said:


> Wow!  That's awesome.  I never realized that.  I _definitely _want to play 4E now.
> 
> Seriously though.  Why can't I do this in 3ed?  Because it's not at-will?



You can in Pathfinder (or at least in the Beta, you can. . .) because yeah, it's an at-will. Assuming you know it, and - if applicable - have prepared it that day.


----------



## GlassJaw

alleynbard said:


> Who said you can't do that in 3e?  No one did.  That isn't even what this thread is about.
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting your snark?




I just don't see why at-will powers/spells suddenly add a ton of flavor.  The OP implies that at-will powers add flavor to the classes that 3ed doesn't.  I just don't buy it is all.


----------



## alleynbard

Aus_Snow said:


> You can in Pathfinder (or at least in the Beta, you can. . .) because yeah, it's an at-will. Assuming you know it, and - if applicable - have prepared it that day.




I was really happy when I saw that in Pathfinder. I thought it was a great development.  I hope it stays in the final version.


----------



## NewJeffCT

As an aside - I have not found a huge disparity in class powers in 3.5 and my campaign is hitting 13th level now.  The party's dwarf fighter is still the most deadly on a per round basis, as there is no save vs his axe swings, while an arcane spell like Disintergrate offers a save and many foes have magic resistance, while the dwarf's axe is also powerful enough to overcome most DR.

I thought there was a far bigger class power disparity in 1E and 2E in comparison.


----------



## alleynbard

GlassJaw said:


> I just don't see why at-will powers/spells suddenly add a ton of flavor.  The OP implies that at-will powers add flavor to the classes that 3ed doesn't.  I just don't buy it is all.




What are you talking about?

He says he enjoys 4e but has reluctance about the magic system not being as flexible. We are trying to show him where the flexibility is in the new rules system.

One response dealt with one at-will power, prestidigitation.

No one is saying 4e is superior.  Some of us (including the OP) do not like 3e all that much. But I don't think it is somehow inferior, just not for me.  I think the OP is primarily talking from personal preference when he says 4e fixes some of his issues.

He prefers 4e and is looking for advice and thoughts about how to deal with that his issue. Why is that an issue for you?


----------



## NewJeffCT

As an aside - I have not found a huge disparity in class powers in 3.5 and my campaign is hitting 13th level now.  The party's dwarf fighter is still the most deadly on a per round basis, as there is no save vs his axe swings, while an arcane spell like Disintergrate offers a save and many foes have magic resistance, while the dwarf's axe is also powerful enough to overcome most DR.

I thought there was a far bigger class power disparity in 1E and 2E in comparison.


----------



## ThirdWizard

GlassJaw said:


> I just don't see why at-will powers/spells suddenly add a ton of flavor.  The OP implies that at-will powers add flavor to the classes that 3ed doesn't.  I just don't buy it is all.




Just because someone thinks something is fun in 4e doesn't mean they think it isn't in 3e. You're making a false dichotomy here that is a straw man.


----------



## Aus_Snow

alleynbard said:


> I was really happy when I saw that in Pathfinder. I thought it was a great development.  I hope it stays in the final version.



Same here, on both counts! All three counts even, for lo, I cannot count.

For me, with regards to 3e, it strikes the perfect balance between standard issue and something like Reserve Feat craziness (no offence implied or intended to those who like reserve feats, and so forth). Also, it works for *my* 'genre sense', or whatever the right term is to go there. Something vastly more important to me than fashion sense, but not the be all end all, let's just say.  Anyway, yes, if they don't keep it in the print version, I'll have to kill them and take their stuff. Which would be kinda neat (the company, I mean. . .)


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Count me as another who never saw the big horrible disparity in 3.5.


----------



## alleynbard

ProfessorCirno said:


> Count me as another who never saw the big horrible disparity in 3.5.




I saw it a great deal at the end of my Ptolus campaign. But I am willing to admit some of that might be group oriented rather than just the rule system.  My wizard/druid/arcane hierophant and rogue were really effective compared to the knight and the favored soul/fighter/risen matyr.  So there you go. 

But then, the disparity was not the reason I switched to 4e when it came out.


----------



## LostSoul

I guess my answers would be...

1. Powers.  Some of those spells are powers now.  Use Web to create a 5-minute bridge.

2. Rituals.  Some of those spells are rituals now.

3. Add new rituals.  Change some of the old edition's spells into new rituals.  

4. Skill challenges.  Who says that you can't mimic casting a 3rd-edition Hallow with a skill challenge?


----------



## fanboy2000

GlassJaw said:


> Wow!  That's awesome.  I never realized that.  I _definitely _want to play 4E now.
> 
> Seriously though.  Why can't I do this in 3ed?  Because it's not at-will?



Well, for what it's worth, I was trying to show the OP that he could, in fact, use all kinds of non-combat spells like he did in 3.5. His whole thing was that 3.5 was littered with non-combat magic and 4e isn't. So I actually agree with you: you can do those things in 3ed. 

In 3.x, Prestidigitation was a 0 level that lasted for one hour. So you could do everything I said for one or more hours, depending on the total number of spell slots you had. (Because you can always cast a 0 level spell in a higher level spell slot.) So the only rules limitation is the number of spell slots the arcane spell caster had.

Personally, I always took prestidigitation, even as a sorcerer with limited known 0 levels. Though, as a wizard, I didn't always prepare Prestidigitation at low levels (1st-3rd), but I often did. Once I was a mid-to-high level wizard I prepared one instance of Prestidigitation everyday, just in case. 

One interesting thing to note: in 3.x a sorcerer could theoretically cast Prestidigitation at lot more than a wizard because the class didn't prepare spells ahead of time. Wizards, if they prepared Prestidigitation at all, would likely only prepare it once. In 4th, wizards can cast it an infinite number of times. (At the rate of about once every six seconds), but a sorcerer doesn't get it automatically. I grabbed a feat for my 4e NPC sorcerer that let him use Prestidigitation as an encounter power. So he can use it infinitely as well. (At the rate of about once every five minutes.)


----------



## Starbuck_II

NewJeffCT said:


> As an aside - I have not found a huge disparity in class powers in 3.5 and my campaign is hitting 13th level now. The party's dwarf fighter is still the most deadly on a per round basis, as there is no save vs his axe swings, while an arcane spell like Disintergrate offers a save and many foes have magic resistance, while the dwarf's axe is also powerful enough to overcome most DR.
> 
> I thought there was a far bigger class power disparity in 1E and 2E in comparison.




Miss Chance is a kind of a save versus taking damage.

Spell Resistance an issue? 
Either:
1) Fighting higher CR/level enemies
2) He messes up his caster level 
3) Not allowing Array SR spells


Only issue then is Golems, but then you have the orbs spells, Mel'fs Acif arrow, Conjuration(which ignores SR), etc.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Starbuck_II said:


> Miss Chance is a kind of a save versus taking damage.
> 
> Spell Resistance an issue?
> Either:
> 1) Fighting higher CR/level enemies
> 2) He messes up his caster level
> 3) Not allowing Array SR spells
> 
> 
> Only issue then is Golems, but then you have the orbs spells, Mel'fs Acif arrow, Conjuration(which ignores SR), etc.




From what I see, the group fighter is not missing very often on his 1st or 2nd attacks, though his 3rd attack is often less than 50/50.  However, it is pretty common for either the bad guys - or the party, when attacked by a mage/sorcerer - to make saving throws.  I have hit the party with a few Save or Die spells like Finger of Death, but they've always made their saves (we roll on the table in full view, so nobody is cheating)  

And, if your arcane caster is a sorcerer, you don't always have the option to switch to various different spells (orb spells vs the standard Magic Missile/Scorching Ray/Fireball/Ice Storm/Cone of Cold chain)

Not sure what Array SR spells are?


----------



## DarkMasterBR

God, I have that exactly same feelings. 4e did a lot of things very right, so much that I don't feel very well going back to 3.5. But the blandness of the classes is terrible, I eats me inside. I see things like "the monk playtest is coming out in may!" and I don't get all excited because I know it's going to have the same at will / encounter / daily power structure, and that's kind of a let down.

Don't know what to play, though


----------



## Michael Silverbane

NewJeffCT said:


> From what I see, the group fighter is not missing very often on his 1st or 2nd attacks, though his 3rd attack is often less than 50/50.  However, it is pretty common for either the bad guys - or the party, when attacked by a mage/sorcerer - to make saving throws.  I have hit the party with a few Save or Die spells like Finger of Death, but they've always made their saves (we roll on the table in full view, so nobody is cheating)
> 
> And, if your arcane caster is a sorcerer, you don't always have the option to switch to various different spells (orb spells vs the standard Magic Missile/Scorching Ray/Fireball/Ice Storm/Cone of Cold chain)
> 
> Not sure what Array SR spells are?




A lot of the disparity is between the "big 5" (i.e. Wizard, Artificer, Druid, Cleric, and Archivist) who have a virtually unlimited spell selection and the other classes...  So you won't see as much of a discrepancy if you aren't encountering those classes.

The Array SR spell is (probably) the _assay spell resistance_ spell, which is a spell specifically designed to counter spell resistance.


----------



## Hereticus

The best thing 4.0E did for magic was Cantrips.

The worst thing 4.0E did for magic was Rituals.

The zero level cantrips work great at low levels, but there power is very limited. There are a few great applications for cantrips during an encounter, but they are limited and can not be repeated every week. I had suggested a tiered system of cantrips that gets better as the character advances in levels. Prestidigitation is great, but its range is only two squares.

Rituals are too expensive to cast, and they take way too long to cast. Most of the great utility spells from 3.5E will never be used in a stress situation because of the casting time.

In my opinion, what needs to happen is to in some way merge rituals into cantrips, with perhaps a cost involved.



DarkMasterBR said:


> 4e did a lot of things very right, so much that I don't feel very well going back to 3.5. But the blandness of the classes is terrible, I eats me inside. I see things like "the monk playtest is coming out in may!" and I don't get all excited because I know it's going to have the same at will / encounter / daily power structure, and that's kind of a let down.




I agree, there is a sterile feeling to the class structures.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Hereticus said:


> Rituals are too expensive to cast, and they take way too long to cast. Most of the great utility spells from 3.5E will never be used in a stress situation because of the casting time.
> 
> In my opinion, what needs to happen is to in some way merge rituals into cantrips, with perhaps a cost involved.




But if you allow all the utility spells to be used in stressful situations, you're right back to the problem of spell-casters outshining the skill-users.

I actually agree that a _little_ more--not a lot, but a little--differentiation between classes, or at least between power sources, would be a good thing. I'd love to see classes get more utility powers, and have more utility powers be focused on non-combat applications. But it's a _very_ fine line to walk, because it has to be done in such a way that the skill-users don't feel marginalized.


----------



## Hereticus

Mouseferatu said:


> But if you allow all the utility spells to be used in stressful situations, you're right back to the problem of spell-casters outshining the skill-users.




First of all, I would have no problem if Wizards had zero combat ability.

But they do.

In fact they have the exact same combat bonuses that Fighters and other martial classes get.

So instead of limiting spells to Wizards, how about giving all classes some spell casting abilities?

Magic (spell casting) is fun, it's the reason I started playing.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Hereticus said:


> So instead of limiting spells to Wizards, how about giving all classes some spell casting abilities?
> 
> Magic (spell casting) is fun, it's the reason I started playing.




Some people don't want to play classes with spellcasting ability. When I play a rogue, it's because I'm looking to play a different sort of character than when I'm playing a wizard. I want to use skills, not spells.

It seems to me that giving everyone spells _worsens_ the sense of "all characters are alike," rather than helping it.

That said, everyone _can_ have spellcasting ability, if they want it. Anyone can get the Ritual Caster feat, after all.


----------



## Gort

ProfessorCirno said:


> Count me as another who never saw the big horrible disparity in 3.5.




I'm not going to spend loads of time on it, but you can make a party entirely out of clerics and they'll be better at your average D&D adventure than 90% of "balanced" parties - the problem gets worse and worse as you get higher level and clerics start to get blasting spells comparable to wizards, and the horrible buff system means that clerics can buff themselves to be better fighters than fighters.

I played a fighter in 3.0 and 3.5 who went from level 3 to level 20 over the course of about three years realtime - by the higher levels he himself was simply a template for cleric and wizard buffs, and was a mere shadow of himself without at least a dozen spells from those classes running on him.

I am glad that that's gone at least. Keeping track of all those effects just got very tiresome.


----------



## Rechan

Mouseferatu said:


> Some people don't want to play classes with spellcasting ability. When I play a rogue, it's because I'm looking to play a different sort of character than when I'm playing a wizard. I want to use skills, not spells.



Except that 'skills not spells' is how it's described. It's all in the fluff.

For instance, 'Blinding Barrage' is a close blast 3 that blinds everyone it hits.

The only thing that makes it "Skill" and not "Magic" is because you say "The rogue does it" and "Rogues use skills, not magic". 

If I wanted to say, "But my rogue _is_ using magic to do it", and describe it in a magical manner, I'm not _wrong_. Because it being magical has no baring on it. 

I could play a character who fights with a chemistry set. Just becuase I use a Wizard class to do it, doesn't mean that that fireball isn't just a proper combination of chemicals I happen to hurl over there. 

Even if you say "But the rogue is in the Martial power source", again, the martial power source is just fluff and flavor. _Magic_ means only what is made of it.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Rechan said:


> Except that 'skills not spells' is how it's described. It's all in the fluff.
> 
> For instance, 'Blinding Barrage' is a close blast 3 that blinds everyone it hits.
> 
> The only thing that makes it "Skill" and not "Magic" is because you say "The rogue does it" and "Rogues use skills, not magic".




Sure, but now you're talking combat. We're talking about non-combat applications.

If a trapped door requires an intricate skill challenge to penetrate--using Perception to find the mechanisms, Thievery to dismantle them, Acrobatics to avoid the counter-attacks, and so on--do we want a wizard to be able to bypass all that because he can cast _knock_? What purpose does the rogue serve, at that point?

Remember, I'm _agreeing_ that I'd like to see a little more differentiation between classes. I _want_ to see more non-combat utility spells for casters, and powers for non-casters.

I just _also_ want them not to step on each others' toes, or to mitigate the need for actual skill use.


----------



## Rechan

Mouseferatu said:


> If a trapped door requires an intricate skill challenge to penetrate--using Perception to find the mechanisms, Thievery to dismantle them, Acrobatics to avoid the counter-attacks, and so on--do we want a wizard to be able to bypass all that because he can cast _knock_? What purpose does the rogue serve, at that point?



I can see the distinction I'm making going further. Just because you're using skills doesn't mean it can't be magically described (or vice versa). 

After all, wizards have skills too.  Granted, Rogues have more.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Rechan said:


> I can see the distinction I'm making going further. Just because you're using skills doesn't mean it can't be magically described (or vice versa).
> 
> After all, wizards have skills too.  Granted, Rogues have more.




Sure, you can reskin anything to be anything else. I'm not arguing that; in fact, I'd say that's a feature, not a bug. 

It doesn't change the fact that a different class should offer (IMO) at least a slightly different play experience. At the moment, the classes do that primarily by offering a different selection of powers, and via a different focus on mechanics like skill use. I'm simply arguing _for_ a slight increase in such minor but significant differences, and _against_ any system that allows a class whose play experience is focused on X to do better at Y than a class whose play experience is focused on Y. And giving wizards more utility spells akin to those in past editions without significant cost would, I think, allow them to solve skill-oriented challenges more easily than rogues or other classes that are built to focus on skill-oriented challenges. It would have the effect of making classes _more_ homogeneous rather than less--or else of once again making the wizard "better at everything."


----------



## Rechan

Ah yes; giving them more utility powers, or more power, etc, would be bad, yes. I was just picking nits, and lost my focus.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Rechan said:


> I was just picking nits, and lost my focus.




No worries. It's the Internet; it does that to people.


----------



## outsider

How important is magic to D&D?  In my opinion, it should be no more important than skill and swordplay.  Traditionally it was far more important, but fortunately that's changing.  Martial and Magic are getting close to parity, but aren't quite there yet.


----------



## Hereticus

Mouseferatu said:


> Some people don't want to play classes with spellcasting ability. When I play a rogue, it's because I'm looking to play a different sort of character than when I'm playing a wizard. I want to use skills, not spells.




OK, that's fine. You don't want to play a spell caster, but some of us do.



Mouseferatu said:


> It seems to me that giving everyone spells _worsens_ the sense of "all characters are alike," rather than helping it.




That is purely personal preference on your part.

To people who like spell casters, that would work well.



Mouseferatu said:


> That said, everyone _can_ have spellcasting ability, if they want it. Anyone can get the Ritual Caster feat, after all.




Have you read any of the comments that detail why the 4.0 ritual system is broken?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Hereticus said:


> OK, that's fine. You don't want to play a spell caster, but some of us do.




Then do. There are plenty of spellcasting classes in the game. I play one of them when I'm in the mood, and I play one of the others when I'm not. Claiming that _every_ class should be a spellcaster because some people always play spellcasters is ludicrous; it's just like saying that because some people never play spellcasters, _nobody_ should.



> That is purely personal preference on your part.




Um, no. See above. Saying "Some classes should use magic and some shouldn't" isn't personal preference. It's _allowing_ for _everyone_ to have their _own_ personal preference.



> Have you read any of the comments that detail why the 4.0 ritual system is broken?




And I disagree with a lot of them. But even if I agreed, the solution is to fix the ritual system, not rewrite the game.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Gort said:


> I'm not going to spend loads of time on it, but you can make a party entirely out of clerics and they'll be better at your average D&D adventure than 90% of "balanced" parties - the problem gets worse and worse as you get higher level and clerics start to get blasting spells comparable to wizards, and the horrible buff system means that clerics can buff themselves to be better fighters than fighters.
> 
> I played a fighter in 3.0 and 3.5 who went from level 3 to level 20 over the course of about three years realtime - by the higher levels he himself was simply a template for cleric and wizard buffs, and was a mere shadow of himself without at least a dozen spells from those classes running on him.
> 
> I am glad that that's gone at least. Keeping track of all those effects just got very tiresome.




I'm sorry you had that experience.

But, well, I didn't.  Ever.

And you can't take that away from me :3

That said...



> Keeping track of all those effects just got very tiresome.




Are you playing the same 4e as everyone else?


----------



## LostSoul

Hereticus said:


> Rituals are too expensive to cast, and they take way too long to cast. Most of the great utility spells from 3.5E will never be used in a stress situation because of the casting time.




Maybe casters need to think more strategically.


----------



## fanboy2000

Hereticus said:


> Rituals are too expensive to cast, and they take way too long to cast. Most of the great utility spells from 3.5E will never be used in a stress situation because of the casting time.
> 
> In my opinion, what needs to happen is to in some way merge rituals into cantrips, with perhaps a cost involved.



Rituals aren't the only way to cast non-damage dealing spells. Utility powers like _Fly, Expeditious Retreat_, and _Dispel Magic_ aren't rituals. I can easily see converting some of the rituals into utility powers. _Comprehend Languages_ comes to mind. The ritual takes only 10 minutes, but I can picture situations where being able to cast it in six seconds would be necessary.


----------



## Greg K

fanboy2000 said:


> Rituals aren't the only way to cast non-damage dealing spells. Utility powers like _Fly, Expeditious Retreat_, and _Dispel Magic_ aren't rituals. I can easily see converting some of the rituals into utility powers. _Comprehend Languages_ comes to mind. The ritual takes only 10 minutes, but I can picture situations where being able to cast it in six seconds would be necessary.




Yeah, my issue with rituals is that there are those like Comprehend Languages that are, imo, ridiculous taking 10 minutes to cast.


----------



## fanboy2000

Greg K said:


> Yeah, my issue with rituals is that there are those like Comprehend Languages that are, imo, ridiculous taking 10 minutes to cast.



"Umm, guys, the Illithid is saying something I don't understand. I might be deep speech." 

"Could you hold him off for 10 minutes while I cast Comprehend Languages."

"Dude, I'm not sure I can hold him off for ten seconds."

"Well, let's hope he _also_ casting a ritual."

"I got a better idea. Why don't you help us kill it, and _then_ you can cast Comprehend Languages and tell us what he said he said after he's dead?"

"Fine. But at that point, will we care?"


----------



## LostSoul

Greg K said:


> Yeah, my issue with rituals is that there are those like Comprehend Languages that are, imo, ridiculous taking 10 minutes to cast.




It lasts for 24 hours.  Cast it while the Fighters are carbo-loading their healing surges for the day.


----------



## Ariosto

This seems to me one of the particular issues stemming from a general shift in style of play already somewhat evident by 1985. Even as late as 3.5, I think the new designers were still trying to graft accommodations for new assumptions onto a framework designed with different ones in mind -- and only partially succeeding.

Multi-classing such that _every_ character could cast spells was somewhat effective. Cutting back on the flexibility of magic (especially at high levels), thus allowing a balance by level in combat power, seems to have been seen as preferable to the alternative of going the other way and making spell-casters non-combat specialists. I can understand that, having encountered often enough the complaints of players who expected MUs and Thieves to be strong combatants even at low levels (as opposed to classes for the "thinking man".)


----------



## Fallen Seraph

fanboy2000 said:


> "Umm, guys, the Illithid is saying something I don't understand. I might be deep speech."
> 
> "Could you hold him off for 10 minutes while I cast Comprehend Languages."
> 
> "Dude, I'm not sure I can hold him off for ten seconds."
> 
> "Well, let's hope he _also_ casting a ritual."
> 
> "I got a better idea. Why don't you help us kill it, and _then_ you can cast Comprehend Languages and tell us what he said he said after he's dead?"
> 
> "Fine. But at that point, will we care?"



Actually not quite like this, but I have had stuff similar to this happen with my ritual usage in games. I find when it comes to stressful situations and such, rituals become a team-game. The person doing performs the ritual while the others help, defend, distract, etc.


----------



## Ariosto

If 4E falls flat for one in this department, I think one easy way to leaven it would be with a selection of "more magical" magic items. Is there any reason that your campaign must be limited to enchantments that serve merely as combat boosts or quantified bonuses to mundane abilities?

One can easily incorporate qualities that keep such treasures from being used so often as to become unbalancing or simply dull.

Set your imagination loose! If that is not still the game's foundation, then it is not worthy of the name of *Dungeons & Dragons*.


----------



## doctorhook

ProfessorCirno said:


> Gort said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping track of all those effects just got very tiresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you playing the same 4e as everyone else?
Click to expand...


Oh no, there is no way that you're going to say that 4E's effect-tracking is more complicated than 3E's and older editions. In 4E, effects remain either until you save against them, or for one round, ending on the initiative count of whomever originated the effect. In previous editions, one had to keep track of how many rounds it had been since a buff was applied to him, the complexity of which grows exponentially as more effects are piled into the combat. Since from mid-levels upwards buffs were the only way for non-full-caster classes to remain relevant in combat, keeping track of effects was functionally a _constant_ hassle in 3.5E above level 7.


----------



## Ariosto

Are magicians no longer able to develop new spells via research? As they are limited to but a certain number of powers, it would seem simple enough to let them trade some combat strength for abilities with more creative application.


----------



## wedgeski

Greg K said:


> Yeah, my issue with rituals is that there are those like Comprehend Languages that are, imo, ridiculous taking 10 minutes to cast.



Have you see how long that sucker lasts?


----------



## hong

Right. In 4E, being able to understand all kinds of weird and wacky languages is not a "spell". It's a permanent ability. It just takes 10 minutes each day to refresh your memory.

In that sense, it's kind of akin to at-will Mage Hand and Ghost Sound.


----------



## dbm

As some others have already posted, skill challenges are one of the places the flexibility you are looking for is found.

As an example, in one game I was playing a Sword Mage who had marked an opponent with his Aegis, and then that opponent ran away and hid.  I had terrible Perception, but asked the ref if I could use Arcana to find him via the bond I had to him.  

With Wizards, Pretidigitation is a tool kit, and Arcana is the skill to use it in infinite ways during skill challenges.  Just give some inventive and evocative description of what your character is doing, the DM assigns a DC based on how 'out there' your action is, and away you go.

Cheers,
Dan


----------



## GnomeWorks

doctorhook said:


> Oh no, there is no way that you're going to say that 4E's effect-tracking is more complicated than 3E's and older editions.




Why, yes, I do find it more complicated to handle bonuses that change round-to-round over the complication of having effects that last multiple rounds.

One might even call these rapidly-changing bonii... _fiddly bits_.

*cue dramatic music*


----------



## hong

GnomeWorks said:


> Why, yes, I do find it more complicated to handle bonuses that change round-to-round over the complication of having effects that last multiple rounds.




It is not particularly complicated to handle these effects. You simply let the players do the bookkeeping for their own characters, rather than trying to keep track of everything yourself. As someone who has played to 13th level with 2 leaders in the group, this has not been an issue.



> One might even call these rapidly-changing bonii... _fiddly bits_.




The plural of bonus is bonae. Hope this helps!


----------



## billd91

GnomeWorks said:


> Why, yes, I do find it more complicated to handle bonuses that change round-to-round over the complication of having effects that last multiple rounds.




That has been my experience as well, particularly with one-shot, pregen character games. For each bonus that pops up, there's no learning curve to it like there is for multi-round durations. You pretty much get one chance to learn the bonuses and apply them before they're gone.

The other problem we encountered was that there were so may conditional benefits with respect to feats (we were playing at 17th level) that it was a real hassle trying to remember and watch for all of the conditions that could be used to trigger a benefit. Mind you, a computer would be able to handle it easily. Short term memory? Not so easily.

I think we'd have had an easier time with long-standing characters that we had developed over time, but I do think one-shot 4e games above a certain level have serious challenges.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Greg K said:


> Yeah, my issue with rituals is that there are those like Comprehend Languages that are, imo, ridiculous taking 10 minutes to cast.



Then drop the casting times and the costs also if you feel like it. Rituals costs and casting times are there to prevent the casters overshadowing skill using characters. However, if you are willing to accept some imbalance then there is little to loose by shortening casting times to enable some of them be cast in combat. 
Alternatively let the players spend some resource to speed up casting line action points.


----------



## hong

billd91 said:


> That has been my experience as well, particularly with one-shot, pregen character games. For each bonus that pops up, there's no learning curve to it like there is for multi-round durations. You pretty much get one chance to learn the bonuses and apply them before they're gone.




There certainly is a learning curve. It just happens to be one that works over multiple encounters. Furthermore, a multi-round duration would appear to have precious little to do with a learning curve, given that the duration is fixed once you cast the spell. Not much learning can take place, at least not if it's to be applied to that encounter.

Taking one-shot pregen games as an indicator of how things might fare in a campaign does not seem to be wise. This is something to keep in mind when the default mode of play in D&D is the campaign.



> I think we'd have had an easier time with long-standing characters that we had developed over time, but I do think one-shot 4e games above a certain level have serious challenges.




This is something that Scott Rouse has already noted in the other thread.


----------



## Mournblade94

hong said:


> It is not particularly complicated to handle these effects. You simply let the players do the bookkeeping for their own characters, rather than trying to keep track of everything yourself. As someone who has played to 13th level with 2 leaders in the group, this has not been an issue.




I agree it is easy to track effects in 4e.  I do not find it any easier than 3rd edition.  In fact I find tracking effects to be one of the simplest things I have ever done.  Most all things that were simplified to the 4e system did not need to be.  I find it hard to beleive that anyone would have trouble with 3rd edition math.


----------



## hong

Mournblade94 said:


> I agree it is easy to track effects in 4e.  I do not find it any easier than 3rd edition.  In fact I find tracking effects to be one of the simplest things I have ever done.  Most all things that were simplified to the 4e system did not need to be.  I find it hard to beleive that anyone would have trouble with 3rd edition math.



3E state is complicated by duration, and by the fact that the pre-combat buffing ritual could involve up to half a dozen spells (or more) at high levels. Furthermore, you then had the possibility of dispel magic removing a random subset of those buffs, thus forcing a recalculation mid-fight.

You will rarely find situations where half a dozen powers have ongoing effects in 4E. Even if you did, they would probably all vanish at the end of the round, unlike 3E state which required you to track each buff individually (and that could be in rounds, minutes, hours, etc). Nor do you have to worry about dispel magic stripping half your buffs at any instant.

It is possible that some ppl never had to worry about these matters, of course. Perhaps they only played 3E up to 9th level or so, where the buffing meta would still be relatively undeveloped. Or maybe they never had spellcasters in the party. Or maybe they never deliberately looked at buffs. Regardless, they were not the ones who had an impact on the 3E zeitgeist, which is what ultimately informed the changes in 4E.

And ultimately, even if you find things no easier in 4E than in 3E, you will also not find it harder. Hence it's a win-win all round.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

hong said:


> The plural of bonus is bonae. Hope this helps!




The plural of _bonus _(used as a noun in English) is _bonuses _(in English).

The plural of _bonus _(in Latin, a masculine adjective meaning "good") is _boni_. 

Adjectives agree in case, gender, and number with the noun they modify. Thus you could see bonus/boni, or bona/bonae. 

Granted it's been 20 years since I took latin, but I'm pretty sure bonus/bonae is the ullshitbay.


----------



## hong

Wulf Ratbane said:


> The plural of _bonus _(used as a noun in English) is _bonuses _(in English).
> 
> The plural of _bonus _(in Latin, a masculine adjective meaning "good") is _boni_.
> 
> Adjectives agree in case, gender, and number with the noun they modify. Thus you could see bonus/boni, or bona/bonae.
> 
> Granted it's been 20 years since I took latin, but I'm pretty sure bonus/bonae is the ullshitbay.



Aw mang, don't tell me you've already forgotten that the plural of ninja is ninjae. This is a simple extension of that.

But then noone ever listens to meeee


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Mournblade94 said:


> I agree it is easy to track effects in 4e.  I do not find it any easier than 3rd edition.  In fact I find tracking effects to be one of the simplest things I have ever done.  Most all things that were simplified to the 4e system did not need to be.  I find it hard to beleive that anyone would have trouble with 3rd edition math.




The advantage of 4E is it tells you exactly what the modifier will do.

You get a +2 bonus to attack and a +3 bonus to damage.

A +4 bonus to Strength in 3E might have done the same, if you were wielding a two-handed weapon. And it would have increased your Climb, Jump and Swim skill. Maybe that's totally irrelevant at the time of casting, and it stays that way. Maybe it becomes important just 3 rounds later, but you have forgotten that the effect applies to this, too. Maybe that's also totally unimportant, since with a +32 Jump modifier (without the buff) you don't have to worry about jumping a 20 ft wide area. Maybe it's important, since you modifier is only +7 normally for the same distance.

Something that seems like one effect actually has several. That's what makes them a little harder.

But: I think people might actually handle modifiers and effects differently. Maybe some find it actually easier to track durations over multiple rounds, or they use combat matrixes describing their various attack modifiers with common buffs. I don't know for sure. I only know that I could deal with both, but prefer the simple duration types of 4E with "End of Next Turn" and "End of Encounter", and buffs that tell me which values I have to modify.


----------



## Nebulous

Mouseferatu said:


> That said, everyone _can_ have spellcasting ability, if they want it. Anyone can get the Ritual Caster feat, after all.




I've hardly seen rituals cast at all, that's been our experience.  I've handed them out, but the players forget they have them, or there is no immediate use or time is too pressing.  Which leads me to another thing, i really don't like the idea of non-spellcasters using rituals, so i'll probably ban that except in extreme situations.  That right there will help wizards feel more "magical" and give them an edge up, but what i don't feel is overbalancing.  Or if it needs balancing, i would be inclined to lessen their combat prowess. 

I'm in agreement with the OP that while i do like 4e and feel it makes many significant improvements over 3.x, the magic system has been somewhat kicked in the nads. Martial classes kick butt though. 

Ultimately, i feel that tweaking the ritual rules will make the game feel more like the kind of game i want to run.


----------



## Mallus

Nebulous said:


> I've hardly seen rituals cast at all, that's been our experience.



My group uses them fairly regularly to do the run-of-the-mill impossible things like speaking w/the dead. 



> Which leads me to another thing, i really don't like the idea of non-spellcasters using rituals, so i'll probably ban that except in extreme situations.



Be definition, any character with the Ritual Casting Feat _is_ a spellcaster. Because they can cast spells (they just not combat spellcasters like wizards or sorcerers). 

In the same way any character w/Thievery is technically a thief.


----------



## ferratus

I really don't understand why people feel granting the ritual caster feat is any different from multiclassing.

However, I have noticed that my players refuse to cast rituals.  I'm handing them out like candy, but the player's aren't checking them out between sessions so they aren't thinking about them in session.  

In the other two games I'm playing, I have the opposite problem. Neither DM is handing out rituals, so I'm trying desperately to buy them up.  Thank goodness my wizard gets free rituals!

Both situations are getting me frustrated, but it seems to be centering from 

a) A lack of ritual cards like we have power cards in the character builder.
b) The lack of a random treasure table that includes rituals.  In both games the DM's are handing out random treasure, but they are using AV magical tables as their random tables and that doesn't include rituals.


----------



## bert1000

ardoughter said:


> Then drop the casting times and the costs also if you feel like it. Rituals costs and casting times are there to prevent the casters overshadowing skill using characters. However, if you are willing to accept some imbalance then there is little to loose by shortening casting times to enable some of them be cast in combat.
> Alternatively let the players spend some resource to speed up casting line action points.




I actually like that this one takes 10min and lasts a long time (maybe too long...).

As others have said, it preserves the value of other abilities.  If you want to be able to instantly understand a Mindflayer that you run into out of the blue, you take the language!  This ritual is great if you have done research on an area and think it will be populated by X, or if you have run into a Mindflayer and think more are out there then you cast the ritual.

I do agree that some of the rituals have casting times that are too long or durations too long/short, but I like the basic system.

In one campaign, I have limited the ritual feat to the classes that get it as a class feature (so you can take Ritual Casting if you multiclass into one of those classes).  Gives it a little more cost and preserves a little differentiation for Wizards, Bards, Clerics, etc.  I also let Wizards cast a ritual of 5 levels or lower (min 1) for free each day.


----------



## Mournblade94

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A +4 bonus to Strength in 3E might have done the same, if you were wielding a two-handed weapon. And it would have increased your Climb, Jump and Swim skill. Maybe that's totally irrelevant at the time of casting, and it stays that way. Maybe it becomes important just 3 rounds later, but you have forgotten that the effect applies to this, too. Maybe that's also totally unimportant, since with a +32 Jump modifier (without the buff) you don't have to worry about jumping a 20 ft wide area. Maybe it's important, since you modifier is only +7 normally for the same distance.
> 
> Something that seems like one effect actually has several. That's what makes them a little harder.




There is really nothing I am disagreeing with as far as the calculation difficulty of 4e.  Maybe I should rephrase and say calculation from 3rd edition to 4e is like going from easy difficulty to very easy.  As far as running games go I did not see any change in combat times.  I leave bonuses up to the player, and I take care of the NPC bonuses.

I think that though you made the players life easier in 4e, alot was lost. I LIKED that the strength modifier increased skills. I liked the cascading effects.

Any player worth their salt should be able to account for every effect on their character even at epic levels. it is no worse than performing an office job. Also I submit that figuring out those cascading effects is part of the fun.


----------



## Mallus

Mournblade94 said:


> Any player worth their salt should be able to account for every effect on their character even at epic levels. it is no worse than performing an office job.



It's no more entertaining than performing an office job, either.


----------



## Barastrondo

Mournblade94 said:


> Any player worth their salt should be able to account for every effect on their character even at epic levels. it is no worse than performing an office job.




That's kind of damning with faint praise, isn't it?


----------



## Hussar

Mournblade94 said:


> There is really nothing I am disagreeing with as far as the calculation difficulty of 4e.  Maybe I should rephrase and say calculation from 3rd edition to 4e is like going from easy difficulty to very easy.  As far as running games go I did not see any change in combat times.  I leave bonuses up to the player, and I take care of the NPC bonuses.
> 
> I think that though you made the players life easier in 4e, alot was lost. I LIKED that the strength modifier increased skills. I liked the cascading effects.
> 
> Any player worth their salt should be able to account for every effect on their character even at epic levels. it is no worse than performing an office job. Also I submit that figuring out those cascading effects is part of the fun.




I think you're going to be fairly lonely in that position.  Calculating cascading effects is rarely fun for most people.  Frequently the cascading effects get totally forgotten about, or, worse, get remember ten seconds AFTER.  

My current group has a cleric, two mages, and a druid.  We have effects out the WAZOO.  Between terrain effects, buffs, charms, buffs, direct damage, buffs, ongoing damage, buffs, summonings and more buffs, there is easily five or six effects going on at any given time, all of which may need multiple saving throws.

Then trying to remember what type each effect is so that you don't start stacking when you shouldn't can be an even bigger pain.  

It really comes down to what your group looks like in the end.  But, I don't think too many people count calculating cascading effects among the higher points of a session.


----------



## alleynbard

Mournblade94 said:


> Any player worth their salt should be able to account for every effect on their character even at epic levels. it is no worse than performing an office job. Also I submit that figuring out those cascading effects is part of the fun.




Some players would rather the game not come to a screeching halt as they perform math that is "no worse than performing an office job."  That isn't fun for me, it wasn't fun for my players.  When accounting for every effect on your character becomes a chore after about 9th level, the game ceases to be fun for some people.  

We aren't idiots.  In my group I have a veterinarian technician, a school secretary, an art teacher, an accountant and office manager for an architecture firm, and a graphic designer.  Those are careers that require a certain level intelligence, I think you would agree.  It is not that we couldn't do the math. We could.  But we didn't find the cascading effects of buffs to be very enjoyable. It didn't lend anything to the experience that made up for the frustration.

I suppose that means, by your standards, we aren't "worth our salt", but I think I am okay with that.


----------



## Mallus

Barastrondo said:


> That's kind of damning with faint praise, isn't it?



It's more like damning with damnation.


----------



## TerraDave

Yes: rituals. That is why I say it in my sig. 

And now, we finally have almost enough, between PHBII, Arcane Power, and the FRPG. Almost enough. 

To costly? Not really, but good DMs will give them, and components, as treasure. 

In any case, my players have used rituals in every session, starting with the first one.


----------



## Mournblade94

alleynbard said:


> Some players would rather the game not come to a screeching halt as they perform math that is "no worse than performing an office job." That isn't fun for me, it wasn't fun for my players. When accounting for every effect on your character becomes a chore after about 9th level, the game ceases to be fun for some people.




I must have a system down then, because even at 22nd level by the time a player had their turn with a new effect they were able to figure it out, and able to help those that were addition challenged.  I think alot of these claims of math slowing the game down are quite exaggerated.  We are not figuring out integrals, we are doing addition.



alleynbard said:


> I suppose that means, by your standards, we aren't "worth our salt", but I think I am okay with that.




I originally said they SHOULD be able to do so.  I did not say a player that does not enjoy it is not worth their salt.


----------



## Intense_Interest

[B said:
			
		

> alleynbard][/B]I suppose that means, by your standards, we aren't "worth our salt", but I think I am okay with that.






Mournblade94 said:


> I must have a system down then, because even at 22nd level by the time a player had their turn with a new effect they were able to figure it out, and able to help those that were addition challenged.  I think alot of these claims of math slowing the game down are quite exaggerated.  We are not figuring out integrals, we are doing addition.
> 
> ...
> 
> I originally said they SHOULD be able to do so.  I did not say a player that does not enjoy it is not worth their salt.




So "Players have to master the Cascading bonus Accounting to enjoy the game" is the new "THAC0 kept the riff-raff out?"  Good to know.

In my campaign, we usually play with at least a beer in us each by the time combat rolls around.  We don't even want to do 1-square, 2-square diagonals, much less figure out what the happens to the Fighter's combat ability when the shortest-duration buff runs out.


----------



## Mournblade94

Intense_Interest said:


> So "Players have to master the Cascading bonus Accounting to enjoy the game" is the new "THAC0 kept the riff-raff out?" Good to know.




Yes, clearly that is exactly what I implied.  I also reduced D&D to nothing but a series of simple second grade addition lessons since I enjoy doing that level of math so much.


----------



## fanboy2000

Why are we arguing over bonuses? In 3.x, I'd happily re-calculate anything that gave my character an advantage. Or an NPC. It'd be nice if I didn't have to, but it'd be nice I didn't have to cook dinner and I just replicated it like on ST:TNG.

What really sucked were ability score penalties. Not only was the character/monster weaker, but I had to do a bunch of math to figure out exactly how! Mind you, I didn't ban _Ray of Enfeeblement_ because of math. Don't tell anybody this, but with that spell, I just reduced the attack bonus and called it a day. When someone casts _Ray of Enfeeblement_ on a monster, it is *not* surviving long enough to justify re-calculating his skills.


----------



## alleynbard

Mournblade94 said:


> I originally said they SHOULD be able to do so.  I did not say a player that does not enjoy it is not worth their salt.




Fair enough.  I get what you are saying, I truly do.  But it was irritating enough for us to recalculate everything that we were happy we didn't need to do that as much with 4e.  Our games would stop as everyone calculated buffs right before the combat.  The math wasn't complicated at all.  But, it wasn't fun for us.

I also understand you weren't necessarily trying to be insulting.  I appreciate you clarified your point some.  My response was snippier than it needed to be.  I think I must be having a bad day and not knowing, because everything I say comes out crabby, vague, and confrontational.

I don't see the net loss here. As much as I love 4e (and I do truly enjoy the game) there are some things that were lost in the translation. This just isn't one of those things for me. 

I can respect this is something that you enjoyed about the game. Truly I can. It just wasn't for us.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

> 3.5 wasn't easier then 4e in terms of bonuses!




Hey.  Hey.  Hey.  Hey.

In my opinion, you're wrong.

And you can't take that away from me.

:3c

_No seriously I don't understand the sudden influx of people telling me I'm wrong.  Uh, no.  I'm not wrong.  In m opinion, 3.5 was easier then 4e.  You cannot prove me wrong.  So why are you trying to?_


----------



## Mournblade94

alleynbard said:


> Fair enough.  I get what you are saying, I truly do.  But it was irritating enough for us to recalculate everything that we were happy we didn't need to do that as much with 4e.  Our games would stop as everyone calculated buffs right before the combat.  The math wasn't complicated at all.  But, it wasn't fun for us.
> 
> I also understand you weren't necessarily trying to be insulting.  I appreciate you clarified your point some.  My response was snippier than it needed to be.  I think I must be having a bad day and not knowing, because everything I say comes out crabby, vague, and confrontational.
> 
> I don't see the net loss here. As much as I love 4e (and I do truly enjoy the game) there are some things that were lost in the translation. This just isn't one of those things for me.
> 
> I can respect this is something that you enjoyed about the game. Truly I can. It just wasn't for us.




No worries!  No harm done.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

bert1000 said:


> snip .... nothing I actually disagree with.




bert1000 the comments you quoted were made in the context of a reply to a poster, who complained that in his game that ritual were too long and thus were not used. Since I interepted some of the comments made by that poster that class balance and/or skill overshadowing was not a big issue, then I made my reccomendation to drop the casting times.

It would not be a general reccomendation of mine, though I do think that the designers were a little too conservative with casting times


----------



## Hereticus

Rituals are too expensive to cast, and they take way too long to cast. Most of the great utility spells from 3.5E will never be used in a stress situation because of the casting time.



LostSoul said:


> Maybe casters need to think more strategically.




What do you mean by "think more strategically"?

I've never heard that before regarding D&D, but it seems to be a often repeated buzz word for 4.0E.


----------



## Hereticus

Yeah, my issue with rituals is that there are those like Comprehend Languages that are, imo, ridiculous taking 10 minutes to cast.



LostSoul said:


> It lasts for 24 hours.  Cast it while the Fighters are carbo-loading their healing surges for the day.




Perhaps healing surges should also take ten minutes, and cost gold to cast.


----------



## Hereticus

Mournblade94 said:


> Any player worth their salt should be able to account for every effect on their character even at epic levels. it is no worse than performing an office job. Also I submit that figuring out those cascading effects is part of the fun.




You are right about character abilities, that is if the character started at first level and worked its way up.

One test to determine if a character is a never-played invention is if the player has little clue how to use all its abilities.



alleynbard said:


> Some players would rather the game not come to a screeching halt as they perform math that is "no worse than performing an office job." That isn't fun for me, it wasn't fun for my players. When accounting for every effect on your character becomes a chore after about 9th level, the game ceases to be fun for some people.




How does this bring the game to any sort of "screeching halt as they perform math"?

I've played my Eladrin Wizard to 12th level, and even at that level I have a good understanding of every power, feat, skill and item that I wrote on my character sheet. Not just for combat, but for role playing.

There is very little math involved, and it is a lack of understanding of character abilities that slows a game down.


----------



## GnomeWorks

Mournblade94 said:


> I think alot of these claims of math slowing the game down are quite exaggerated.  We are not figuring out integrals, we are doing addition.




Oh yeah, totally. You're not experiencing it, so that means the problem doesn't exist for someone else!


----------



## Cadfan

Wait, seriously, figuring out that +4 strength and an increase to "large" size creates a net increase of +1 attack, +2 damage, +1 weapon die, is part of the "fun?"  Like, just being told that wouldn't be as fun?

Really?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Cadfan said:


> Wait, seriously, figuring out that +4 strength and an increase to "large" size creates a net increase of +1 attack, +2 damage, +1 weapon die, is part of the "fun?"  Like, just being told that wouldn't be as fun?
> 
> Really?




I wouldn't count it as fun or un-fun.  I'd count it as something that you just do automatically.

I don't get the claims of changing all your skills.  Strength goes to what, climb?  How often do you use climb in battle?  And for those isolated events in which you would, then you'd *already know to look specifically at climb*.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that 3.5 was just an easy breasy no math allowed play through.  I just think that 4e is just as bad as 3.5 was.


----------



## Hereticus

I think alot of these claims of math slowing the game down are quite exaggerated. We are not figuring out integrals, we are doing addition.



GnomeWorks said:


> Oh yeah, totally. You're not experiencing it, so that means the problem doesn't exist for someone else!




Serious question, what type of math slows the game down?

You have the most creative and imaginative group here you could ever want, someone may have a solution.



Cadfan said:


> Wait, seriously, figuring out that +4 strength and an increase to "large" size creates a net increase of +1 attack, +2 damage, +1 weapon die, is part of the "fun?" Like, just being told that wouldn't be as fun?




Someone who does not like spelling should not attempt a crossword puzzle, yet some people find them very enjoyable.

There is math and memorization involved with every edition of D&D, but there are ways to simplify it.


----------



## alleynbard

Hereticus said:


> How does this bring the game to any sort of "screeching halt as they perform math"?
> 
> I've played my Eladrin Wizard to 12th level, and even at that level I have a good understanding of every power, feat, skill and item that I wrote on my character sheet. Not just for combat, but for role playing.
> 
> There is very little math involved, and it is a lack of understanding of character abilities that slows a game down.




I'm confused.  You just made a reference to a 4e character (I presume) and I wasn't talking about 4e. I was talking about 3e.  We have no issues with this in 4e.  In fact, that was one of the things that really appealed to me about 4e.

In 3e when buffs were applied there was some math involved, progressively more as more buffs are added.  It takes some time adding up those bonuses and their cascading effects. More often than not, this happened before combat so it meant there was a delay that many of us weren't fond of.

 In addition, when a character gains a buff, it rarely comes from their own suite of abilities.  What you are asking is that my fighter not only know what he does but what the whole range of wizard and cleric spells as well?  Certainly, if the same buff is consistently cast upon him, that is possible.  But I don't expect any player to know exactly what everyone else at the table is capable of doing.


----------



## Hereticus

alleynbard said:


> I'm confused.  You just made a reference to a 4e character (I presume) and I wasn't talking about 4e. I was talking about 3e.  We have no issues with this in 4e.  In fact, that was one of the things that really appealed to me about 4e.
> 
> In 3e when buffs were applied there was some math involved, progressively more as more buffs are added.  It takes some time adding up those bonuses and their cascading effects. More often than not, this happened before combat so it meant there was a delay that many of us weren't fond of.
> 
> In addition, when a character gains a buff, it rarely comes from their own suite of abilities.  What you are asking is that my fighter not only know what he does but what the whole range of wizard and cleric spells as well?  Certainly, if the same buff is consistently cast upon him, that is possible.  But I don't expect any player to know exactly what everyone else at the table is capable of doing.




Look, I have never found the math from any edition difficult, nor keeping track of my character's abilities. It's part of the game, all editions, and I had done it gladly.

I've had plenty of epic level 1/2/3 characters, and it was never difficult adding single digit numbers together. As someone said upthread, we were happy to be able to add more bonuses. It was not a chore.

This reminds me of a commercial for microwavable macaroni and cheese. The child that it is appealing to thought that boiling water was too difficult.


----------



## alleynbard

Hereticus said:


> This reminds me of a commercial for microwavable macaroni and cheese. The child that it is appealing to thought that boiling water was too difficult.




I didn't say we found it difficult.  I said it was not something we wanted out of our gaming experience. I was never fond of the cascading buff system.

Really, is there any need to come after me?  I didn't attack you. I haven't attacked 3e.  I played it for its entire life span. Why? Because it was D&D. But I never particularly loved aspects of the game.  This is one of them.

We are not lazy, we just look for different things in our games.  Is there a reason you find that offensive?  

I am happy with 4e and I believe in letting others be happy with the game they love.  I was expressing an opinion of 3e that in no way should be taken as a condemnation of others who enjoy it. I did get a bit snippy. But that really had no origins in how I feel about 3e or those that play it. In fact, I said as much to Mournblade.  I am far from a badwrongfun kind of guy.  

I am happy Pathfinder is coming out. I am pleased that 3e still has a vibrant community. I don't find any of this a threat to me or my game of choice.

Why can't you at least show the same modicum of respect as I am showing you?


----------



## Hereticus

No offense intended, and I apologize if I came of sounding grumpy.

I enjoyed playing Clerics in 1/2/3 edition, and I always tried to throw as many bonuses at possible at other characters. But I liked Clerics for more than their spell casting abilities. They were the city builders and always involved with what was happening in the city.

One interesting comment that was given to me was by one of the Fighters. He had always thought that my character was a useless combatant who did not contribute to the success of the party as I had few individual kills. I had missed a week, and upon my return he had realized the value of all the bonuses and protections that I gave out.

I especially liked the Status spell, because I knew where I had to give help.

I guess that I missed your concern because all the bonuses were second nature to me. The DM was a chess master, so he probably had everything processed in his mind without an afterthought.

If you don't mind me asking, what were some of your favorite characters?


----------



## hong

ProfessorCirno said:


> Hey.  Hey.  Hey.  Hey.
> 
> In my opinion, you're wrong.
> 
> And you can't take that away from me.
> 
> :3c
> 
> _No seriously I don't understand the sudden influx of people telling me I'm wrong.  Uh, no.  I'm not wrong.  In m opinion, 3.5 was easier then 4e.  You cannot prove me wrong.  So why are you trying to?_



You might not be wrong. Of course, you might not be representative either.


----------



## fanboy2000

ProfessorCirno said:


> _No seriously I don't understand the sudden influx of people telling me I'm wrong.  Uh, no.  I'm not wrong.  In m opinion, 3.5 was easier then 4e.  You cannot prove me wrong.  So why are you trying to?_



Well, the snarky answer is that this is the internet. Welcome argument hell. 

The more serious answer, and I doubt you really want one, is that people hold the opposite opinion and strongly feel you are wrong. People sometimes mistake personal taste for some kind of objective reason. Also, there's some weird idea floating around that people change their opinions based on reason. Technically, this true. The problem is that sometimes personal taste is miss-classified as opinion. This causes some people to think that personal taste can be changed based on some kind of argument. This is false, but it seems true when personal taste is miss-classified as opinion.


----------



## Cadfan

Hereticus said:


> Someone who does not like spelling should not attempt a crossword puzzle, yet some people find them very enjoyable.
> 
> There is math and memorization involved with every edition of D&D, but there are ways to simplify it.



Yes, yes.  I can understand finding 3e fun.  I just am not sure that actual human beings find the actual fun to reside in the fact that many spells and effects modified variables that seed other equations, resulting in cascading changes to the end-product stats you actually use.

I can understand people having fun WITH a game where spells and effects modify seed variables.

But having fun BECAUSE spells and effects modify seed variables?  Really?  What part of that is more fun than achieving the same end result without the seed variables and cascading mathematical changes?  The challenge of remembering how to do simple but memorization-intense basic algebra?


----------



## alleynbard

Hereticus said:


> No offense intended, and I apologize if I came of sounding grumpy.
> 
> I enjoyed playing Clerics in 1/2/3 edition, and I always tried to throw as many bonuses at possible at other characters. But I liked Clerics for more than their spell casting abilities. They were the city builders and always involved with what was happening in the city.
> 
> One interesting comment that was given to me was by one of the Fighters. He had always thought that my character was a useless combatant who did not contribute to the success of the party as I had few individual kills. I had missed a week, and upon my return he had realized the value of all the bonuses and protections that I gave out.
> 
> I especially liked the Status spell, because I knew where I had to give help.
> 
> I guess that I missed your concern because all the bonuses were second nature to me. The DM was a chess master, so he probably had everything processed in his mind without an afterthought.
> 
> If you don't mind me asking, what were some of your favorite characters?




No harm done.  I will admit to being a bit oversensitive today, so that is certainly part of it.  I would love to call truce and move on, sound good?

More often than not, I am the DM.  Part of that has to do with being a control freak.  The other part has to do with the fact no one else really wants to do it.

During OD&D, 1e, and 2e it was wizards.  I liked the resource management aspect of the class.  Changing from Vancian magic to the 4e system of powers was a bit difficult for me at first.  I didn't like what I saw.  But it finally "clicked" for me and I was okay.

During 3e it was paladins.  Somewhere along the line I became more enamored with the idea of chivalry and nobility more than slinging spells. I like to play the "good guy" and it shows in most of my character builds.  I guess I truly want to be a good and noble person so I project that through my playstyle.

I am finally getting a chance to see 4e from the other side of the screen and I am playing a bard.  But I will admit I am sorely tempted by a deva invoker.  That combo combines my love of spellcasters with my inclination towards noble characters. So my choice might change.

Thanks for asking, by the way.


----------



## LostSoul

Hereticus said:


> What do you mean by "think more strategically"?




Make plans before rushing headlong into those stress situations where you don't have the time to cast a ritual.  Do some scouting first - maybe using rituals to help - and figure out what you are likely to need to take on the opposition.  Set them up using your map of the level and draw monsters to where you want them to be.

That sort of thing.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Okay, here’s an exercise for everyone! Here’s a level 19 Cleric with a Prestige Class! This is from Dungeon 136.

Sesorya Girgul CR 19
LE Medium humanoid
Libris Mortis 46
Init +3; Senses dark vision 60 ft, Listen +7, Spot +18
Languages Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Infernal
Aura desecrate 20-ft

AC 26, touch 9, flat-footed 26
HP 127 (19 HD) DR 3/-
Fort +11, Ref +7, Will +20

Spd 20 ft, fly 40 ft. (average)
Melee +18/+13/+8 +4 frost human bane Morningstar (1d8+5 plus 1d6 cold plus 2d6 vs. humans)

Base Atk +13 Grp +14
Combat Gear potion of barkskin (+5)
Special Action death touch 1 day (9d6), rebuke undead 5/day (+4, 2d6+21, 19th), summon undead 5/day

Cleric Spells (CL 18th, +12 ranged)
Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestments cast and included in the stat block. Other spells are not mentioned to save space and my time.

Abilities Str 12, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 24, Cha 14

Special abilities and Feats not detailed in order to save more space and time.

Skills Concentration +24, Spellcraft +22, Spot +18

Items +1 frost human bane Morningstar, +3 heavy shield, adamantine full plate, cape of the mountain bank, carpet of flying (5ft by 5ft), goggles of night, periapt of Wisdom +6, phylactery of desecration, ring of invisibility, ring of mind shielding. 

*Now break out your PHBs and a timer and see how long it takes you to apply the buffs listed in her tactics section!*

Tactics: Sesorya drinks her potion of barkskin before entering combat and casts greater spell immunity (horrid willing, power word blind, disintegrate, flesh to stone), protection from energy (fire, cold, and electricity), spell resistance, true seeing, bear’s endurance, cat’s grace, death ward, aid, shield of faith, unholy aura, divine power, prayer, and divine favor, then summons a pair of dread wraiths (this summon power is from her Prestige Class) and attacks. 

For extra credit, throw a dispel magic on her from another level 19th spell caster and recalculate her stats! 

Note: If need be, I can clean up and fill in the missing info on her stat block. But not now


----------



## Plissken

> Prestidigitation: The best thing, flavor wise, about wizards in 4th is that Prestidigitation is an at-will power. I know a guy who, after every combat, uses Prestidigitation to clean his clothes. Tea cold? Prestidigitation. Table at the Inn dirty? Prestidigitation. Want to impress some peasant with magic? Prestidigitation.




You've gotta be kidding me.


----------



## Tuft

Plissken said:


> Prestidigitation: The best thing, flavor wise, about wizards in 4th is that Prestidigitation is an at-will power. I know a guy who, after every combat, uses Prestidigitation to clean his clothes. Tea cold? Prestidigitation. Table at the Inn dirty? Prestidigitation. Want to impress some peasant with magic? Prestidigitation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've gotta be kidding me.
Click to expand...



Well, it has to be a very small table and small set of clothes, since the Prestidigitation only can clean within one cubic foot...  (Perhaps he walks around in tanga shorts?   )


----------



## Intense_Interest

Hereticus said:


> Look, I have never found the math from any edition difficult, nor keeping track of my character's abilities. It's part of the game, all editions, and I had done it gladly.
> 
> I've had plenty of epic level 1/2/3 characters, and it was never difficult adding single digit numbers together. As someone said upthread, we were happy to be able to add more bonuses. It was not a chore.
> 
> This reminds me of a commercial for microwavable macaroni and cheese. The child that it is appealing to thought that boiling water was too difficult.




I'm pretty much the only guy speaking in the vein of finding the math "difficult", so I'll state my point:

In all honesty- for my group, at least- it is!  We aren't playing with Tonka Toys between game-days either: most of us are accomplished enough in our lives to have the money to spend on this hobby.  So when I say that the beer we drink inhibits our ability to do the math, it isn't because of our inability to figure the arithmetic.  

We come to the table for the social interaction which the alcohol acts as a lubricant, enough that when the combat rounds start, we don't _want_ to be sitting with bowed heads and eraser-headed pencils, and would rather be plotting round-by-round combats and joshing one another about missing a goblin.  

If one is allowed to reference "dating" without linking wikipedia, the ultimate work of the stacking bonus systems is like filling out Crossword puzzles inbetween rounds of Speed Dating.  Yes, there might be a market for the service, and I can promise someone here will pipe up in saying so, but the two ideas are dischordinant: the social atmosphere of table-based gaming versus the isolated work of bonus calculation.

4E works better for us, because most of the fiddly bits are single-learning applications: Dazed and Stunned at least have names and independant rules to describe them, and the round-by-round nature of these conditions enable us to learn them quickly because of their immediate application. Pretty much everyone at the table learns what Marked means after the second encounter; but on the other hand, no one remembers what the the +4 from Cats Grace goes to until you look up the page number on the Wizard's sheet (True story, we had an argument over if the Grace represented Charisma or Dexterity).  As a group, we choose to use the rule-set that allowed us to skip the Crossword part, and play the Dating Game.  Whoopie, indeed.


----------



## Jhaelen

MichaelSomething said:


> For extra credit, throw a dispel magic on her from another level 19th spell caster and recalculate her stats!



Hee, hee! Yep, that's something I have to deal with in almost every encounter in my 3E campaign. It's a psionic campaign to boot and the psionic dispel is broken-good. The psion pc recently acquired the Null-Psionics Field power for even more fun.

Unless I take the time to create dual stat blocks for every enemy this is a major game stopper. Even that doesn't always help if the dispel doesn't work on everything.
And no amount of preparation can help when an enemy uses a dispel on a pc.


----------



## Hereticus

Cadfan said:


> I can understand people having fun WITH a game where spells and effects modify seed variables.
> 
> But having fun BECAUSE spells and effects modify seed variables?  Really?  What part of that is more fun than achieving the same end result without the seed variables and cascading mathematical changes?  The challenge of remembering how to do simple but memorization-intense basic algebra?




I've been playing D&D since 1980 and I've never heard of "seed variables".

Is this a spoof post?

If not, please explain what a "seed variable" is.

And what are you talking about regarding "cascading mathematical changes"?


----------



## Hereticus

LostSoul said:


> Make plans before rushing headlong into those stress situations where you don't have the time to cast a ritual.  Do some scouting first - maybe using rituals to help - and figure out what you are likely to need to take on the opposition.  Set them up using your map of the level and draw monsters to where you want them to be.




Oh... what I've been doing all along.

The problem with my current 4.0E game is that the fighter types never want to wait. In a group of six, two fighters and a cleric always charge into battle with planning. I know this frustrates the DM too, who has made efforts not to have them killed.

I've only played in one 4.0E group, and perhaps it is a bad example of strategic patience. The group I DMed for with the Delve Nights sampler was not nearly as impulsive. If they were, they'd be dead.


----------



## Hereticus

alleynbard said:


> More often than not, I am the DM.  Part of that has to do with being a control freak.  The other part has to do with the fact no one else really wants to do it.




Two of the groups I joined a while back used a system of rotating DMs. By its nature, the DMs routinely ceded control to others.

As DM I try to involve the other players with "world building", because I do not want to control everything, just act as referee.

Different playing styles makes the world go around.


----------



## Hereticus

MichaelSomething said:


> Okay, here’s an exercise for everyone! Here’s a level 19 Cleric with a Prestige Class! This is from Dungeon 136.




If it is a player's character, they should be familiar with it enough to do it quickly from over a year of practice.

If it is a DM's invention, they had prep time to achieve a desired effect for what is most likely the featured opponent.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

MichaelSomething said:


> Okay, here’s an exercise for everyone! Here’s a level 19 Cleric with a Prestige Class! This is from Dungeon 136.




Maybe 60 seconds depending on how long it takes me to look up unholy aura. 

Otherwise I just write this at the top of the sheet:

+5 nat armor
BAB = CL
+4 DEX
+4 CON
+6 STR
+3 luck divine favor
+1 luck saves prayer

It helps that I know what _most _of those spells do (otherwise I would not be running a 19th level adventure.)

No calculations are made until they're needed, and then they're applied on the fly.

BBEG just failed a Reflex save? Would the +3 bonus from the Dex and Prayer help?

Did he just get hit with a fire attack? Ok, _now _I write a little 120 above "fire" and subtract the damage from that protection from energy tally.

That kind of thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Maybe 60 seconds depending on how long it takes me to look up unholy aura.
> 
> Otherwise I just write this at the top of the sheet:
> 
> +5 nat armor
> BAB = CL
> +4 DEX
> +4 CON
> +6 STR
> +3 luck divine favor
> +1 luck saves prayer
> 
> It helps that I know what _most _of those spells do (otherwise I would not be running a 19th level adventure.)
> 
> No calculations are made until they're needed, and then they're applied on the fly.
> 
> BBEG just failed a Reflex save? Would the +3 bonus from the Dex and Prayer help?
> 
> Did he just get hit with a fire attack? Ok, _now _I write a little 120 above "fire" and subtract the damage from that protection from energy tally.
> 
> That kind of thing.



Will Trailblazer contain such "get organized" tips, too? I think that would be neat. (And I think some such tips can be applied regardless of edition - and sometimes even game.)


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Maybe 60 seconds depending on how long it takes me to look up unholy aura.
> 
> Otherwise I just write this at the top of the sheet:
> 
> +5 nat armor
> BAB = CL
> +4 DEX
> +4 CON
> +6 STR
> +3 luck divine favor
> +1 luck saves prayer




This is what I do and my players must do. If you have a spell you must have its bonus listed or you can't use it. Its your responsibility as a caster to know what your spells your casting do. By 19th level if you don't know what the spells do I really don't know what to tell you.

Listing such things it a real time saver


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Will Trailblazer contain such "get organized" tips, too? I think that would be neat. (And I think some such tips can be applied regardless of edition - and sometimes even game.)




Yes. We struggled with the "buffs are a pain in the ass" issue for a long time before deciding that they were a component of good, tactical play, and their absence from high level play in particular would take away more than you gained.

So rather than take a heavy-handed approach curtailing buffs, we're looking at the things that we already do in our game to make them manageable, and we'll share what we know. 

We will, however, be hammering _dispel magic_. Its current implementation is just terrible for play.


----------



## AllisterH

re: Ritual time and cost
With regard to time, it should be noted that a) casting from a scroll cuts the casting time down to half and b) it is a balancing method to prevent encroachment on skills. Non-combat magic in 4e via rituals is more powerful than skills but at a cost of being more time-consuming...

Cost I'm not sure why they bothered. While for example, Comprehend Languages is expensive at 1st level, by the time you hit 5th or 6th level, the cost is a non-issue. Only thing I can think of is that they want to gradually phase rituals into the campaign world when they first become available.


re: Comprehend Languages
This spell has changed slightly over the editions. Note that the ritual version lasts 24 hours and if your Arcana check is high enough, you can actually write and/or speak the language and you don't need to actually touch the person/writing.


----------



## hong

Hereticus said:


> I've been playing D&D since 1980 and I've never heard of "seed variables".
> 
> Is this a spoof post?
> 
> If not, please explain what a "seed variable" is.
> 
> And what are you talking about regarding "cascading mathematical changes"?




It is the phenomenon of a change in one variable causing changes in other variables. The seed variable is the initial variable. This could have been gleaned from context.


----------



## hong

Hereticus said:


> If it is a player's character, they should be familiar with it enough to do it quickly from over a year of practice.
> 
> If it is a DM's invention, they had prep time to achieve a desired effect for what is most likely the featured opponent.




This is making a virtue out of necessity.


----------



## Mournblade94

GnomeWorks said:


> Oh yeah, totally. You're not experiencing it, so that means the problem doesn't exist for someone else!




I can agree with this statement.

I find the math to simple to bring a game to a screeching halt.


----------



## Mallus

Mournblade94 said:


> I find the math to simple to bring a game to a screeching halt.



I don't think anyone is saying the math is _complex_. What it is is a lot of dull, simple arithmetic that's hard for some folks to concentrate on when they're gaming, particularly if it's late on a work night, they've been drinking, or both.


----------



## billd91

Mallus said:


> I don't think anyone is saying the math is _complex_. What it is is a lot of dull, simple arithmetic that's hard for some folks to concentrate on when they're gaming, particularly if it's late on a work night, they've been drinking, or both.




Somehow, I don't think that kind of player is going to find keeping track of all of the conditional bonuses and feats in paragon/epic tier 4e easy either.

Aside from the invulnerability to things like dispel magic, I don't think 4e is any improvement in this regard.


----------



## Mallus

billd91 said:


> Somehow, I don't think that kind of player is going to find keeping track of all of the conditional bonuses and feats in paragon/epic tier 4e easy either.



Possibly. I'll let you know my experience when we get there. Currently my group's only 7th.


----------



## alleynbard

Hereticus said:


> Two of the groups I joined a while back used a system of rotating DMs. By its nature, the DMs routinely ceded control to others.
> 
> As DM I try to involve the other players with "world building", because I do not want to control everything, just act as referee.
> 
> Different playing styles makes the world go around.




The control freak part was mostly a joke.  Mostly.

I allow the other players to world build as well.  They have an active interest in the world and deserve to be apart of that process.

I have suggested rotating DMs.  No one else really wants to do it.  With their families, work, and other responsibilities they say they would never have time.  They are likely right.  Since my responsibilities are things that can be easily molded around game prep time, it makes me the natural choice.


----------



## Mournblade94

Mallus said:


> I don't think anyone is saying the math is _complex_. What it is is a lot of dull, simple arithmetic that's hard for some folks to concentrate on when they're gaming, particularly if it's late on a work night, they've been drinking, or both.




I was simply responding to a sarcastic comment.


----------



## Mournblade94

billd91 said:


> Somehow, I don't think that kind of player is going to find keeping track of all of the conditional bonuses and feats in paragon/epic tier 4e easy either.
> 
> Aside from the invulnerability to things like dispel magic, I don't think 4e is any improvement in this regard.



 Very well said!  Have some experience points.


----------



## hong

billd91 said:


> Somehow, I don't think that kind of player is going to find keeping track of all of the conditional bonuses and feats in paragon/epic tier 4e easy either.




They will, because

1) there are fewer of them, unless you go out of your way to find conditional stuff, in which case it's your own lookout.

2) bonuses are either one-off things, not extending beyond one round, or last until the end of the encounter. You never have to track rounds remaining or other such minutiae.

3) you do not have cascading bonuses to worry about.



> Aside from the invulnerability to things like dispel magic, I don't think 4e is any improvement in this regard.




It certainly is, for the reasons stated above.

Now that said, you managed to miss the REAL source of complexity in how stats vary over the course of a 4E encounter: conditions, marking and striker damage. Tracking which of 5 orcs is weakened, which is stunned and which is dazed, as well as who the paladin has marked and who the fighter has marked (and that they can't be the same orc), and who the ranger and rogue are targeting, can bring a session to its knees. The solution is to use visual aids for these, like markers, counters, and so on.


----------



## LostSoul

Hereticus said:


> The problem with my current 4.0E game is that the fighter types never want to wait. In a group of six, two fighters and a cleric always charge into battle with planning. I know this frustrates the DM too, who has made efforts not to have them killed.




Ah.  Maybe your DM needs to think more strategically! 

This time that means that, in order to get good use out of rituals, he should design the dungeons so there are a lot of opportunities for their use.


----------



## D'karr

Hereticus said:


> The problem with my current 4.0E game is that the fighter types never want to wait. In a group of six, two fighters and a cleric always charge into battle with planning. I know this frustrates the DM too, who has made efforts not to have them killed.




Maybe the DM should give those 3 what they deserve and kill them.  Then you can talk strategy...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

D'karr said:


> Maybe the DM should give those 3 what they deserve and kill them.  Then you can talk strategy...




It all depends on what the players want from the game. I they love the "Charge and Attack" and have this lead to success, you might have to adapt to it, and make combats "simpler". 

I am not sure 3E or 4E are the right games for this type of play - not because it's impossible to play them that "simple", but simply because you ignore most of these games strength and complexity. But the end goal is to have an entertaining event at the game table, not becoming a tactical and strategic mastermind.


----------



## Storminator

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It all depends on what the players want from the game. I they love the "Charge and Attack" and have this lead to success, you might have to adapt to it, and make combats "simpler".




We frequently charge in. Sometimes we sit around and discuss strategy and options and conclude that we should charge in.

My PC is famous for leading the charge. Once we had a plan that was "after the dwarf (me) drops in combat, we'll lure the enemies forward, and heal the dwarf behind them!" That old saying "the plan never survives contact with the enemy" that's a load of bull. My plans always survive contact with the enemy. That's probably because "contact with the enemy" is a large percentage of my plan!



> I am not sure 3E or 4E are the right games for this type of play - not because it's impossible to play them that "simple", but simply because you ignore most of these games strength and complexity. But the end goal is to have an entertaining event at the game table, not becoming a tactical and strategic mastermind.




Even tho we start brawls without a lot of forethought, we end up utilizing every inch of strategic complexity in our games... usually to get us out of the mess I've gotten us into.

PS


----------



## Raven Crowking

DarkMasterBR said:


> God, I have that exactly same feelings. 4e did a lot of things very right, so much that I don't feel very well going back to 3.5. But the blandness of the classes is terrible, I eats me inside. I see things like "the monk playtest is coming out in may!" and I don't get all excited because I know it's going to have the same at will / encounter / daily power structure, and that's kind of a let down.
> 
> Don't know what to play, though




The RCFG Player's Guide will be out this summer, and free.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

If players are doing too much blind charging in to the point where it's problematic, may I suggest your next game be Shadowrun? :3c


----------



## Cadfan

Hereticus said:


> I've been playing D&D since 1980 and I've never heard of "seed variables".
> 
> Is this a spoof post?
> 
> If not, please explain what a "seed variable" is.
> 
> And what are you talking about regarding "cascading mathematical changes"?



Hong beat me to it, but yes.

Imagine one game where you have a special power "Herculean Strength."  It grants +5 damage.

Imagine another game where you have a special power "Herculean Strength."  It grants +10 to variable X, which is related to damage by the equation INT(X/2).

X is the seed variable.  The cascading mathematical changes are the things that follow from X.

I can imagine having fun with the second game.  I just don't get the claims of people in this thread who say that the second game would be inherently more fun because they like figuring out INT(X/2) at the game table for variously changing values of X.  I feel like I'm being put on.  That's really what makes the game fun for them?


----------



## Mournblade94

Cadfan said:


> Hong beat me to it, but yes.
> 
> Imagine one game where you have a special power "Herculean Strength."  It grants +5 damage.
> 
> Imagine another game where you have a special power "Herculean Strength."  It grants +10 to variable X, which is related to damage by the equation INT(X/2).
> 
> X is the seed variable.  The cascading mathematical changes are the things that follow from X.
> 
> I can imagine having fun with the second game.  I just don't get the claims of people in this thread who say that the second game would be inherently more fun because they like figuring out INT(X/2) at the game table for variously changing values of X.  I feel like I'm being put on.  That's really what makes the game fun for them?




As far as I can see I have made 2 claims:

1) Math in D&D is not difficult
2) I enjoy calculations in my gaming (I even do this with video games, in Total War I want to know my armies values, and I LIKE figuring it out.)

I did not ever claim that the CALCULATIONS are what makes the game fun.  It is one of the many fun parts that I enjoy.  You are not being put on.  People after all major in math because they enjoy it (I am not a math major).

I challenge the notion that the simplified math somehow makes 4e superior.  That is the purpose to all of my posts.


----------



## Cadfan

Mournblade94 said:


> 2) I enjoy calculations in my gaming (I even do this with video games, in Total War I want to know my armies values, and I LIKE figuring it out.)



+


> I did not ever claim that the CALCULATIONS are what makes the game fun.



=
Bwuh?

It seems that you are quite clearly saying that, between two identical games, you would prefer one where you have to do arithmetic.  

Not that middle school level arithmetic is the only reason you enjoy the game, of course, but simply that you prefer the presence of middle school level arithmetic to its absence.  I just have trouble buying it.  It seems an outlandish claim, the sort of thing someone says during a heated argument but which they do not actually mean.  Much like claiming that the reason you like watching football is because of the fun you get balancing your checkbook after you buy tickets.  Obviously balancing your checkbook isn't onerous, and shouldn't stop you from buying tickets, but it seems questionable to highlight it as one of the good parts.  Even if you are totally serious and you mean your words exactly as you have said them, I have to ask: do you believe that your opinion on this matter, that simple algebra improves fantasy gaming in and of itself simply because of the entertainment value of math, is represented amongst the population of gamers significantly enough that anyone should do anything about it?  Or is it more in line with people who believe that what D&D really needs is book covers made out of mink?  An honestly expressed opinion, but which hopefully even those who hold it recognize as an outlier?


----------



## Stogoe

fanboy2000 said:


> The more serious answer, and I doubt you really want one, is that people hold the opposite opinion and strongly feel you are wrong.



Oh, and also?  People who hold opposite opinions of Prof Cirno's are constantly told that they're wrong for having those opinions.  So that might have a whole ton to do with it.

Folks, Piratecat here. If you're seeing a problem, *report it*. The button is an exclamation point in a triangle, and it's to the left of every post. Don't take cheap shots at other members, though; that solves nothing and derails threads.  Thanks.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Stogoe said:


> Oh, and also?  People who hold opposite opinions of Prof Cirno's are constantly told that they're wrong for having those opinions.  So that might have a whole ton to do with it.




Oh?  Then it should be no problem for you to link me to when I last did that.


----------



## FireLance

Mouseferatu said:


> Sure, but now you're talking combat. We're talking about non-combat applications.
> 
> If a trapped door requires an intricate skill challenge to penetrate--using Perception to find the mechanisms, Thievery to dismantle them, Acrobatics to avoid the counter-attacks, and so on--do we want a wizard to be able to bypass all that because he can cast _knock_? What purpose does the rogue serve, at that point?
> 
> Remember, I'm _agreeing_ that I'd like to see a little more differentiation between classes. I _want_ to see more non-combat utility spells for casters, and powers for non-casters.
> 
> I just _also_ want them not to step on each others' toes, or to mitigate the need for actual skill use.



A little late to this discussion, but I was wondering if one way to make rituals more useful without eclipsing skills is to give a small side ability for each ritual that can be used either once per encounter or once per day. For example, Open Lock could allow the character to use an Arcana check in place of a Thievery check to open a lock once per encounter. Comprehend Language could allow the character to understand and speak the language of a creature he is interacting with for one round once per encounter. Raise Dead could allow the character to negate one failed death save once per day, and so on.


----------



## Hereticus

The problem with my current 4.0E game is that the fighter types never want to wait. In a group of six, two fighters and a cleric always charge into battle with planning. I know this frustrates the DM too, who has made efforts not to have them killed.



LostSoul said:


> Ah.  Maybe your DM needs to think more strategically!
> 
> This time that means that, in order to get good use out of rituals, he should design the dungeons so there are a lot of opportunities for their use.




You're right there, we went through three DMs. The first two moved, and a new group member took over. I was running a 3.5E game, so I didn't want to take over. The game ended with us at 12th level.

The owner of the local store is a friend of mine, so he asked me to run the Delve Nights. I had run the Sewers of Silence sample for 8th level characters, and there were six players instead of five. I plan on running the next Delve Nights in May. The players used Water Walking and Speak With Dead.


----------



## Hereticus

The problem with my current 4.0E game is that the fighter types never want to wait. In a group of six, two fighters and a cleric always charge into battle with planning. I know this frustrates the DM too, who has made efforts not to have them killed.



D'karr said:


> Maybe the DM should give those 3 what they deserve and kill them.  Then you can talk strategy...




I agree, I would've done so as the DM.

But as a player I would never suggest to the DM that he kill other players characters.

I spoke to the players numerous times in a light manner, and they would get better for an encounter or two, but that was the characters that they wanted to play. One said they didn't care if their character died, they'd just role up another.


----------



## Piratecat

Hereticus said:


> The owner of the local store is a friend of mine, so he asked me to run the Delve Nights. I had run the Sewers of Silence sample for 8th level characters, and there were six players instead of five. I plan on running the next Delve Nights in May.



What store do you run it at? Sounds fun.


----------



## Hereticus

Piratecat said:


> What store do you run it at? Sounds fun.




*The Gamers Grotto
337 Main Street
Bennington, VT, 05201
1-802-447-0091

Proprietor: Keith*

I will be running the official Delve Nights at the store, starting Thursday night (May 07) at 6:00.


----------



## LostSoul

Hereticus said:


> The owner of the local store is a friend of mine, so he asked me to run the Delve Nights. I had run the Sewers of Silence sample for 8th level characters, and there were six players instead of five. I plan on running the next Delve Nights in May. The players used Water Walking and Speak With Dead.




Is that the one with the Yuan-Ti?

In that one there's a well that links to the final room which a badass can move through.  I had already cast Tenser's Floating Disc and I used it to cover the well - the DM allowed me to make an Int vs. Fort check to block the creature that rose from it.

I almost cast a Magic Circle vs. Natural creatures over the main door but then we wouldn't be able to get through.  If I had taken the time to explore the well, I would have cast it over that!


----------



## Piratecat

Thanks - I have a friend up that way. I'll mention it to him.


----------



## Intense_Interest

Mournblade94 said:


> I challenge the notion that the simplified math somehow makes 4e superior.  That is the purpose to all of my posts.




And I challenge it with my own experience and the underlying notion that the game, being a social atmosphere, has no need for isolated calculation immediately before, during, or outside of combat.  4E eliminates the extended impact of vaguely named bonuses that danced through a Caster's spells-per-day listing that we had in 3E: What is "Divine Power", really?  +6 to Strength bonus isn't discretely anything Divine or Powerful.  Is Cat's Grace a term of physical attributes or psycho-cultural?  Instead, we have Stunned, which is agreeably Stunned and only Stunned in a method different from Dazed, Slowed, and Prone.

Simplified math and phraseology is a virtue of a clean and robust system, and my group uses 4E in lieu of other D&D-likes because of this.


----------



## Hereticus

LostSoul said:


> Is that the one with the Yuan-Ti?
> 
> In that one there's a well that links to the final room which a badass can move through.  I had already cast Tenser's Floating Disc and I used it to cover the well - the DM allowed me to make an Int vs. Fort check to block the creature that rose from it.
> 
> I almost cast a Magic Circle vs. Natural creatures over the main door but then we wouldn't be able to get through.  If I had taken the time to explore the well, I would have cast it over that!




I would've cast Floating Disk, that has always been a favorite of mine.

There was no built in Yuan-Ti, but if there was one give credit to your DM for addition.

I had added a Rakshasa. One player was running a Deva, so when two other characters entered town they came upon a humanoid who had just murdered a peasant. The murderer ran off, but was well dressed, and the victim was some poor slob. When the two characters investigated the body they noticed odd claw marks and found a gold holy symbol. That holy symbol just happened to be from the deity worshipped by the Deva Cleric.

They took the symbol, but left the body. When the group met at the tavern, they discussed their trip, and the holy symbol. It was identified as magic, but they could not identify the enchantment. The Deva Cleric asked for the symbol, and it was given to him. It happened to be a locating device for the Rakshasa that placed it.

Anyway, it did not play into the adventure, but it was a possible hook for the future.


----------



## Mournblade94

Cadfan said:


> +
> 
> =
> Bwuh?
> 
> It seems that you are quite clearly saying that, between two identical games, you would prefer one where you have to do arithmetic.




I do not consider 4e and 3rd edition identical.  The calculations are indeed ONE not the ONLY thing I liked about D&D.  I do not see how this is in any way difficult to believe.  CHemists actually like stochiometry.



Cadfan said:


> Not that middle school level arithmetic is the only reason you enjoy the game, of course, but simply that you prefer the presence of middle school level arithmetic to its absence.



4e has middle school level arithmetic as well.  

But no, I feel the level of arithmetic in 3rd edition gives me a better simulation of the situations I want.  I like the simple arithmetic as it is applied to the seed variables because it gives me a better simulation.  I am not enjoying it for the sake of rote arithmetic.  I enjoy it because I feel it gives a better simulation.  I do not understand what is difficult to believe about that, and if I did not make that clear in earlier posts I apologize.




Cadfan said:


> I just have trouble buying it.  It seems an outlandish claim, the sort of thing someone says during a heated argument but which they do not actually mean.




Perhaps then the post above clarified.  4e bonuses do nto give me the technical simulation I want.  (this is not the only reason I do not like 4e). 



Cadfan said:


> Much like claiming that the reason you like watching football is because of the fun you get balancing your checkbook after you buy tickets.  Obviously balancing your checkbook isn't onerous, and shouldn't stop you from buying tickets, but it seems questionable to highlight it as one of the good parts.




I don't see how the statement above is analogous.



Cadfan said:


> Even if you are totally serious and you mean your words exactly as you have said them, I have to ask: do you believe that your opinion on this matter, that simple algebra improves fantasy gaming in and of itself simply because of the entertainment value of math, is represented amongst the population of gamers significantly enough that anyone should do anything about it?  Or is it more in line with people who believe that what D&D really needs is book covers made out of mink?  An honestly expressed opinion, but which hopefully even those who hold it recognize as an outlier?




1) I do not know anyone that feels that math in any edition of D&D is difficult.

2)  The math was enjoyable simply to place a value on a character effect.  Analyzing how things aided or hindered that effect I found enjoyable.  

Does any of this mean I think 4e needs to be redesigned?  No.  

It is my opinion, that math and technicality add to gaming.  I am not the only one that thinks this, though I never claimed to be in a majority.  I think it significantly a more relevant opinion than the exaggeration of book covers made out of mink.


----------



## Mournblade94

Intense_Interest said:


> And I challenge it with my own experience and the underlying notion that the game, being a social atmosphere, has no need for isolated calculation immediately before, during, or outside of combat.  4E eliminates the extended impact of vaguely named bonuses that danced through a Caster's spells-per-day listing that we had in 3E: What is "Divine Power", really?  +6 to Strength bonus isn't discretely anything Divine or Powerful.  Is Cat's Grace a term of physical attributes or psycho-cultural?  Instead, we have Stunned, which is agreeably Stunned and only Stunned in a method different from Dazed, Slowed, and Prone.
> 
> Simplified math and phraseology is a virtue of a clean and robust system, and my group uses 4E in lieu of other D&D-likes because of this.




It can certainly depend on what reason you are gaming.  There are plenty of times I have gamed for the game, and was not concerned about the social atmosphere.  Quite honestly I game for the game itself rather than the social atmosphere.  I have my main group which I have een running with since 1988.  That is as much social as gaming.  WHen I am running a game in the gamestore, I am there for the game.


----------



## Hereticus

Mournblade94 said:


> It can certainly depend on what reason you are gaming.  There are plenty of times I have gamed for the game, and was not concerned about the social atmosphere.  Quite honestly I game for the game itself rather than the social atmosphere.  I have my main group which I have been running with since 1988.  That is as much social as gaming.  When I am running a game in the game store, I am there for the game.




For the most part, I have only gamed for the social atmosphere, the interaction between people in a fantasy setting.

Which I guess is why I have never played a video game.


----------



## Gort

Hereticus said:


> Which I guess is why I have never played a video game.




You're missing out. LAN parties where you get a bunch of friends to bring their computers round to your place and play some games all night are a ton of fun. You get your "social atmosphere" fix that way too.


----------



## fanboy2000

Tuft said:


> Well, it has to be a very small table and small set of clothes, since the Prestidigitation only can clean within one cubic foot...  (Perhaps he walks around in tanga shorts?   )



Well, for whatever it's worth, a wizard can cast Prestidigitation once every six seconds. A six-foot wizard could probably clean his cloths in about a minute. Inn tables would likely take less time. (Unless it's a really big table.)


----------



## Brother Richard

*Calculating Buffs With Cascading Bonuses*

I do not understand what the big deal is for spells that give bonuses to stats or other values with cascading effects.  i write that i have say +4 strength.  If i am attacking, that uses strength so i add my extra ++2 bonus.  Now I am climbing, and I am stronger than usual so i better add my strength bonus that i wrote down.

My point is that the cascading bonuses should be intuitive.  Strength applies to all activities that involve strength.  Dexterity applies to all activities that use dexterity.  I don't know, but that is how i see it.

Also, i like how if my spell makes me stronger, it actually gives me all of the bonuses that I should receive.  I don't want a divine might spell to give +2 damage; instead it should increase my might-->strength, which means I can jump better, lift weights better, etc

When my group plays D&D games, the GM usually tells us the modified roles of enemies in high level games, and if it is very close the players always pitch in to try to think of some reason that it should fail.  This also works for players when attacking.  For example, i would say, "i got a modified 19"  The bard player would say: "did you include my songs bonus?"  "Yep"  The cleric says "how about my prayer?"  "Oh i forgot, I got a 20".  This strategy partially works because it takes us a few rounds to guess the AC or close to it based on misses and hits.

On a completely unrelated note.  People always say that in 3e, the caster could overshadow everybody in and out of combat, but i disagree.  The caster must balance his spell selection.  The caster is the only character that's utility is inversely proportional to its combat capability.  if the caster wants to be a master out of combat, solving all of the traps and puzzles through a combination of intellect and arcane power, then in the fight the wicaster will not have many spells to bring to bear.


Just my thoughts.


----------



## Cadfan

Brother Richard said:


> When my group plays D&D games, the GM usually tells us the modified roles of enemies in high level games, and if it is very close the players always pitch in to try to think of some reason that it should fail. This also works for players when attacking. For example, i would say, "i got a modified 19" The bard player would say: "did you include my songs bonus?" "Yep" The cleric says "how about my prayer?" "Oh i forgot, I got a 20". This strategy partially works because it takes us a few rounds to guess the AC or close to it based on misses and hits.



See, I hate that.  I hate "hunt for the modifier."  I hate it so much.  I recognize that a certain amount of "hunt for the modifier" is inevitable in a game where lots of things can affect outcomes, which is probably inevitable in a tactically rich game.  But I still hate it.  Hate, hate, hate.  Hate.


----------



## fanboy2000

Brother Richard said:


> On a *completely unrelated note*.  People always say that in 3e, the caster could overshadow everybody in and out of combat, but i disagree.



Emphasis mine.

The irony is that this is the only part of your post that's on topic. 

I don't know about casters overshadowing in 3e. Casters were certainly powerful, but it seemed me, as a DM, that martial characters had lots of powerful options as well. Whatever deficiencies a straight fighter might have were mitigated by 3.x's PrCs, feats, and exotic weapons.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Brother Richard said:


> On a completely unrelated note.  People always say that in 3e, the caster could overshadow everybody in and out of combat, but i disagree.  The caster must balance his spell selection.  The caster is the only character that's utility is inversely proportional to its combat capability.  if the caster wants to be a master out of combat, solving all of the traps and puzzles through a combination of intellect and arcane power, then in the fight the wicaster will not have many spells to bring to bear.




IME, this issue is most apparent when you have a memorization based caster (cleric, wizard, etc) who likes scribing scrolls.  It applies to any caster, but spontaneous casters are a little more limited in that they have to buy scrolls to give them more options, which slows them down a bit in comparison to those with Scribe Scroll.

In the last 3.5 game I played in we had a wizard who, in addition to his daily complement of spells, wrote scrolls for every occasion.  He actually solo'd a golem or two using some spell specifically designed to kill golems (I think it was called Ray of Deanimation, but it's been a while) because the rest of us were getting our butts kicked.  IME, magic-immune golem encounters are supposed to be where the party saves the virtually useless mage, not the other way around.

I've heard a lot of people argue that it's balanced because he has to spend xp, but from what I've seen that isn't much of a deterrent.  If you're following the RAW, the caster gets extra xp once he starts falling behind anyway.  In that last 3.5 game, the DM actually didn't use that rule and it still didn't stop our wizard (until you start scribing high level spells, the cost is really quite negligible).

Admittedly, if the casters in your games don't bother with scrolls for whatever reason, this would not be an issue at all.  When casters can't circumvent their daily allowance of magic (via scrolls/ wands/ staves) they can be much more effectively balanced around the concept of utility vs combat.  With enough stored spells, however, their endurance becomes virtually that of the fighter with a flexibility and penchant for bending reality that non-casters simply don't possess (short of maybe a scroll-toting UMD guy at high levels, though he may as well be a caster at that point anyway).  

YMMV.


----------



## Ariosto

If memory serves, 3E made the creation not only of scrolls and potions but of permanent or charged items much easier. There was also the factor that, unlike in 1st ed. AD&D, a spell-caster of any level could replenish his full stock of spells with just a little effort each day.

So, part of the perceived need to boost non-magicians may have come from too much making life easier for the "poor, weak" magic user. "Screw the MU" was rather a rule of thumb previously, precisely because those that made it to Wizard status (rather than perishing in the attempt) possessed exceptional power -- they earned it!


----------



## Hussar

Brother Richard said:


> /snip
> On a completely unrelated note.  People always say that in 3e, the caster could overshadow everybody in and out of combat, but i disagree.  The caster must balance his spell selection.  The caster is the only character that's utility is inversely proportional to its combat capability.  if the caster wants to be a master out of combat, solving all of the traps and puzzles through a combination of intellect and arcane power, then in the fight the wicaster will not have many spells to bring to bear.
> 
> 
> Just my thoughts.




The problem is, this ties into SO many other issues.

Yes, you're right, if I go all utility, then I lose out on combat.  But, for the most part, you don't need to memorize utility spells.  Scrolls cover that much easier.  But, even without scrolls, it's 24 hours and you're good to go again.

That's why the non-caster classes get overshadowed.  Because the casters can simply wait a day and do everything a non-caster can do, only better.

The other issue is that at very high levels, say 13th+, the casters have so many spells that they can afford to fill up their 1st-3rd level slots with utility spells and still bring the pain in combat.  After all, combats aren't generally going to last more than 4-6 rounds as a rule of thumb.  If you have at least 4 spells/encounter, you're doing something every round.  By 13th level, a wizard has so many spells (plus bonuses for his Int, plus scrolls and sundry other items like Pearls of Power) that he just simply won't run out.


----------



## AllisterH

Ariosto said:


> If memory serves, 3E made the creation not only of scrolls and potions but of permanent or charged items much easier. There was also the factor that, unlike in 1st ed. AD&D, a spell-caster of any level could replenish his full stock of spells with just a little effort each day.
> 
> So, part of the perceived need to boost non-magicians may have come from too much making life easier for the "poor, weak" magic user. "Screw the MU" was rather a rule of thumb previously, precisely because those that made it to Wizard status (rather than perishing in the attempt) possessed exceptional power -- they earned it!




The thing is, I believe the 3e designers didn't realize this entirely...

Spells like Knock, Tongues et al (basically the utility spells) were balanced in 1e/2e since magic operated on the rarity concept. If a spellcaster only had 4 2nd level slots even at 20th level yeah it was fair that a 2nd level spell was a game changer...


----------



## Cadfan

AllisterH said:


> The thing is, I believe the 3e designers didn't realize this entirely...
> 
> Spells like Knock, Tongues et al (basically the utility spells) were balanced in 1e/2e since magic operated on the rarity concept. If a spellcaster only had 4 2nd level slots even at 20th level yeah it was fair that a 2nd level spell was a game changer...



I don't think that's necessarily the case.  You might only have 4 second level spell slots, but you'd also have 4 first level spell slots, third level spell slots, etc, etc, etc.

There are only so many "rounds" of action in a given day (I use "rounds" here in a subjective sense to refer to instances where a spell might be useful).  As the number of spell slots exceeds the number of rounds (which happens quickly when combat happens only once or twice per day and lasts only a round or two), the only REAL balancing factor is the potential for the wizard's player to guess wrong when he prepares his spells.  And as the number of spells increases, the likelihood of guessing wrong goes down because you can cover more bases.


----------



## Brother Richard

*Scrolls and Chargeed Items*

it is true that the sue of these items can be abused.  However, i feel that the brokeness of item creation cannot be counted as the brokeness of casters as a whole.  Also, the main class being overshadowed by the utility scrolls is the rogue, which can UMD anyway.  Therefore the use of charged items is not a significant advantage to spellcasters because every single rogue in the universe takes UMD.  I understand how a rogue using a scroll of knock seems foolish, but knock becomes useless at high levels anyway if i understand the spell correctly.  It doesn't stop traps does it?

Another comment I would like to make is based on the complaint about buffs and other such spells whether it is used for utility (fly) or in combat (....fly or righteous might).  When spellcasters in my group ever cast those spells, it is usually on our warrior to make them more powerful.  How is it unfun for my character to become superpowerful as I swipe enemies away with my size large greatsword because of many buffs?  I have fun and the casters feel they have contributed as well because they can take some credit for my actions.

Finally, i can see that there are at least some issues out of combat due to spells becoming so powerful, but that is fundamental to the power of magic in D&D.  It is one thing that 4e does that feels weird.  If you don't want a wizard that can build a tower in minutes, then you can't have a wizard that can create a hail of meteors that combined are larger than the tower.  The combat powers and out of combat powers need to reflect each other.  it is only natural for a wizard to utilize their magical might for utility, and it is only natural for the utility to be as powerful as the combat spells.  Therefore, if you don't want a wizard to have flashy utilities, then you must decrease the flashiness of wizard spells in combat.  This would be easy to do.  A small beam of fire could easily do more damage than a large hammer.  A lot of spells seem to do less damage than they should anyway.  Instead of meteor swarm, have one meteor.  if a flaming rock bigger than you falls on your head, it should be more damaging then the strongest man in the world swinging a large hammer at your face.

Sorry I forgot to look at my title before I posted and I can't edit it.


----------



## nightwyrm

Cadfan said:


> I don't think that's necessarily the case. You might only have 4 second level spell slots, but you'd also have 4 first level spell slots, third level spell slots, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> There are only so many "rounds" of action in a given day (I use "rounds" here in a subjective sense to refer to instances where a spell might be useful). As the number of spell slots exceeds the number of rounds (which happens quickly when combat happens only once or twice per day and lasts only a round or two), the only REAL balancing factor is the potential for the wizard's player to guess wrong when he prepares his spells. And as the number of spells increases, the likelihood of guessing wrong goes down because you can cover more bases.




Another thing is that in pre-3e, wizards have a limited number of spells known per level.  Once a wizard has learned a spell, he can't unlearn it and it counts towards his limit.

Pre-3e, the wizard doesn't _want_ to learn knock coz he'd much rather be able to learn something else.


----------



## Kask

nightwyrm said:


> Another thing is that in pre-3e, wizards have a limited number of spells known per level.  Once a wizard has learned a spell, he can't unlearn it and it counts towards his limit.




No.  There was no such limit per the PHB.  Did you play with a DM who made a house rule?


----------



## 13garth13

Actually, I'm pretty darned sure (though IDHTBIFOM) that wizards were indeed limited in terms of total spells known per level, and that this number was based upon intelligence (certainly not a house rule).  But my memory isn't what it used to be 

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Kask

13garth13 said:


> Actually, I'm pretty darned sure (though IDHTBIFOM) that wizards were indeed limited in terms of total spells known per level, and that this number was based upon intelligence (certainly not a house rule).  But my memory isn't what it used to be
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin




Edit.  You are correct.  It was the int table max spells known.  18 int was 18.  19 int was "All".


----------



## nightwyrm

Kask said:


> No. There was no such limit per the PHB. Did you play with a DM who made a house rule?




2nd ed AD&D PHB on the intelligence chart.  Unless you have 19 int, you have a max # of spells per level.  Don't know about earlier editions since I don't have those books.

Of course, it was an "optional rule" in 2ed, but at least half of 2ed was optional rules so calling it a houserule is kinda meaningless.


----------



## billd91

13garth13 said:


> Actually, I'm pretty darned sure (though IDHTBIFOM) that wizards were indeed limited in terms of total spells known per level, and that this number was based upon intelligence (certainly not a house rule).  But my memory isn't what it used to be
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin




And you are right. There IS a limit to the number of spells per level a wizard can learn in 1e and 2e AD&D. If the magic user had a 19 Intelligence, then there was no limit (and, frankly, that 19 Intelligence, over the course of a campaign, wasn't that hard to get).


----------



## billd91

Kask said:


> I have the PHB (1978) in my hand.  No such rule in it.




Hmm... 1978 PH. Page 10. Yep. Right there.


----------



## nightwyrm

billd91 said:


> And you are right. There IS a limit to the number of spells per level a wizard can learn in 1e and 2e AD&D. If the magic user had a 19 Intelligence, then there was no limit (and, frankly, that 19 Intelligence, over the course of a campaign, wasn't that hard to get).




Aren't stat boosts much hard to get back in those days?  And 3d6 was pretty much the standard rolling method back then.


----------



## Kask

nightwyrm said:


> 2nd ed AD&D PHB on the intelligence chart.  Unless you have 19 int, you have a max # of spells per level.  Don't know about earlier editions since I don't have those books.
> 
> Of course, it was an "optional rule" in 2ed, but at least half of 2ed was optional rules so calling it a houserule is kinda meaningless.




See my post right above.  18 per level for an 18 int. There were 30 1st level spells, 24 per level up to 6th & 16 for 7th & 8th.  There were only 12 9th level spells.  So, overall it wasn't that big a deal unless you were running a low int MU.


----------



## Mark

Hexmage-EN said:


> How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons?





The right kinds and amount of magic are an individual thing for RPGers, perhaps, but magic being _commonplace_ in the setting has never been something I personally felt comfortable having in games I have either run or in which I have played.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Mark said:


> The right kinds and amount of magic are an individual thing for RPGers, perhaps, but magic being _commonplace_ in the setting has never been something I personally felt comfortable having in games I have either run or in which I have played.



One funny thing I have noticed is that I am more comfortable/like to see more "supernatural" and not so much "magic". Now that may seem a silly distinction, or no distinction at all. But I dunno... There is one.

Though some games I like lots of magic, just not the majority of the time.


----------



## Crothian

nightwyrm said:


> Aren't stat boosts much hard to get back in those days?  And 3d6 was pretty much the standard rolling method back then.




Only took something like 10 wishes to boost an 18 to a 19 I think.  And casting a wish aged the person which meant they had to make some sort of check based on con like system reaction to see if that killed them.  At least I think that's how it was, it has certainly been a couple decades or so.


----------



## Mark

Fallen Seraph said:


> One funny thing I have noticed is that I am more comfortable/like to see more "supernatural" and not so much "magic". Now that may seem a silly distinction, or no distinction at all. But I dunno... There is one.





That's an interesting distinction and I would like to read how you might better delineate, though I think I get where you are going.


----------



## Kask

Crothian said:


> Only took something like 10 wishes to boost an 18 to a 19 I think.




Or, one tome of clear thought...


----------



## Crothian

Kask said:


> Or, one tome of clear thought...




With the magic items random tables though it was not easy to find one.  Assuming one gets lucky to roll for any magical item.  There is a 3% chance to get on the right table and then a 1% to get a tome of clear thought.  I'm sure that number goes down if we include the table from the popular Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## Kask

Crothian said:


> With the magic items random tables though it was not easy to find one.  Assuming one gets lucky to roll for any magical item.  There is a 3% chance to get on the right table and then a 1% to get a tome of clear thought.  I'm sure that number goes down if we include the table from the popular Unearthed Arcana.




Sounds like your DM never read page 92 of the DMG...  Random generation & placement of powerful items was a BIG no, no.


----------



## Crothian

Kask said:


> Sounds like your DM never read page 92 of the DMG...  Random generation & placement of powerful items was a BIG no, no.




I wouldn't consider it a powerful item though and just placing useful powerful magic items there for the PCs seems so 4e.  But still, if they didn't want powerful items to be randomly generated then they shouldn't have put them on the tables.  

But I'm sure there were plenty of big and small no's that we did anyway.  The game had its one way of playing and that never really worked for us.


----------



## Kask

Crothian said:


> But still, if they didn't want powerful items to be randomly generated then they shouldn't have put them on the tables.




Page 92 covers that exact point.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Cadfan said:


> I don't think that's necessarily the case.  You might only have 4 second level spell slots, but you'd also have 4 first level spell slots, third level spell slots, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> There are only so many "rounds" of action in a given day (I use "rounds" here in a subjective sense to refer to instances where a spell might be useful).  As the number of spell slots exceeds the number of rounds (which happens quickly when combat happens only once or twice per day and lasts only a round or two), the only REAL balancing factor is the potential for the wizard's player to guess wrong when he prepares his spells.  And as the number of spells increases, the likelihood of guessing wrong goes down because you can cover more bases.



I think there is still a big difference between 4 spell slots and 7 for every level. It is not neglible. It might still be enough, but with 7 slots, you are almost guaranteed to have every spell on that level that has a reasonable chance to be useful. And then rest can be easily covered with scrolls, that are only a given in 3.x, not in earlier editions.

While a day of rest can fix it all, you don't always have that day of rest. And that's at least a reasonable chance for other characters to shine - provided magic is not the only solution for a problem, of course.

The only counter-balancing fact in 3.x for spellcasters was that monsters got a lot more hit points. But that just meant that you picked spells that didn't deal hit point damage and otherwise hindered your foes.


----------



## ExploderWizard

I think magic is important to any edition of D&D. One problem
with magic in 4E is that its so common that it's become more mundane.
Part of this problem started in 3E with the item crafting rules and all
of the +x to something slotted items that a PC could hardly be able to
do without.

Once magic becomes so common there isn't a lot left that seems 
really magical. Advanced technology can be magical if the principles
that it works on are unknown. In a fantasy world without gunpowder, 
a flintlock pistol is effectively a magic item. Once the knowledge of how
to make and use these pistols becomes known then they become simply 
weapons.

Character abilities work the same way. If a non magic using character such as
a fighter performs feats that can only be explained as magic, and yet the ability
is labeled as non-magical, we have supernatural effects that have become mundane. 
Every 4E class has abilities which would be magical or supernatural in any previous edition.
The only difference between magic/ non-magic that we have is a power source. 
If the power source says that it isn't magical then the observer must be mistaken because
what just happened didn't really happen.

The whole concept of a spellcaster is meaningless if everyone has powers that 
can do the kinds of things that spells do. Magic isn't a very mysterious force when
Grok the fighter can use rituals as well as the wizard. Adventurers are all just superheroes 
with different schticks and costumes. 

I know there are many who will disagree with this assessment and I will ask: What makes
magic "magical" to you?


----------



## Kask

ExploderWizard said:


> I think magic is important to any edition of D&D. One problem
> with magic in 4E is that its so common that it's become more mundane.




That's true.  Now that all classes are actually magic users it loses something.


----------



## Scribble

Kask said:


> That's true.  Now that all classes are actually magic users it loses something.




That's false. Now that all classes have fun special abilities it gains something.


----------



## Kask

Scribble said:


> That's false.




Redefining the word "Rose" changes not its scent.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> That's false. Now that all classes have fun special abilities it gains something.




What exactly has magic gained?

What separates magical from mundane for you?


----------



## Scribble

Kask said:


> Redefining the word "Rose" changes not its scent.




Just because it has a scent doesn't make it a rose.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> What exactly has magic gained?
> 
> What separates magical from mundane for you?




Depends what you mean by magic really- but in the case of D&D? "Magic" is a mystical artform/science that allows the magician to manipulate the world around him through a combination of ritualistic gestures, sounds, and components.

Mundane is mundane. 

Not all things that would be mundane in our world, are mundane in the D&D world. Some stuff is "fun"dane.


----------



## fanboy2000

ExploderWizard said:


> What exactly has magic gained?
> 
> What separates magical from mundane for you?



Well, I don't about Scribble, but for me it's mostly how the power is described.

For example, a fighter may have _Sure Strike_. It allows a fighter to increase his or her chance to hit while denying his or her ability score bonus to damage. This is explained as a fighter taking extra care to aim without putting the speed and force normal expended to make an attack. It could be described as a monk using his _ki_ to hit an enemy instead of his physical prowess, or a wizard using magic to increase the chances of a hit, or a Jedi relying on the Force to guide his or her arm, but it's not so it isn't magic, ki, or the force.

A wizard may have _Magic Missile_. This a magically created bolt of force, not a crossbow bolt made from wood. Identical mechanics could be given to both, but the flavor makes the difference. I've been known to describe _Magic Missile_ and similer spells as temporaly maifesting a magicical bow or crossbow, actually.

Aside: I was describing a Durger Thurge's use of _Firebolt_ like that in my game on Saturday. I prefaced it with the question "you guys remember the D&D cartoon?" At that point have the group asked "there was a D&D cartoon?" And the rest of us just shook our heads and said "yes." I then continued to run the encounter, but feeling a little bit older.


----------



## Kask

Scribble said:


> but in the case of D&D? "Magic" is a mystical artform/science that allows the magician to manipulate the world around him through a combination of ritualistic gestures, sounds, and components.




Really?  I've never had a cleric or druid that did that.  A Storm Giant uses knowledge of, "a mystical artform/science" to breath water or throw lightning?  In the MM it is a natural ability possessed by all Storm Giants.

Maybe you should expand your definition to fit the reality of the game?


----------



## Crothian

Kask said:


> Page 92 covers that exact point.




That's nice.  Honestly though I'm not sure I care all that much about rules we might have missed on a game I played 25 years ago when I was 10.


----------



## Scribble

Kask said:


> Really?  I've never had a cleric or druid that did that.  A Storm Giant uses knowledge of, "a mystical artform/science" to breath water throw lightning?  In the MM it is a natural ability possessed by all Storm Giants.
> 
> Maybe you should expand your definition to fit the reality of the game?




Really you've never had a Cleric or Druid use special words, and components, or movements to cast spells? 

Ok sure, some things have natural magical talents? 

I guess I should have been more clear. I was talking about the "magic system" players commonly have used in D&D- my bad.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> Depends what you mean by magic really- but in the case of D&D? "Magic" is a mystical artform/science that allows the magician to manipulate the world around him through a combination of ritualistic gestures, sounds, and components.




Are you saying that if a guy in a robe mutters some words of power, and waves a wand and POOF: a rabbit appears then its magic?

but:

That a guy in armor, swings a sword and strikes a goblin, and POOF: a rabbit appears, then it isn't magic? 

Is the window dressing really that much more important than substance of what happens to most people?


----------



## Henry

Kask said:


> Really?  I've never had a cleric or druid that did that.  A Storm Giant uses knowledge of, "a mystical artform/science" to breath water or throw lightning?  In the MM it is a natural ability possessed by all Storm Giants.
> 
> Maybe you should expand your definition to fit the reality of the game?




All your Clerics and Druids were Storm Giants? 

Looks like "magic" in context above was referring to how most spellcasters cast their spells, in which case it was exactly like what Scribble described, and they've been using "V,S,M" since 1978.

EDIT: ...and Scribble clarified. Thanks!



			
				Exploder Wizard said:
			
		

> Are you saying that if a guy in a robe mutters some words of power, and waves a wand and POOF: a rabbit appears then its magic?
> 
> but:
> 
> That a guy in armor, swings a sword and strikes a goblin, and POOF: a rabbit appears, then it isn't magic?
> 
> Is the window dressing really that much more important than substance of what happens to most people




I don't know how close the analogy is -- if you're talking 4E, most all the martial characters might produce cool effects, but they're not magical in flavor; some of them might be a little loopy in flavor text, but their effects usually don't involve (A) making things appear from nothing, (B) teleporting anyone, or (C) involve making energy from nothing. Most of them just slide people around or cause damage through mundane, if improbable, means. So far, all the magic effects come from Arcane, Divine, or Primal characters, which are all pretty strongly supernatural in tone. Just because you swing a sword doesn't mean you cannot tap into the arcane; Fighter/Magic-users have been around a long time, and Bladesingers have been around since 2E.


----------



## Kask

Scribble said:


> I guess I should have been more clear. I was talking about the "magic system" players commonly have used in D&D- my bad.




Like a player does something and "poof" they are healed?  Or, a character does something and an enemy is "compelled" to behave in a certain way?

Yep, magic.


----------



## Kask

Henry said:


> Looks like "magic" in context above was referring to how most spellcasters cast their spells, in which case it was exactly like what Scribble described, and they've been using "V,S,M" since 1978.




Actually, no.  Clerics & Druids have NEVER used spells due to using a a "mystical artform/science".  Their magic was bestowed by their deity. What were you playing in '78


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> Adventurers are all just superheroes
> with different schticks and costumes.



You say this like it's a bad thing.



> I know there are many who will disagree with this assessment and I will ask: What makes magic "magical" to you?



I don't want magic to be 'magical'. I want it to be interesting to _use_. First and foremost it's a tool used to overcome in-game challenges. 

It's fine for fantasy literature to wow you with the mysterious and mystical. But that's a cross-purposes with the goals of any RPG that makes magic available as a character resource.


----------



## fanboy2000

ExploderWizard said:


> Is the window dressing really that much more important than substance of what happens to most people?



I don't know about most people, but to me it is. An RPG just isn't that interesting to me without window dressing. 

The core mechanic is the same: roll a d20, add modifiers, compare to DC. The result is binary, you succeed at the action or you fail. By itself, this is pretty boring. Add window dressing, and it become a great deal more interesting. 

Just so we're clear: if a fighter is rolling 1d20 + 5 to hit Orc's AC with his sword and A Wizard is rolling 1d20 + 5 to hit the Orc's AC with a spell, I consider that difference meaningful because of the change in label. 

Of course, your example is somewhat problematic because I don't know of any fighter power that allows the summoning of an animal, but maybe there's a ranger or warden power that does essentially the same thing. Of course, rangers have used spells in the previous editions and I believe a warden's spirit animal is magical/mystical in nature, so it's already built into the description.


----------



## Cadfan

The whole concept of making magic "magical" in a game like D&D where spells have predefined effects is wrongheaded.  At least for what I'm taking to be the meaning of the word "magical" in this context.

You can't create a sense of wonder with something pinned to a page like a butterfly impaled by a needle.

Personally I'm ok with that, because 1. not every fantasy cares about magic being any more wondrous than a machine, 2. pc driven magic isn't the only possible sense of wonder in a game, and 3. usability trumps wondrousness.

If I were trying to create an RPG with a sense of wondrousness to its magic, I'd make sure that the magic I wanted to be wondrous was firmly in the hands of the DM and only the DM.  Wondrousness doesn't happen once you know all the rules.  I'd set up a Paranoia style game where knowing the rules is against the rules.  Instead I'd give the players concepts (like affects like, other fake laws of magic, etc), and let them make up whatever they could.

As for differences between 4e and previous editions, and the differences between power sources in 4e, Henry pretty much covered it.  The idea that martial abilities do the same thing as magical abilities is much overblown.


----------



## ExploderWizard

fanboy2000 said:


> Well, I don't about Scribble, but for me it's mostly how the power is described.
> 
> For example, a fighter may have _Sure Strike_. It allows a fighter to increase his or her chance to hit while denying his or her ability score bonus to damage. This is explained as a fighter taking extra care to aim without putting the speed and force normal expended to make an attack.




This isn't remotely magical. I'm talking more about abilities like _come and get it _or powers that move others about without a physical shove. A compulsion that forces enemies to rush toward you is magical/supernatural. These abilities work regardless of language, or the presence of a mind so no mundane explanation fits. 



fanboy2000 said:


> A wizard may have _Magic Missile_. This a magically created bolt of force, not a crossbow bolt made from wood. Identical mechanics could be given to both, but the flavor makes the difference. I've been known to describe _Magic Missile_ and similer spells as temporaly maifesting a magicical bow or crossbow, actually.




These effects could have similar or identical effects, but for the mundane one to work there must actually be a physical bow and projectile. If a mundane character suddenly summoned such a missile weapon into his hands then shot it like a normal one it wouldn't be any less magical, just a difference in the nature/type of magic.

Aside: I was describing a Durger Thurge's use of _Firebolt_ like that in my game on Saturday. I prefaced it with the question "you guys remember the D&D cartoon?" At that point have the group asked "there was a D&D cartoon?" And the rest of us just shook our heads and said "yes." I then continued to run the encounter, but feeling a little bit older.[/quote]

 I understand completely. Real magic = abracadavy United States Navy!!


----------



## nightwyrm

D&D magic is just a matter of "graphics" or imagery.  If the wizard shoots lightning and blows the orc back 20 feet that's magic.  If the fighter kicks the orc back 20 feet, that's non magic.  

I subscribe to the idea that magic is just another way or tool for the player/PC to interact with or cause an effect in the game world.  I don't see a fundamental difference between "mundane" and "magical" in a game world.  Mundane is just the name we give to things that we're familiar with in the real world.  

The _players _find stuff in a game world to be magical because they don't have experience with it in the real world.  For the _wizard character_ who casts spells reliably everyday of his life, magic is as much a tool to him as PCR gel-electrophoresis is to a real life geneticist.

Of course, I came from an asian background heavily influenced by tropes where natural and supernatural aren't divided by a sharp line and where the protagonist can accomplish any feat if he trains hard enough.


----------



## Kask

ExploderWizard said:


> This isn't remotely magical. I'm talking more about abilities like _come and get it _or powers that move others about without a physical shove. A compulsion that forces enemies to rush toward you is magical/supernatural. These abilities work regardless of language, or the presence of a mind so no mundane explanation fits.




Correct.  In prior edition core rules this could only be accomplished with "magic".  4.0 has simply redefined the word.  So, in 4.0, all characters have magic abilities, if viewed from prior editions.


----------



## Henry

Kask said:


> Actually, no.  Clerics & Druids have NEVER used spells due to using a a "mystical artform/science".  Their magic was bestowed by their deity. What were you playing in '78




AD&D PHB & DMG -- the same book that said they had to have their hands free, possess material components, be able to speak in a clear voice, and said they needed at least 4 to 8 hours of sleep to be able to get their spells back -- just like the Magic-Users. Where the magic came from is irrelevant to whether it was a "Mystical Artform" or not - it didn't matter if your deity approved or not because if you were bound, or couldn't sleep enough, or didn't have the live spider or tin-can telephone in addition to your holy symbol, you weren't going to cast that spell. So Magic in D&D in regards to the magic players have available, regardless of flavor text source, was always codified and scientific in approach, even with divine casters.

Now, you could get into the "special case stuff" that Gary Talked about in the DMG, like coming up with a laundry list of beholder eyes and cockatrice blood, etc. for making certain things, but such magic was never a given in the default game, and Gary purposefully made those rules the way he did to as to let DMs be as hard-hosed or easy as they wanted to be when PCs wanted something not straight out of the PHB or given to them by the DM from the DMG lists. I wouldn't even consider it a "system", because there were only loose guidelines -- not a bad thing in itself, but as far as the players were concerned it was totally out of their hands.


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm talking more about abilities like _come and get it _or powers that move others about without a physical shove. A compulsion that forces enemies to rush toward you is magical/supernatural. These abilities work regardless of language, or the presence of a mind so no mundane explanation fits.



Powers like that don't represent anything in the game world. They give the _player_ limited control over the game narrative, letting them, in some small way, be DM for a moment.

For example, Come and Get It isn't the Jedi Mind Trick or a charm spell. When a player uses it, his opponents _decide_ to rush in. It's not magic, it's metafiction. It's the reader deciding what a character does next.

Same with those forced movement powers. Instead of complicated rules for knockback, staggering, shoving, and what have you, you get the simplified pull, push, slide powers. If you take a step back and look at the results of those powers, you'll find D&D combat that's finally as kinetic as a cinematic fight scene (and not the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots tableaux produced be the previous edition). 

(this, by the way, is the perfect explanation for how those powers work)


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> Are you saying that if a guy in a robe mutters some words of power, and waves a wand and POOF: a rabbit appears then its magic?
> 
> but:
> 
> That a guy in armor, swings a sword and strikes a goblin, and POOF: a rabbit appears, then it isn't magic?
> 
> Is the window dressing really that much more important than substance of what happens to most people?




I don't know about most people, I was answering for myself. (Since you asked me.) 

For me, Magic and Mundane can have similar (or exact) game effects. It's the description that really makes it different for me.

PC: "Eyeahallo mak thorata! Mortok the Magnificent waves his hands in an intricate pattern before the eyss of his enemy, and with but a few short words forces them to move closer to him!" (Slide 3 squares closer to me.)

DM: You see a look of fear on their eyes, as your enemies suddenly begin to move towards you unable to will their limbs to stop!

****

PC: "I Am Horthgar Son of Untgar! Will none fight me?!?! Are you so afraid?!? Horthgar opens his arms wide, leaving his chest exposed, darring his enemies to attack. (Slide 3 squares closer to me.)

DM: With rage in their eyes, your enemies move towards you confident in their ability to make you pay for your arrogance!

People do things in real life all the time that seem strange or even down right silly when looked at rationally. It's not magic, just emotions driving us to do weird things. Look at message board trolls- are they using magic to get people to respond? 

In the above, Horthgar didn't use magic to compell his foes... He just yelled at them, and deep down inside they probably knew attacking him was stupid- but dude... that guy ain't makin us look like chumps! Let's get im!




Kask said:


> Like a player does something and "poof" they are healed?  Or, a character does something and an enemy is "compelled" to behave in a certain way?
> 
> Yep, magic.




Sooo... someone who is suggestible is being acted upon by magic?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mallus said:


> You say this like it's a bad thing.




Its not completely a bad thing, it just doesn't feel like D&D anymore. 
Sometimes, I like to play just a regular fighter.
I don't always want to be SUPERDEFENDERMAN of the Marvel/Greyhawk universe.


----------



## Kask

Mallus said:


> Powers like that don't represent anything in the game world. They give the _player_ limited control over the game narrative, letting them, in some small way, be DM for a moment.




What?  Where did you see that in the rules?

Control weather isn't magic either.  It just lets the player take over determining the local weather from the DM.  LOL


----------



## Scribble

Really what I like about th new powers system is that you can explain it however you'd like. The game isn't really forcing its own interpretation/division on you.

You CAN say that the martial power source is another form of magic if you'd like. Leaving room for greek hero type characters with supernatural powers beyond the mere mortal, but not achieved through the "sorcerous arts."

Or you can define them with mundane effects, or reasons. Or you can do both, and handle it through description. Or you can do both, and leave some powers to the "supernatural" players, and some to the mundane players. 

It's mutable and therefore something I like.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> PC: "I Am Horthgar Son of Untgar! Will none fight me?!?! Are you so afraid?!? Horthgar opens his arms wide, leaving his chest exposed, darring his enemies to attack. (Slide 3 squares closer to me.)
> 
> DM: With rage in their eyes, your enemies move towards you confident in their ability to make you pay for your arrogance!




I have no problem with this scenario. If Horthgar's enemies are mindless zombies or constructs and it still works, then there is a problem.


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> Correct.  In prior edition core rules this could only be accomplished with "magic".  4.0 has simply redefined the word.  So, in 4.0, all characters have magic abilities, if viewed from prior editions.



This is incorrect. 

In previous editions, a fighter could taunt an opponent and the DM could decide to have the opponent close in. This is what Come and Get It does. The difference is that in 4e, using that power, the _player_ gets to decide if the opponent closes in, albeit only once per day (or encounter, I forget...). 

Say it with me... it's not magic, it's direct control over the narrative.


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> What?  Where did you see that in the rules?



Do you need everything spelled out for you?

Which explanation makes more sense? Mine, or the line of reasoning that says powers like CaGI must represent some form of deliberately unspecified magic/psychic mojo, despite they fact they're labeled 'martial exploits' (and never once referring to as magical powers). 



> Control weather isn't magic either.



Which 4e power are you referring to? Or are you referring to a previous edition and a different set of assumptions?


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> Its not completely a bad thing, it just doesn't feel like D&D anymore.



I hear you. I guess I just don't mind it...



> I don't always want to be SUPERDEFENDERMAN of the Marvel/Greyhawk universe.



My groups seem to end up playing those guys no matter what edition we play.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

ExploderWizard said:


> I have no problem with this scenario. If Horthgar's enemies are mindless zombies or constructs and it still works, then there is a problem.



That is a price I am perfectly willing to play to get a more cinematic combat without a string of subsystems for every creature type under the sun and a relatively simple combat system. Much prefer it to what was there before.

Thinking further.. Golems, yeah, but zombies attack anything that attracts their attention. So if Horthgar roars at the zombies what is wrong with them going for them.

Even with golems, it depends on the aggro algorithms their creator programmed with.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mallus said:


> Powers like that don't represent anything in the game world. They give the _player_ limited control over the game narrative, letting them, in some small way, be DM for a moment.
> 
> For example, Come and Get It isn't the Jedi Mind Trick or a charm spell. When a player uses it, his opponents _decide_ to rush in. It's not magic, it's metafiction. It's the reader deciding what a character does next.




Exactly. The game world, consistency, and logic take a back seat to atificially constructed claptrap designed only for the purpose of providing special effects for the game board. When the game rules become more about what happens on the battlemat than what happens in the game world, its time to call it a wargame and be done with it. 

Not everyone plays to tell a shared story. Some people play to roleplay thier character in a fictional world and whatever happens during thier adventures becomes the story.


----------



## Storm Raven

MichaelSomething said:


> Okay, here’s an exercise for everyone! Here’s a level 19 Cleric with a Prestige Class! This is from Dungeon 136.
> 
> Sesorya Girgul CR 19
> LE Medium humanoid
> Libris Mortis 46
> Init +3; Senses dark vision 60 ft, Listen +7, Spot +18
> Languages Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Infernal
> Aura desecrate 20-ft
> 
> AC 26, touch 9, flat-footed 26
> HP 127 (19 HD) DR 3/-
> Fort +11, Ref +7, Will +20
> 
> Spd 20 ft, fly 40 ft. (average)
> Melee +18/+13/+8 +4 frost human bane Morningstar (1d8+5 plus 1d6 cold plus 2d6 vs. humans)
> 
> Base Atk +13 Grp +14
> Combat Gear potion of barkskin (+5)
> Special Action death touch 1 day (9d6), rebuke undead 5/day (+4, 2d6+21, 19th), summon undead 5/day
> 
> Cleric Spells (CL 18th, +12 ranged)
> Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestments cast and included in the stat block. Other spells are not mentioned to save space and my time.
> 
> Abilities Str 12, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 24, Cha 14
> 
> Special abilities and Feats not detailed in order to save more space and time.
> 
> Skills Concentration +24, Spellcraft +22, Spot +18
> 
> Items +1 frost human bane Morningstar, +3 heavy shield, adamantine full plate, cape of the mountain bank, carpet of flying (5ft by 5ft), goggles of night, periapt of Wisdom +6, phylactery of desecration, ring of invisibility, ring of mind shielding.
> 
> *Now break out your PHBs and a timer and see how long it takes you to apply the buffs listed in her tactics section!*
> 
> Tactics: Sesorya drinks her potion of barkskin before entering combat and casts greater spell immunity (horrid willing, power word blind, disintegrate, flesh to stone), protection from energy (fire, cold, and electricity), spell resistance, true seeing, bear’s endurance, cat’s grace, death ward, aid, shield of faith, unholy aura, divine power, prayer, and divine favor, then summons a pair of dread wraiths (this summon power is from her Prestige Class) and attacks.




Okay.


Sesorya Girgul CR 19
LE Medium humanoid
Libris Mortis 46
Init +5; Senses dark vision 60 ft, Listen +8, Spot +19
Languages Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Infernal
Aura desecrate 20-ft

AC 38, touch 16, flat-footed 36
HP 193+1d8 (19 HD) DR 3/-
Fort +18, Ref +14, Will +25

Spd 20 ft, fly 40 ft. (average)
Melee +30/+25/+20/+15 +4 frost human bane Morningstar (1d8+8 plus 1d6 cold plus 2d6 vs. humans)

Base Atk +18 Grp +21
Special Action death touch 1 day (9d6), rebuke undead 5/day (+4, 2d6+21, 19th), summon undead 5/day

Cleric Spells (CL 18th, +19 ranged)
Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestments cast and included in the stat block. Other spells are not mentioned to save space and my time.

Abilities Str 18, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 24, Cha 14

Special abilities and Feats not detailed in order to save more space and time.

Skills Concentration +27, Spellcraft +23, Spot +19

Items +1 frost human bane Morningstar, +3 heavy shield, adamantine full plate, cape of the mountain bank, carpet of flying (5ft by 5ft), goggles of night, periapt of Wisdom +6, phylactery of desecration, ring of invisibility, ring of mind shielding.

SR 26, also SR 25 v. good spells (only comes into play if spell resistance is dispelled)
120 resistance to fire, electricity, and cold
foes suffer - to attacks, weapon damage, saves, and skill checks
good creatures who hit her suffer 1d6 Strength damage, Fort DC 25 negates

It took about five minutes using the SRD. I wouldn't do it on the fly if I were DMing her as a villain though. I'd have her statted up with and without her buffs.


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. The game world, consistency, and logic take a back seat to atificially constructed claptrap...



You know, I feel exactly the same way about dungeons... to each his own



> Not everyone plays to tell a shared story. Some people play to roleplay thier character in a fictional world and whatever happens during thier adventures becomes the story.



Sure. But this has nothing to do with objecting to powers like CaGI, does it?


----------



## Henry

ExploderWizard said:


> I have no problem with this scenario. If Horthgar's enemies are mindless zombies or constructs and it still works, then there is a problem.




I could still see it - even if it were mindless, it still has enough combat awareness to attack a vulnerable foe, wouldn't it? Even a Romero Zombie has that much going for it. And some fool standing with his arms wide open would be an easier target. Anybody else untrained in such ruses would instead be giving combat advantage to the mindless foe because they just dropped their guard instead of just appearing to be open.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> I have no problem with this scenario. If Horthgar's enemies are mindless zombies or constructs and it still works, then there is a problem.




Sure- this is one of the things that I feel is like "coming home" to the game system I grew up loving.

Certain effects might seem wonky to various groups. If so, it's up the the DM to use his/her judgement to make an ultimate ruling. If using those effects makes the game less enjoyable to the group, then it shouldn't be used in that fashion. You play the game, the game doesn't play you.

I think it's important for the game to leave certain areas open to DM/Group interpretation for this very reason. It's impossible for the writer to know every group, so only make rules "ingrained" as much as you have to.

As for "mindless" again that's a bit open to interpretation.

Zombies, constructs, oozes- whatever... I assume they have some sort of basic "functioning" that responds to stimulus. So Horthgar simply screams loud enough that it shifts the things focus to him. 

Zombie: "Must kill living... must kill living..." 

Horthgar "RAGAGAGAGAGAGAAGAHHHHHHHH" 

Zombie: "Must kill THAT living..."

It's like a cat or soemthing... You move anything fast enough near them and suddenly they stop whatever they were doing and attack. Not magic at all, but you still kind of "forced" the cat to attack.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mallus said:


> You know, I feel exactly the same way about dungeons... to each his own




Ya know, for the most part I'm with you on this one.



Mallus said:


> Sure. But this has nothing to do with objecting to powers like CaGI, does it?




If the power works due to reasons you described then yes it does. The players decide what thier characters do. Once players start deciding what the NPC's do its a group storytelling session and you don't really even need any rules or dice for that.


----------



## jbear

I'm not sure why the thread has derailed into 'Is math's fun' (around page 8 where I got very bored and stopped reading).

To address the OP's question, to which game system is magic more important; I think magic is more important to 3rd ed. In 4th ed it's very easy to make a well balanced and dangerous party with a healer, all from martial classes.

Does that necessarily imply that 4ed magic cant be as versatile and as fun, or as awesome as 3ed? I don't think it has to be. My imagination broadened greatly after reading how LostSoul was using combat powers in out of combat situations, even during skill challenges with skill checks.

I think sometimes we put our own limitations on things. 

It's definitely not the world-changing reality bending magic that you might find in a Wish, but it can still be used creatively and awesomely if the DM doesn't limit the play by: 'What you are trying is not covered in the rules with that power, so you can't do it.'

I would love to have some concrete guidelines to achieve LostSouls awesome style of DMing 4e. I try my best to allow my players to think outside the box with their resources. I want everyone to be able to do awesome things, be they the man in the pointy hat or the hulking brute standing in front of him. I have very new players and achieving that is not always easy.

I think the OP's question and complaint is an interesting and valid one. It's a shame it turned into an argument over maths. I think it's a question that should be explored and indeed WotC should address with someone like LostSoul doing an article and expand his DM style into concrete guidelines for superior DMing, focusing on the use of powers in non-combat situations.


----------



## Kask

Mallus said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> In previous editions, a fighter could taunt an opponent and the DM could decide to have the opponent close in.




Apples and oranges.  One is RP and the DM still controls the NPC.  The
other is a magical effect that compels and the PC controls.  If you REALLY can't distinguish the ACTUAL difference then, there is no reason to discuss...


----------



## Kask

Henry said:


> I could still see it - even if it were mindless, it still has enough combat awareness to attack a vulnerable foe, wouldn't it?




Nope.  It can only see something there to attack.  It is mindless, thus can't be insulted, taunted etc,.  Like a virus.  It can't look at the potential host and decide it looks defenseless...


----------



## fanboy2000

Kask said:


> Apples and oranges.  One is RP and the DM still controls the NPC.  The other is a magical effect that compels and the PC controls. If you REALLY can't distinguish the ACTUAL difference then, there is no reason to discuss...



Are you sure this isn't open up to interpretation?



			
				 Ben 'Obi-Wan' Kenobi said:
			
		

> Luke, you will find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend on "a certain point of view."


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> If you REALLY can't distinguish the ACTUAL difference then, there is no reason to discuss...



You'll note that you're the one having trouble recognizing that not all the game rules model something in the game world. Or at least you aren't getting the relationship right.

Why insist an effect is magic when the rules do not state that?


----------



## billd91

Mallus said:


> Powers like that don't represent anything in the game world. They give the _player_ limited control over the game narrative, letting them, in some small way, be DM for a moment.




You know, I don't have a problem with things like encounter powers causing minor effects in combat - a shift here, a push there, a distraction, extra damage and a penalty. I have no trouble with that at all. A good combatant should be able to manipulate his targets, within reason, with his own skill, no save necessary largely because that's the point of needing a successful to hit roll.

But describing these effects as giving the players little bits of narrative control is something I don't buy. If you want to give them narrative control, give them a way to actually change the plot, determine where clues can be found, how NPCs are connected. Giving them little benefits in combat, particularly for more damage or little benefits that amount to minor position changes or bonuses, and calling it narrative control just doesn't make much sense to me. For one thing, it's not a heck of a lot of control since your ability to apply it generally relies on a successful attack roll.

I particularly have a hard time respecting the argument of narrative control for the dailies. And this is partly because you have the two types of combat - martial and magical - both shoehorned into the same structure. I've heard people argue that the daily particularly represents narrative control in the way the PC, once a game day, wrests a significant amount of control from the DM and produces a more powerful effect than their encounter powers. Even if that did make sense for the martial powers, it really doesn't for the daily spells. Unless someone really thinks that casting a fireball (in any edition) constitutes asserting narrative control - which I simply can't see. It's just an attack with a broader area of effect - it always has been - with respect to the narrative of the game.


----------



## Cadfan

Kask said:


> Nope. It can only see something there to attack. It is mindless, thus can't be insulted, taunted etc,. Like a virus. It can't look at the potential host and decide it looks defenseless...



You made that up.

I'm not saying its a bad way for zombies to work.

But you still made it up.


----------



## Kask

Mallus said:


> Why insist an effect is magic when the rules do not state that?




I stated that looking at it from prior editions, it would be magic. 4.0 rules set could consider it flatulence.  That's not what I'm referring to.


----------



## Scribble

Kask said:


> Nope.  It can only see something there to attack.  It is mindless, thus can't be insulted, taunted etc,.  Like a virus.  It can't look at the potential host and decide it looks defenseless...




Someone can still attract the attention of the zombie/skeleton/construct enough that it looses focus on what it was originally doing, and moves to attack them. If it's mindless then it's going to forget the first "goal" it had in favor of following it's base programing. "Kill that thing."

(And incidently Viruses and cellular level things communicate and "think" much more then you seem to know.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ExploderWizard said:


> Once players start deciding what the NPC's do its a group storytelling session and you don't really even need any rules or dice for that.



Yes, you do need rules for that. Because there are conflicts between what one player wants and what another player wants. Rules allow you solve these conflicts. It's still the same reason you need rules in the first place. "Bang bang, you're dead." "Not dead! I have bullet-proof armor!" "But I shot you in the head!" "You didn't say that!".


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> If the power works due to reasons you described then yes it does. The players decide what thier characters do. Once players start deciding what the NPC's do its a group storytelling session and you don't really even need any rules or dice for that.



OK, I see where you're coming from. Mind you, powers like CaGI have a very limited scope (combat) and effect (mainly repositioning). They don't allow the players to take control of NPC's to the degree that the game becomes a dice-less collaborative storytelling exercise.

In fact, they have nothing to do with enhancing the _story_ part of D&D at all. They're just another way of abstracting combat in order to create tactically interesting situations.


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> I stated that looking at it from prior editions, it would be magic.



Looking at it from prior editions, it would be a mechanic borrowed from newer, non-D&D rule systems, ones that are more up-front about conferring narrative power to players.


----------



## Mallus

billd91 said:


> For one thing, it's not a heck of a lot of control since your ability to apply it generally relies on a successful attack roll.



I'm only out to provide what seems to me to be an obvious rationale for certain kinds of 4e powers. Why the system doesn't confer narrative authority more broadly is a whole other discussion. 



> I've heard people argue that the daily particularly represents narrative control in the way the PC, once a game day, wrests a significant amount of control from the DM and produces a more powerful effect than their encounter powers.



Sounds reasonable to me. 



> Unless someone really thinks that casting a fireball (in any edition) constitutes asserting narrative control - which I simply can't see.



Why not? What are spells other that little prepackaged bits of narrative control ("I take over his mind", "I make him burn"). What the heck _else_ are they?


----------



## Kask

Cadfan said:


> You made that up.




Yes, I made an example of a virus.  So?


----------



## fanboy2000

ExploderWizard said:


> This isn't remotely magical. I'm talking more about abilities like _come and get it_ or powers that move others about without a physical shove. A compulsion that forces enemies to rush toward you is magical/supernatural. These abilities work regardless of language, or the presence of a mind so no mundane explanation fits.



I just looked-up _Come and Get It_. It's an interesting power. The flavor text says call, the effect line says pull. Both of these can, technically, be accomplished in real life without magic. It is possible to call an enemy toward you, and it's possible to pull an enemy toward you.

Consider: Olof the fighter standing on a battle field with no one adjacent to him has eight adjacent squares. Conceivably, this power can work on a maximum of 8 targets. From experience, I guesstimate that, in most games, Olof won't have 8 empty squares around him. Also, in most games, Olof won't have the maximum amount of enemies he could fit around him. Now, it's easy to for Olof to shout "Get over here!" and for the bad guys to come running to him. This fits the mundane "player gets temporary control over the narrative" position Mallus is espousing. This is, I think, a new idea in D&D. As Kask points out, players had 0 control over NPCs in previous editions. While in 4e this is a mundane explanation, in 2e it would indeed be magic. Having it be magic in 2e doesn't make it magic in 4e though because they are still two different game systems. As different from each other as AD&D 1e was from the White Box.

The other explanation is that Olof runs around and literally pulls as many bad guys toward him as he can. In this scenario, Olof kind of performing a circular charge, combining a move and an attack where the bad guys get, literally, pulled in toward him just before he attacks them all. Why, then, doesn't Olof get a bunch of opportunity attacks? The gamest answer is that, in an exception base rules system like 4e D&D, this power is an exception to rule that moving through other creatures spaces provokes an opportunity action. An in game explanation is that so few people do (because of the energy exerted performing it) it's a surprise and the bad guys are caught off guard. This kind of explanation isn't that new to D&D because D&D, at least in 3.x, has allowed martial character to do some fairly extraordinary things in the past. Not this specifically, to be sure, but extraordinary to be sure.

Personally, I like both explanations. I love it when people narrate their actions this way. With NPC and Monsters, I often don't narrate the same powers the same way. As the DM in a 4e game, I often have several bad guys with the same powers so it keeps me and the players interested if I mix-up the narration.


----------



## billd91

Mallus said:


> Why not? What are spells other that little prepackaged bits of narrative control ("I take over his mind", "I make him burn"). What the heck _else_ are they?




If that's the case, what attacks the PCs make *aren't* asserting narrative control? "I make him bleed." "I make him feel the pain of my sword." "I make him drop to the floor unconscious (thanks to taking him below 0 hp)."

Are algorithmically adjudicated ways to affect the environment, like attacking and doing damage, really a part of player narrative control? Are any other, even non-algorithmically adjudicated actions also asserting narrative control? And if they are, what distinction does narrative control actually have from other things PCs do during the course of the game?


----------



## fanboy2000

billd91 said:


> If that's the case, what attacks the PCs make *aren't* asserting narrative control?



Good question, I would say none.


----------



## RefinedBean

And isn't this control merely the illusion of control, since the DM has final say in everything that's going on (even the effectiveness of powers, skill use, etc.)?

We've all been playing one fun, cooperative LIE!

Absurdity aside, I think it's important to view 4E through the lens of both prior editions AND other modern systems and games, if only to get a sense of where the game is headed and what it's been responding to.

As far as this whole magic nonsense, magic is whatever the DM considers to be magic, and that's always worked fine for me.


----------



## Crothian

Kask said:


> I stated that looking at it from prior editions, it would be magic. 4.0 rules set could consider it flatulence.  That's not what I'm referring to.




Cavemen can look a computer and call it magic, that doesn't make it magic though.


----------



## Mallus

Crothian said:


> Cavemen can look a computer and call it magic, that doesn't make it magic though.



And if you want to discuss computers in a meaningful way, you probably shouldn't start from a caveman's perspective.


----------



## Scribble

billd91 said:


> If that's the case, what attacks the PCs make *aren't* asserting narrative control? "I make him bleed." "I make him feel the pain of my sword." "I make him drop to the floor unconscious (thanks to taking him below 0 hp)."
> 
> Are algorithmically adjudicated ways to affect the environment, like attacking and doing damage, really a part of player narrative control? Are any other, even non-algorithmically adjudicated actions also asserting narrative control? And if they are, what distinction does narrative control actually have from other things PCs do during the course of the game?





Well, going with the narrative control idea, there are a few different "types" of narrative control.

1. Narrative control that is resolved by dice. 

2. Narrative control resolved by the DM. 

3. Narrative control resolved by the player.

Most of the game revolves around type 1. People try to do things, and the dice see if they work. The players control the PC actions, the DM controls the NPC actions.

Sometimes the game requires more "override" on the part of the DM... In the end the DM has the "ultimate" authority to say whether or not soemthing happens/works/etc...

Powers like Come and Get it, just to me represent option 3. Players can direct the general narrative sometimes, but in limited predetermined fashion.


I'm not really a huge follower of the narrative control explaination, not that I think it's bad if that's how you like to play. I just think there are always ways to explain things if your imagination is working (and your not just looking for a reason to dislike something...)


----------



## Scribble

Mallus said:


> And if you want to discuss computers in a meaningful way, you probably shouldn't start from a caveman's perspective.




I'm just a caveman your honor, unaccustomed to your modern ways...


----------



## Mallus

fanboy2000 said:


> Good question, I would say none.



Me too. 

The differences lie in how narrative control/authority gets parceled out. Sometimes it's a negotiation between the player and DM (ie, "On my turn Grod does X"), sometimes it involves the formal task-resolution system and randomizers (ie, "On my turn Grod attempts to hit X... I rolled an 18"), and sometimes it's just a matter of spending some resource token (ie, "I cast Fireball", "I use Come and Get It").


----------



## Cadfan

Kask said:


> Yes, I made an example of a virus. So?



So you shouldn't argue that a rule doesn't make sense by arguing that it doesn't match with fluff that you made up.  That way lies madness.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Crothian said:


> Cavemen can look a computer and call it magic, that doesn't make it magic though.




If the computer is in thier world and they can observe its function but cannot even begin to understand how it does what it does then its magic to them.

Bring the caveman to our world and he's just a primitive who doesn't understand technology. Its all about perspective.


----------



## Scribble

ARRRRRRRGGGG Zog forget to hit save and now Zog lose five hours woth of cave painting!!!  ZOG HATE BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH!!!! ZOG SMAAAAAAAAASH MICROSOFT!!!!!


----------



## Crothian

ExploderWizard said:


> If the computer is in thier world and they can observe its function but cannot even begin to understand how it does what it does then its magic to them.
> 
> Bring the caveman to our world and he's just a primitive who doesn't understand technology. Its all about perspective.




It is not perspective, it's what it is.  Just because someone can't understand how something works doesn't make it magic.  In this discussion the 4e powers tell us what they are, so just because someone wants to call them something else doesn't doesn't matter.


----------



## Ariosto

Kask said:
			
		

> Clerics & Druids have NEVER used spells due to using a a "mystical artform/science". Their magic was bestowed by their deity.



 Although the level titles are of religious origin (Christian apart from "Lama"), Clerics are nowhere in the original set explicitly associated with a deity or deities. They _do_ have "spells", and (contra later versions) are required to have books of spells. Druids in Supplement I are "priests of a neutral-type religion ... and are combination clerics/magic-users." In Supplement III, "They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity."


----------



## Ariosto

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You can't create a sense of wonder with something pinned to a page like a butterfly impaled by a needle.



 I agree that it's counter-productive, and I appreciated the fact that in early editions of *Pendragon* magic was entirely in the GM's hands. However, I don't think it follows that all descriptions are equal. The reduction of a power from something _qualitatively_ distinctive to a mere "+x" kind of thing (e.g., Boots of Spider Climbing, Elven Cloak, Vorpal Weapon) may be unhelpful to the sense of wonder.


----------



## Ariosto

I would definitely consider the "Come and Get It" power magical -- if I could find a non-magical frame of reference at all in 4E. It is so adrift even from "comic book reality" that any attempt to think beyond the pieces and squares and dice-rolls utterly confounds me. To visualize it in any other terms is to run up abruptly against absurdity. To manipulate the rules effectively is to take their abstract logic straight. (*YMMV*, of course!)


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> I would definitely consider the "Come and Get It" power magical -- if I could find a non-magical frame of reference at all in 4E. It is so adrift even from "comic book reality" that any attempt to think beyond the pieces and squares and dice-rolls utterly confounds me. To visualize it in any other terms is to run up abruptly against absurdity.



The fighter taunts nearby opponents, seeming to drop his guard. Believing the fighter to be over-confident (and perhaps under-skilled) his foes close to melee...

Can you visualize it better now?


----------



## Ariosto

> Say it with me... it's not magic, it's direct control over the narrative.



 It certainly has nothing to do with taunting; read the rule!

And when an NPC takes direct control over YOUR narrative? If that's not magic, then in old-fashioned D&D terms it's probably "railroading". Love it all you want, "control over the narrative" in that Ron Edwards sense is not what D&D traditionally is about.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> It certainly has nothing to do with taunting; read the rule!



I have the 4e PHB open in front of me, as a matter of fact. 

You said that you couldn't visualize how CaGI functioned. I gave you an example, providing reasonable narration for the mechanical effect stated in the power's write-up. 



> If that's not magic, then in old-fashioned D&D terms it's probably "railroading". Love it all you want, "control over the narrative" in that Ron Edwards sense is not what D&D traditionally is about.



Don't confuse the issue by bringing the specter of railroading. Given a player a tiny bit of narrative authority in combat, with the specific purpose of producing a tactical battlefield effect isn't railroading in any meaningful sense of the word. 

It's no more railroading than if the player of a 1e wizard decides to use a fireball.


----------



## Scribble

Ariosto said:


> It certainly has nothing to do with taunting; read the rule!
> 
> And when an NPC takes direct control over YOUR narrative? If that's not magic, then in old-fashioned D&D terms it's probably "railroading". Love it all you want, "control over the narrative" in that Ron Edwards sense is not what D&D traditionally is about.




It doesn't say it's magic. If that's the only way YOU can explain it? Well- that's all you, and whatever floats your boat. If this explaination you created for yourself is causing you distress in some way... Well I don't know what to tell you.

The explaination I have, doesn't distress me, and adds a fun element to my game. Sorry yours is not working properly?

The explaination of Power Sources does say some of the things a martial character can do are well above what normal characters can do though. Which I find a good thing because it leaves room for players who want a more "mystical" explaination of their characters actions. 

We can play heroes like Achillies who can tap into some greater force, that is seemingly supernatural, but at the same time not the same as the sorcerous magical arts. 

Again it's mutable- and that is a VERY good thing for the game.


----------



## Cadfan

Ariosto said:


> I agree that it's counter-productive, and I appreciated the fact that in early editions of *Pendragon* magic was entirely in the GM's hands. However, I don't think it follows that all descriptions are equal. The reduction of a power from something _qualitatively_ distinctive to a mere "+x" kind of thing (e.g., Boots of Spider Climbing, Elven Cloak, Vorpal Weapon) may be unhelpful to the sense of wonder.



That's like me preferring the pothole on the main street two roads away from my apartment to the one in the parking lot, because the former is closer to an ocean.


----------



## Ariosto

"Come and Get It" is Close burst 3; *Target: Each enemy in burst you can see*.

Taunt a target invisible to you all you like, and no dice.

A target that can in no way perceive _you_, though, is subject to your will -- even more so with the errata that lets you dictate the movement precisely (as a "pull").


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> A target that can in no way perceive _you_, though, is subject to your will -- even more so with the errata that lets you dictate the movement precisely (as a "pull").



They aren't subject to the _character's_ will at all. The targets hear the challenge and decide, of their own free will, to close with the challenger.

(It's just that in this case the _player_ decides what the NPC's free will is, instead of the DM)


----------



## RefinedBean

Ariosto said:


> A target that can in no way perceive _you_, though, is subject to your will -- even more so with the errata that lets you dictate the movement precisely (as a "pull").




That's why we have DMs.

Seriously, exactly how many opportunities are we going to have in play to use CaGI on a blind, armless, legless zombie construct that is also being dominated by an alhoun?

The power is FINE and is a fun bit of narrative control for a fighter.  It's only mind control if you want it to be.

EDIT:  Ninja'd by Mallus


----------



## D'karr

For a game that is mostly dealing with imaginary situations of imaginary characters with imaginary combat tactics, there are a few that can't imagine it...  Go figure...


----------



## FireLance

ExploderWizard said:


> I know there are many who will disagree with this assessment and I will ask: What makes magic "magical" to you?



For me, the basic question is, "Could it ever happen in the real world?" 

It's only magic if the answer is "No".

Sufficiently incredible luck may be indistinguishable from magic (and in some games, magic may disguise itself as sufficiently incredible luck ) but as far as I'm concerned, it isn't.


----------



## FireLance

D'karr said:


> For a game that is mostly dealing with imaginary situations of imaginary characters with imaginary combat tactics, there are a few that can't imagine it...  Go figure...



Indeed.  Playing D&D does not require that you check your imagination at the door. Much to the chagrin of those who prefer a literal interpretation of the flavor text.


----------



## Ariosto

Joe: How come I'm stuck with a club? A chaotic evil dragonborn astral weapon paladin should have a sword.
Bob: So, all _I_ get is a shovel.
Joe: That's because you're a dwarf.
Bob: No, I'm a shadar-kai shadowborn stalker doomsayer warlock.
Joe: I wasn't talking about your creepy character. Billy, how much treasure have we got?
Billy: Ten diamonds. I thought D&D had lots of gold pieces?
Bob: Beats me. What are we trying to do again?
Billy: Summon the Djinn Rumi.
Joe: With the Trump of Hearts. Right.
Billy: And I thought it was the game with the funny dice ...


----------



## fanboy2000

Ariosto said:


> I would definitely consider the "Come and Get It" power magical -- if I could find a non-magical frame of reference at all in 4E. It is so adrift even from "comic book reality" that any attempt to think beyond the pieces and squares and dice-rolls utterly confounds me.



You know, I'm glad you mentioned comic books because I've been thinking about how Batman can breath in space. Sure, it's a bit of hyperbole but it illustrates something important: in fiction martial characters often do impossible things that, in the context of the world, are natural not supernatural.

Batman in particular is famous for doing things that no other human being can, but in DC Universe he has no superpowers. This seems fairly common. Heroes wield ridiculously large weapons (there a thread somewhere around here about real warhammers, take a look see), fighting moves that have absurd consequences, and some people fight with two weapons.


----------



## billd91

FireLance said:


> Indeed.  Playing D&D does not require that you check your imagination at the door.




Indeed. Nor does it require you to agree with everybody else's imagining of how something works or even why it should or should not work.


----------



## FireLance

billd91 said:


> Indeed. Nor does it require you to agree with everybody else's imagining of how something works or even why it should or should not work.



With just one exception: your DM. Unless he doesn't really agree but lets it happen the way you describe anyway. Or unless you're gunning for his job.


----------



## Sadrik

Ariosto said:


> "Come and Get It" is Close burst 3; *Target: Each enemy in burst you can see*.
> 
> Taunt a target invisible to you all you like, and no dice.
> 
> A target that can in no way perceive _you_, though, is subject to your will -- even more so with the errata that lets you dictate the movement precisely (as a "pull").




I am sorry, I have to chime in on this whole "come and get it" thing. I don't like this power because you have to use a power named, _Come and Get Me_ and only a fighter can do it and only once in a limited time period. So what happens when the rogue raises his hands and yells at the group of blood thirsty orcs? They ignore him? It is up to the DM. If they were waiting for an attack they might attack. If they were already in combat or taking a crap they might not. The thing is the DM gets to decide if it is reasonable for them. So how do you call out someone in 4e?


----------



## FireLance

Sadrik said:


> So how do you call out someone in 4e?





Sadrik said:


> It is up to the DM... the DM gets to decide if it is reasonable for them.



You answered your own question. 

4e really is no different from any other edition of D&D in this respect. Just because only thieves and rangers get to Hide in Shadows and Move Silently pre-3e, it doesn't mean that a fighter can't sneak past guards without the use of magic. It just means that it's a situation the rules don't cover and the DM has to decide how to resolve it. Dex check? Flat 50% chance? The DM simply determines success or failure based on the PC's preparations (Is he wearing armor? Is he wearing dark clothing?) and other environmental factors (What is the ambient light? How alert are the guards?)? The same methods apply in 4e to any PC who wants to get an enemy to approach him and doesn't have _come and get it_ (or a similar power or ability).


----------



## Intense_Interest

Sadrik said:


> I am sorry, I have to chime in on this whole "come and get it" thing. I don't like this power because you have to use a power named, _Come and Get Me_ and only a fighter can do it and only once in a limited time period. So what happens when the rogue raises his hands and yells at the group of blood thirsty orcs? They ignore him? It is up to the DM. If they were waiting for an attack they might attack. If they were already in combat or taking a crap they might not. The thing is the DM gets to decide if it is reasonable for them. So how do you call out someone in 4e?




Page 42, applied judiciously.



> _I know there are many who will disagree with this assessment and I will ask: What makes magic "magical" to you?_



Magic is the effects of a Magical World that can't be described through Mundane means.  The D&D games we play are in magical worlds, and "A Wizard Did It" moment will occur because of that.

Come and Get it can be explained in the majority of cases in rational causes, if desired.  If you run into a corner-case, your choices are to reduce some aspect of its use into "A Wizard Did It", or do deny the action under DM Fiat.  

That said, we're thinking far too hard about fantasy here.  Dragons can fly in an anti-magic field, to quote a recent OotS strip! In any Magical World, there are things that can't be simplified as mundane or it wouldn't be a Magical World.  At some point, "A Wizard Did It"; and this is a great place to be.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> Which explanation makes more sense? Mine, or the line of reasoning that says powers like CaGI must represent some form of deliberately unspecified magic/psychic mojo, despite they fact they're labeled 'martial exploits' (and never once referring to as magical powers).




Within the context of 4e?

Not yours.

RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Within the context of 4e?
> 
> Not yours.
> 
> RC



Well, why not Mr. Smartypants? Do you have a better explanation, or rationalization, as the case may be?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mallus said:


> It's not magic, it's metafiction.




This is a perfect description. If I could, I'd give you more XP. (Somebody help me out?)



Kask said:


> What?  Where did you see that in the rules?
> 
> Control weather isn't magic either.  It just lets the player take over determining the local weather from the DM.  LOL




And if I could, this would cost XP.

At some point the 4e hate just becomes a parody.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Intense_Interest said:


> Page 42, applied judiciously.
> 
> Magic is the effects of a Magical World that can't be described through Mundane means. The D&D games we play are in magical worlds, and "A Wizard Did It" moment will occur because of that.
> 
> Come and Get it can be explained in the majority of cases in rational causes, if desired. If you run into a corner-case, your choices are to reduce some aspect of its use into "A Wizard Did It", or do deny the action under DM Fiat.
> 
> That said, we're thinking far too hard about fantasy here. Dragons can fly in an anti-magic field, to quote a recent OotS strip! In any Magical World, there are things that can't be simplified as mundane or it wouldn't be a Magical World. At some point, "A Wizard Did It"; and this is a great place to be.




I'm fine with the "a wizard did it" explanation of magical/ unexplainable effects. The default D&D world is a place of magic and not subject to realistic rules. Call it magic and move on. The only issue here is when a power or ability is supposedly non-magical. 

Every class has abilities that are most easily explained by saying " a wizard did it". "Narrative control"  would not be an acceptable explanation to an onlooker who witnessed such a power in action. 

Every time I hear "the game rules are not the physics of the world" I think of a scene from Last Action Hero when the kid is in the police station. He sits and watches as a cartoon cat walks right in. Everyone just greets the cat and moves on. The kid starts wondering why nobody seems to care or notice that a cartoon cat is just walking around and talking.

The campaign world doesn't need codified physics laws for everything that takes place, because there is magic. What it does need is an explanation for things that happen that the world's inhabitants can relate to, even if that means simply magic or " by the will of the gods". The imaginary people of a fantasy world need to be grounded in some form of "reality" that has meaning to them even if its very different from our own.


----------



## The Shaman

D'karr said:


> For a game that is mostly dealing with imaginary situations of imaginary characters with imaginary combat tactics, there are a few that can't imagine it...  Go figure...



You seem to be assuming that everyone imagines things the same way. In my experience that isn't the case.

What tickles one person's imagination may be totally naff to others. That doesn't mean they lack imagination - it means they approach the shared imaginary space that gamers create differently from one another.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

As Wulf Rathbane's requested XP added and I agree with the point Mallus is making anyway.


----------



## D'karr

ExploderWizard said:


> The campaign world doesn't need codified physics laws for everything that takes place, because there is magic. What it does need is an explanation for things that happen that the world's inhabitants can relate to, even if that means simply magic or " by the will of the gods". The imaginary people of a fantasy world need to be grounded in some form of "reality" that has meaning to them even if its very different from our own.




I agree, and most of the powers that have been discussed here show how some people are providing that "reality" to them.  Some others just want to dismiss the "interpretation" of the power and say "hogwash" it must be magic because X, Y, Z, etc...

The fact that some are still able to provide a "realistic" interpretation to those powers that are not inherently magical for their campaign, seems to show that it can be done.  If some refuse to see it as anything but magic is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with narrow interpretation.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> Well, why not Mr. Smartypants? Do you have a better explanation, or rationalization, as the case may be?




Your explanation does not model well what actually happens in the rules as well as the jokey explanation.  The DM isn't deciding; the reaction of the creatures isn't dependent upon their nature and the situation.  These two factors alone make the jokey explanation match better with actual rules/gameplay than one that adds (essentially) additional restrictions in order to make sense within the rules paradigm.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ExploderWizard said:


> Every class has abilities that are most easily explained by saying " a wizard did it". "Narrative control"  would not be an acceptable explanation to an onlooker who witnessed such a power in action.



But that's not what he would see, either. 

He would see one of the various ways to "flavor" the "Come and Get It" ability: 
- 2 Goblins sit on a tree. The Fighter runs forward, kicks the tree stump, the goblins fall, catching their fall with an elegant move, that brings them right where the fighter is now standing again.
- 5 Zombies surround the party. One seems to be eying for the Wizard, but the Fighter calls out: "Come here, you lifeless pieces of flesh! I will take you down, and if it's the last thing I gonna do!" The Zombie are distracted by the noise and forgets about the Wizard, but are even more determined to get this clearly living and promising thing amongst them - the fighter.
- The Archmage and his bodyguard are standing close to the Fighter. The last spell seemed to have hit him harder then expected. Certain of his victory, the Archmage moves closer. "You are pathetic. You might have had enough power to hurt my youngest students, but you are no match for a real wizard", he says, as he prepares a spell.Only through the body guards quick reaction as the Fighter moves his sword can the archmage avoid his decapitation, but both take some part of the blow. "I haven't even started yet!" screams the fighter.

If the Swordmage had a "Come and Get it" like power, it would look very different. For example, he might swing a lasso from magical energy, or create a whirlwind. 

In the first scenario, the in-game-world onlooker doesn't see anything magical. The end result of whatever it sees is that a few enemies end up surrounding the Fighter and he swings at them. But the method by which they got there are entirely mundane. They stumbled into his direction, the fighter tricked them, whatever. He, of course, doesn't see "narrative control" exercised, since he is part of the narrative that is being controlled.


----------



## Raven Crowking

D'karr said:


> The fact that some are still able to provide a "realistic" interpretation to those powers that are not inherently magical for their campaign, seems to show that it can be done.  If some refuse to see it as anything but magic is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with narrow interpretation.




Excepting, of course, that the other possibility is that the "realistic" interpretation to those powers is not, in fact, a realistic interpretation given the nature of the powers in question.

If Power 1 has qualities A, B, C, and D, and I can provide a realistic interpretation provided I ignore quality D, or quality C (so that I have provided a realistic interpretation of a power with qualities A, B, and C and/or for a power with qualities A, B, and D), I still have not provided a realistic interpretation for Power 1.

And that, AFAICT, is what Mallus and others have done.  By selectively ignoring qualities of powers, they claim to have provided a realistic explanation of them.  It is not a character flaw or a failure of imagination to note that they have not done so.   It is, OTOH, wishful thinking to believe that they have done so.


RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> The DM isn't deciding; the reaction of the creatures isn't dependent upon their nature and the situation.



This statement is exactly right. But I don't see how it contradicts my point.

Your position seems to imply there's a correct way to decide what the target creatures, one that get hashed by the use of powers like CaGI. I disagree. Also, as DM I like the challenge of having to explain, on the spot, why an NPC did something (as a result of a player 'taking control' for a moment). I get a kick out of that.

The way I look it, when a fighter uses CaGI, it _becomes_ the target's nature to approach. That's what _happens_. It's then incumbent on the DM (and player) to provide whatever additional explanation/narration they deem necessary to make that event make sense (in the context of the game world).


----------



## Mallus

Wulf Ratbane said:


> This is a perfect description. If I could, I'd give you more XP.



Thanks Wulf.

(on an unrelated note, when's Trailblazer coming out? My group's gearing up to finish our long-running 3.5e campaign and TB looks like it would really help. It's either that or convert everything to M&M2e/W&W)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> This statement is exactly right. But I don't see how it contradicts my point.




Well....



> The way I look it, when a fighter uses CaGI, it _becomes_ the target's nature to approach. That's what _happens_.




So, the ability changes the nature of its target?

And, it is only usable by a select few?

And, it is not magic?




RC


----------



## Aus_Snow

Does this 'Come and get it' thing require a saving throw roll vs. a defence? Or is it automatic? Is there a duration? Do they get a saving throw every round or something?

I'm not wanting to derail the discussion about whether it's magic, at all; it's just that I um, don't know how it works.


----------



## Mournblade94

Mallus said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> In previous editions, a fighter could taunt an opponent and the DM could decide to have the opponent close in. This is what Come and Get It does. The difference is that in 4e, using that power, the _player_ gets to decide if the opponent closes in, albeit only once per day (or encounter, I forget...).
> 
> Say it with me... it's not magic, it's direct control over the narrative.




I have to disagree.  One way balance was achieved in 4e was giving everybody spells.  Label them however you want powers are spells or we can redefine previous spells as powers.

I understand what you mean by controlling the narrative, but this 'controlling the narrative' can be distilled to a type of spell effect.

Yes the flavor of the power text is clearly NOT magic.  From a mechanical perspective it works no different than a spell effect that draws an opponent towards you.


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> So, the ability changes the nature of its target?
> 
> And, it is only usable by a select few?
> 
> And, it is not magic?



So, I'm DMing a 3.5 game about 2 years ago. The fighter uses his spiked chain to hit an orc two squares away. The Orc is now bleeding and almost dead. (The spiked chain has changed the nature of the target.) A spiked chain is usable only by a select few. It is not magic.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:


> So, the ability changes the nature of its target?



It change the game world. Like my decision to have the character swing a sword also changes the game world. 



> And, it is only usable by a select few?



Yes, like Power Attack, Weapon Finesse or Hide in Shadows.



> And, it is not magic?



No, it's a game rule.


----------



## LostSoul

Aus_Snow said:


> Does this 'Come and get it' thing require a saving throw roll vs. a defence? Or is it automatic? Is there a duration? Do they get a saving throw every round or something?
> 
> I'm not wanting to derail the discussion about whether it's magic, at all; it's just that I um, don't know how it works.




Come And Get It moves everyone within a short range next to you, provided they can get there.  There's no roll.  Once there, you get to attack them.  They can act normally on their turn.


----------



## Aus_Snow

LostSoul said:


> Come And Get It moves everyone within a short range next to you, provided they can get there.  There's no roll.  Once there, you get to attack them.  They can act normally on their turn.



OK, thanks. I did read the three core books when they came out. But yeah, that was a while ago.


----------



## fanboy2000

Aus_Snow said:


> I'm not wanting to derail the discussion about whether it's magic, at all; it's just that I um, don't know how it works.



Dude, this thread is a derailment of a derailment. I think the last post on topic was made 10 pages ago by a guy with the screen name "Not Me." 

Anyways, here are important parts of the power:

*Come and Get It*
_You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will never forget._

Effect: You pull each target 2 squares to a space adjacent to you. You cannot pull a target that cannot end adjacent to you. You then make a close attack targeting each adjacent enemy.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.

Note that the target, if capable, come for the fighter, no attact roll needed for that. The only attack roll needed is for that actual hitting part. And, for what it's worth, *the power requires a weapon*.

Edit: D'oh! Beaten to it.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Aus_Snow said:


> Does this 'Come and get it' thing require a saving throw roll vs. a defence? Or is it automatic? Is there a duration? Do they get a saving throw every round or something?
> 
> I'm not wanting to derail the discussion about whether it's magic, at all; it's just that I um, don't know how it works.




Its just an implementation of challenging shout from WOW. Its a way to suddenly pull aggro off the squishies. The programming code says that it works when you mash the button and the mobs are compelled to obey.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> So, the ability changes the nature of its target?




I think this is the big issue.

Would you let a PC, using mundane means only, dictate the actions of an NPC with the successful resolution of the PC's action?


I'd rather they designed the martial powers with an "opt-out" clause, letting the DM allow NPCs to resist these kinds of effects if he deems that they would.  If they resist, something bad happens to them.  Stunned until the end of their next turn, for example, or psychic damage that causes them to cower in abject fear if reduced to 0 HP.

(I don't think there are any mindless creatures in 4E.  I'm glad for that, mindless creatures who take actions on their own don't make any sense to me.  They'd be better off as traps.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Aus_Snow said:


> OK, thanks. I did read the three core books when they came out. But yeah, that was a while ago.



It would be a miracle if you knew all the powers after a read-through. I only know this power because it's cool .


----------



## Raven Crowking

fanboy2000 said:


> So, I'm DMing a 3.5 game about 2 years ago. The fighter uses his spiked chain to hit an orc two squares away. The Orc is now bleeding and almost dead. (The spiked chain has changed the nature of the target.) A spiked chain is usable only by a select few. It is not magic.




I would not say that being damaged changes the nature of the target.  It changes the _*condition*_ of the target.  These are two seperate things.

A spiked chain, BTW, is not usable only by a select few.  AFAICT, _*anyone*_ in 3.5 can pick up a spiked chain and make an attack roll.


RC


----------



## billd91

LostSoul said:


> I think this is the big issue.
> 
> Would you let a PC, using mundane means only, dictate the actions of an NPC with the successful resolution of the PC's action?
> 
> 
> I'd rather they designed the martial powers with an "opt-out" clause, letting the DM allow NPCs to resist these kinds of effects if he deems that they would.  If they resist, something bad happens to them.  Stunned until the end of their next turn, for example, or psychic damage that causes them to cower in abject fear if reduced to 0 HP.




Nothing bad should happen to them, if you ask me. The "opt-out" clause should be a successful defense on the target's part (in other words, a failed attack by the PC). So for something like "Come and Get It", I would prefer an attack vs the target's Will defense first to see if they fall for the taunt (or bluff or any other effect that will change their willful behavior). If that were there, I'd be content with it.


----------



## AllisterH

LostSoul said:


> I'd rather they designed the martial powers with an "opt-out" clause, letting the DM allow NPCs to resist these kinds of effects if he deems that they would.  If they resist, something bad happens to them.  Stunned until the end of their next turn, for example, or psychic damage that causes them to cower in abject fear if reduced to 0 HP.




No, this is VERY bad game design and you can see an example of this with the TRIP/DISARM feats/manoeuvers in 3e.

What happens with these type of opt-out manoeuvers is that they either become super-efficient and that they get spammed OR that they are super worthless and thus they see use in a blue moon.

If you design martial powers on the "only can be totally realistic method" you end up with the 3e system where you have characters that constantly spam TRIP or the option never gets taken (See Improved Disarm) since the requirements for its success are too onerous...


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> I think this is the big issue.
> 
> Would you let a PC, using mundane means only, dictate the actions of an NPC with the successful resolution of the PC's action?
> 
> 
> I'd rather they designed the martial powers with an "opt-out" clause, letting the DM allow NPCs to resist these kinds of effects if he deems that they would.  If they resist, something bad happens to them.  Stunned until the end of their next turn, for example, or psychic damage that causes them to cower in abject fear if reduced to 0 HP.
> 
> (I don't think there are any mindless creatures in 4E.  I'm glad for that, mindless creatures who take actions on their own don't make any sense to me.  They'd be better off as traps.)






Well said, LostSoul......but I would go even farther.

If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.


RC


----------



## Ydars

What is interesting about this discussion is how some people have completely shifted the way they interpret the rules of D&D.

In the old days, rules were there to model reality. You can argue that they didn't do it very well, but the guiding principle was always to relate the RAW to real world physics and see if what came out was reasonable. If it didn't, the DM made a judgement about what actually would happen in any situation. Anything that broke the laws of physics was pretty much labelled "magic".

Now the RAW are king and we are re-modelling our descriptions of reality to fit with way the rules work. So things that are fantastic or crazy are not necessarily labelled as magic.

I guess I can understand both camps, but sympathize with people who don't really like this shift much.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> So, the ability changes the nature of its target?



Not exactly. It changes who gets to determine what target's nature *is* (from the DM to the person playing the fighter, at least temporarily, and only with regard to the question 'do I close?').



> And, it is only usable by a select few?



Don't blame me, I didn't make 4e a class-based game. Also, remember that anyone can try to taunt/challenge opponents into closing with them. Use of CaGI just guarantees the result. 



> And, it is not magic?



Nope. But call it that if you like.


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> I would not say that being damaged changes the nature of the target.  It changes the _*condition*_ of the target.  These are two seperate things.



Adjacent is a condition. The NPC/Monster that moves to the PC in Come and Get It changed their condition. Previously the condition was "non-adjacent." Now the condition is "adjacent." 



> A spiked chain, BTW, is not usable only by a select few.  AFAICT, _*anyone*_ in 3.5 can pick up a spiked chain and make an attack roll.



Sure, anyone can make an attack roll, but most people won't be as effective as the fighter because most people will have a -4 to the attack roll. Similarly, anyone can shout out a group of NPC/Monsters, but they won't be as effective because the decision to "Come and Get It" is up to the DM and the default rules set, not the exception laid out by the power.


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> Well said, LostSoul......but I would go even farther.
> 
> If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.



Anyone can shout at their enemy's to induce them to come, it's just up to the DM, not the Player, to decide how or if they come.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Ydars said:


> What is interesting about this discussion is how some people have completely shifted the way they interpret the rules of D&D.
> 
> In the old days, rules were there to model reality. You can argue that they didn't do it very well, but the guiding principle was always to relate the RAW to real world physics and see if what came out was reasonable. If it didn't, the DM made a judgement about what actually would happen in any situation. Anything that broke the laws of physics was pretty much labelled "magic".
> 
> Now the RAW are king and we are re-modelling our descriptions of reality to fit with way the rules work. So things that are fantastic or crazy are not necessarily labelled as magic.
> 
> I guess I can understand both camps, but sympathize with people who don't really like this shift much.




Model reality? I am afraid there are way to many exceptions in D&D to allow me to agree to that.

Hit points don't model anything specific, they are an "abstraction" for whatever is going on when you swing a sword or fireball a target. You have to come up with the in-game description yourself. 

1 Minute combat rounds? What's going on there? What does your attack roll stand for? 

"Hide in Shadows" was a similar ability - did it model that only the Thief could sneak around? Or he could a special chance no one else could get? 

Classes are similar concepts. Why can you never learn to cast a spell as a Fighter (before the invention of multiclassing). Why can't a Wizard just stop casting spells and become a Fighter?


Come and Get Its pull effect is just another "abstraction". The rules don't bother to describe what really happens, they just tell you the end result. Just like hit points don't tell you if your arm hurts, or if the god intervened to protect you, or you cleverly deflected a blow with your sword...



> Well said, LostSoul......but I would go even farther.
> 
> If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.



But couldn't this also apply to magic? Everyone can cast Fireball, but it's so hard you will probably only succeed with a power granting you an effective bonus? 
I could just set the DC for C&G so high that you can never succeed without the bonus from the power. What does this change in actual play? 

Of course, I say it's the same outcome. If adding an aspect of your model doesn't add anything to the outcome, you can safely cut it out.

I think too much time is wasted on trying to think about "simulating" anything instead of caring about the actual game experience.


----------



## fanboy2000

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Snip...



Good stuff.


> I think too much time is wasted on trying to think about "simulating" anything instead of caring about the actual game experience.



Oh, come on. Sometimes, in my games, I "simulate" a game of Paranoia. By accident, of course.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I'm with Mustrum here, the rules don't model anything in the actual gameworld they are just abstractions to facilitate ease of use with interacting between the player and DM.

This is why I am such a big supporter of narrative and refluffing, etc. Since that is what is "in-game", the mechanics are just as I said above a way to facilitate the interaction.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Oh bugger. There was another thing, about CaGi: level and at will / encounter / daily. . .? I'm going to guess (or hazily remember, perhaps?) encounter and somewhere in the heroic tier. Either way, if someone could clue me in there, it'd be appreciated.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> Not exactly. It changes who gets to determine what target's nature *is* (from the DM to the person playing the fighter, at least temporarily, and only with regard to the question 'do I close?').




Which means either (1) the target had no nature previous to the power's use (i.e., the game world operates with an indeterminate Schrodinger's Nature) or (2) the target's nature can actually be changed by the power.



> Don't blame me, I didn't make 4e a class-based game.




IME, many class-based games do not suffer from this problem.  Besides, I am not _*blaming you*_; I am simply denying that your interpretation makes more sense than the "It's magic" interpretation.



> Also, remember that anyone can try to taunt/challenge opponents into closing with them. Use of CaGI just guarantees the result.






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But couldn't this also apply to magic? Everyone can cast Fireball, but it's so hard you will probably only succeed with a power granting you an effective bonus?




You could, but "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is so far from the implied reality of pre-4e D&D that some of those playing 4e D&D seem to have a very hard time accepting that this is the implied reality 4e is using.



> I could just set the DC for C&G so high that you can never succeed without the bonus from the power. What does this change in actual play?




AFAICT, it would only make obvious how out of keeping with expected reality C&GI actually is.  We would see the DC, we would know it felt wrong, and we would question the world in which C&GI is necessary.......Or, if the DC felt right, we would more clearly determine that C&GI is a supernatural ability.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Well said, LostSoul......but I would go even farther.
> 
> If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.
> 
> 
> RC




Technicaly it is, as others have said. Using the rules on page 42, a player can (and should) attempt to do just about anything, and the DM has a quick suggestion on how to resolve it.

CaGI just offers the player a bonus. (In that he doesn't have to do anything special to make it work.)


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think too much time is wasted on trying to think about "simulating" anything instead of caring about the actual game experience.




Simulating actual reality with D&D rules is a futile exercise. Simulating a working, consistent fantasy world with its own reality plays a large role in the actual game experience for some of us.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ExploderWizard said:


> Simulating actual reality with D&D rules is a futile exercise. Simulating a working, consistent fantasy world with its own reality plays a large role in the actual game experience for some of us.




Sorry, EW, but I apparently need to spread some XP around before giving more to you.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Technicaly it is, as others have said. Using the rules on page 42, a player can (and should) attempt to do just about anything, and the DM has a quick suggestion on how to resolve it.
> 
> CaGI just offers the player a bonus. (In that he doesn't have to do anything special to make it work.)




"All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is so far from the implied reality of pre-4e D&D that some of those playing 4e D&D seem to have a very hard time accepting that this is the implied reality 4e is using.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, it would only make obvious how out of keeping with expected reality C&GI actually is.  We would see the DC, we would know it felt wrong, and we would question the world in which C&GI is necessary.......Or, if the DC felt right, we would more clearly determine that C&GI is a supernatural ability.




Why should the game have to dictate that to me? As it stands I can play it any way I want to. I can play it as a mundane effect if I want, or I can play it as a supernatural effect if I want without having to rework all the rules. 

Uthgar stomps mightily on the wooden floor, causing the planks to burst up sending his assailants tumbling towards him!

Uthgar screams a resounding cry, challenging all his foes to aproach. They do!

Uthgar reaches deep wthin his soul calling out to the power of his ancestors, he feels the power of the blade masters fuel his rage. With a mighty shout he compells his foes to come closer!

All of the above work within the context of CaGI. Which makes me happy. A game system that is mutable, in my opinion, is much more fun, and much more open to use.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Why should the game have to dictate that to me? As it stands I can play it any way I want to. I can play it as a mundane effect if I want, or I can play it as a supernatural effect if I want without having to rework all the rules.




If Power 1 has qualities A, B, C, and D, then an interpretation that ignores quality C or D doesn't successfully interpret the power, even if it is inclusive of the other three qualities.  Hence, while as it stands you can play it any way you want to, the interpretations offered do not successfully interpret the power, as they ignore qualities of the power to make the mundane interpretation "successful".

Again, "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is so far from the implied reality of pre-4e D&D that some of those playing 4e D&D seem to have a very hard time accepting that this is the implied reality 4e is using.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Uthgar whimpers in frustration upon realizing that his challenging shout is on cooldown. Gwydion promises to raise Magnar the Magnificent after the battle.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Does this 'Come and get it' thing require a saving throw roll vs. a defence? Or is it automatic? Is there a duration? Do they get a saving throw every round or something?




  I know you already got an answer on this (it's an encounter power btw) I just felt like pointing out that although _every discussion of martial powers ever_ seems to gravitate towards 'Come and Get it' the power is actually an abberation, design-wise. There are a large number of similar martial powers that came out after the PHB that require a succesful attack vs will in order to move the target. 

  I don't have any problem with how the power works, personally, but it is a bit irksome to see people constantly basing their arguement around a single power that works differently than most.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mad Mac said:


> I know you already got an answer on this (it's an encounter power btw) I just felt like pointing out that although _every discussion of martial powers ever_ seems to gravitate towards 'Come and Get it' the power is actually an abberation, design-wise.





Because the problems with C&GI are the most blatant.  It is not alone -- the whole idea of a mundane power that is usable once per day is questionable (at best).


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is so far from the implied reality of pre-4e D&D that some of those playing 4e D&D seem to have a very hard time accepting that this is the implied reality 4e is using.
> 
> 
> RC




Your trying to use circular logic here that is incorrect.

It's not magic (unless you want it to be) so your statment is incorrect. You can explain it through mundane means (unless you've decided you don't want to, or you lack imagination.) 

The option is available to anyone if they want to try it, but the DM will probably make it harder. IE they'll have to make a check of some type.

Having CaGI as a power just gives that player a bonus, in that he doesn't have the harsh penalties. (Akin to taking a feat to make sure you can't be hit by an AoO when you try the special ability.)


----------



## Ariosto

"Most of us will convert to RCFG by 2011."  Maybe, or to other games reflecting the sensibilities we associate with D&D. We can still be in keeping with 35 years of tradition, just not with Wizbro's new products. It's like yuppies taking over a neighborhood and changing its character; the former residents need somewhere to live. Where's the soul food?


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> If Power 1 has qualities A, B, C, and D, then an interpretation that ignores quality C or D doesn't successfully interpret the power, even if it is inclusive of the other three qualities.  Hence, while as it stands you can play it any way you want to, the interpretations offered do not successfully interpret the power, as they ignore qualities of the power to make the mundane interpretation "successful".




I'm sorry you are unable to imagine how they can interpret al letters you care to throw out there man. I'm glad I don't need the rules to dictate how the world "works" to me.




Raven Crowking said:


> Because the problems with C&GI are the most blatant.  It is not alone -- the whole idea of a mundane power that is usable once per day is questionable (at best).




Why was it not a problem when barbarians did it?

In anycase it isn't realy usable only once per day. The rules on 42 clearly indicate that a player can attempt to do things that act as powers, but are not powers, and the DM can use 42 as a quick way to rule it. 

No where does it say the player can't attempt to emulate a power's effects. That's al you if you're saying they can't. They can in my game.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> I'm sorry you are unable to imagine how they can interpret al letters you care to throw out there man. I'm glad I don't need the rules to dictate how the world "works" to me.




A lot of rules for that stuff are not really needed. A simple guideline is that any power that requires putting common sense and logic on pause in order to accept is probably magic.


----------



## LostSoul

AllisterH said:


> No, this is VERY bad game design and you can see an example of this with the TRIP/DISARM feats/manoeuvers in 3e.
> 
> What happens with these type of opt-out manoeuvers is that they either become super-efficient and that they get spammed OR that they are super worthless and thus they see use in a blue moon.




You might be right.  That happens when you get a complex resolution system.  I've seen the same thing in action in other systems where it's good game design, however.

I'm not bothered by Come and Get It, but if a situation arose where I was, I'd probably do some bargaining with the player for a different effect.

I guess that's how house rules are formed.



Raven Crowking said:


> If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.




I agree.  I would resolve it slightly differently if the PC didn't have the power, but I'd allow anyone to try it.  Each DM runs his game his own way, though.


----------



## Henry

Kask said:


> Nope.  It can only see something there to attack.  It is mindless, thus can't be insulted, taunted etc,.  Like a virus.  It can't look at the potential host and decide it looks defenseless...




Tell that to the Romero-style zombies, who always grabbed the guys who were helpless or wounded first! Make it TOO mindless so as to not even be self-aware, and it can't distinguish a lamp post from a victim...

Besides, what about all those heroes in the killer bug or zombie horror movies who would shoot shotguns, yell, "Hey, you, over here!" etc. to distract the monsters from the other members while they make a getaway, sacrificing themselves in the process? Same basic principle - zombies/bugs/snakes/atomic mongooses see easy prey and come after it.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Because the problems with C&GI are the most blatant. It is not alone -- the whole idea of a mundane power that is usable once per day is questionable (at best).




  Meh. 3rd edition was littered with non-magical powers that were only useable one or more times per day. Didn't bother me before, doesn't bother me now. 

  I'm just saying, that because C&GI isn't terribly representative of martial powers as a whole, at best you can argue that it's a poorly designed power. As an extra special bonus, discussing some other power gives everyone a chance to come up with new arguements instead of copy and pasting stuff they wrote 6 months ago.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> A lot of rules for that stuff are not really needed. A simple guideline is that any power that requires putting common sense and logic on pause in order to accept is probably magic.




If that's the way you want to or have to see it, then I'm cool with that. That's all you. (And the rules won't even be effected by your choice.) 

I just get annoyed when someone attempts to tell me I have to accept his idea of what is or isn't magic because he can't imagine a way for it to work without magic. (Or tries to go into a how this makes it not D&D because of his choice on how to view something.)

You can even call it supernatural if you want, and it still has no effect on anything in my opinion. It just means the game doesn't make a catagorical distinction between supernatural and mundane. It allows YOU to make that choice so you can make your game what you want.


----------



## Mad Mac

> I agree. I would resolve it slightly differently if the PC didn't have the power, but I'd allow anyone to try it. Each DM runs his game his own way, though.




  At a basic level, the power combines a sweeping blow with a pull/taunt effect. I'd be happy to allow the player to successfully "taunt" enemies with roleplaying and/or a skill check, but I probably wouldn't give them the ability to hit all adjacent enemies at once without the power.


----------



## Scribble

Henry said:


> Tell that to the Romero-style zombies, who always grabbed the guys who were helpless or wounded first! Make it TOO mindless so as to not even be self-aware, and it can't distinguish a lamp post from a victim...




I've always tried to make undead and such more like animals. They don't have MUCH coherent thought, but they do have basic instincts that allow them to most effectively accomplish their goals.

So they instinctively go for the squishies, because that more effectivey allows them to eat "BRAAAAAAAAAAINS."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mallus said:


> Thanks Wulf.
> 
> (On an unrelated note, when's Trailblazer coming out?)




I wouldn't say that's unrelated. 

Around (before) GenCon.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

LostSoul said:


> Would you let a PC, using mundane means only, dictate the actions of an NPC with the successful resolution of the PC's action?




Like a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive check?

Or a Hide/Move Silently check?



Raven Crowking said:


> The whole idea of a mundane power that is usable once per day is questionable (at best).




Like barbarian rage? 

I'm torn, because I _completely _empathize with the "4e is too magic" crowd. I get it. I feel it too.

But some of these supporting arguments are weak-sauce.


----------



## Sadrik

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Model reality? I am afraid there are way to many exceptions in D&D to allow me to agree to that.
> 
> Hit points don't model anything specific, they are an "abstraction" for whatever is going on when you swing a sword or fireball a target. You have to come up with the in-game description yourself.
> 
> 1 Minute combat rounds? What's going on there? What does your attack roll stand for?
> 
> "Hide in Shadows" was a similar ability - did it model that only the Thief could sneak around? Or he could a special chance no one else could get?
> 
> Classes are similar concepts. Why can you never learn to cast a spell as a Fighter (before the invention of multiclassing). Why can't a Wizard just stop casting spells and become a Fighter?



Highlighting wonkiness from early editions does not explain wonkiness in the current edition.


----------



## billd91

Scribble said:


> Why was it not a problem when barbarians did it?




The barbarian rage came with an explanation why it was usable a limited number of times per day and included a condition to drive that home. Simply put, it was _tiring_. Makes perfect sense why a night's sleep would recharge the power.

The martial dailies? Not quite so clear. Nor does it really help to put in terms of taking narrative control, if you ask me, particularly when the effects of dailies are so varied, yet you have to have a fixed daily in each slot. If it's really about narrative control, why does my PC take narrative control to the same few effects, day in day out? Shouldn't they fit the circumstances better if the dailies are really about narrative control? Or, if I am limited to a few powerful, signature moves, why can't I use them more often? Why is it so hard to get the conditions right that I can only perform them once a day?

Better thematic relationship and structures relating dailies to extra-powerful versions of encounter powers, I think, would help in this regard.


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is so far from the implied reality of pre-4e D&D that some of those playing 4e D&D seem to have a very hard time accepting that this is the implied reality 4e is using.



Let me make sure I under stand this. You are saying that the implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all." You are also saying that people who disagree with you, like me, do so because previous editions did not have that implied setting. It is an interesting statement.

Unfortunately it ignores an import point: the influence of fiction on D&D.

In fiction characters like Batman who are explicitly stated as having no superpowers, supernatural abilities, magical powers, or paranormal qualities do things which are blatantly impossible. 

D&D has always been influenced by fiction. Fafhrd, Elric, and Conan to name a few obvious ones.

That influence continued into the 3.x era. Of course, the influence didn't stop at the fiction enjoyed by Gygax and Arneson. D&D continued to be influenced by fiction that didn't exist at the time of the White Box. This should not be underestimated. During the 3.x era Dragon had an article about running a game like a TV show. Polyhedron published many mini-games explicitly influenced by fiction both old and new. In facts, the first incarnation of d20 Modern published for public consumption, _Shadow Chasers_, listed the TV shows _Special Unit 2_ and _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ as direct influences.


----------



## Scribble

billd91 said:


> The barbarian rage came with an explanation why it was usable a limited number of times per day and included a condition to drive that home. Simply put, it was _tiring_. Makes perfect sense why a night's sleep would recharge the power.




Again if that's what someone needs, that's on them. It doesn't bother me in the least as to what the game designer's explaination for it was. I don't even care if he has one. If I like the element in question, then I'm going to have an explaination for it. (I guess it's just how my brain works.)

If the game designer puts his explaination, in a way I feel like it's locking me into a certain play stye. I much prefer coming up with my own reasons for things.



> The martial dailies? Not quite so clear. Nor does it really help to put in terms of taking narrative control, if you ask me, particularly when the effects of dailies are so varied, yet you have to have a fixed daily in each slot. If it's really about narrative control, why does my PC take narrative control to the same few effects, day in day out? Shouldn't they fit the circumstances better if the dailies are really about narrative control? Or, if I am limited to a few powerful, signature moves, why can't I use them more often? Why is it so hard to get the conditions right that I can only perform them once a day?
> 
> Better thematic relationship and structures relating dailies to extra-powerful versions of encounter powers, I think, would help in this regard.




Shrug, there are countless explainations I can come up with but as to narrative control, I somewhat agree- but I don't fault the rules for it.

I don't see it as being harmfull to the system if players could swap out their various powers every morning, or even if they swap out their encounters between fights and what not.

it's just a lot more work at that point to create a character, so it doesn't need to be the defualt.

I think it just works better if you go with the predefined slots, and then add on with the rules from page 42.

In the future though I'm thinking about running a campaign where there are no predefined powers, just page 42. I'l probably keep the slots, but just for purposes of power level of the attack in question.


----------



## billd91

Scribble said:


> In the future though I'm thinking about running a campaign where there are no predefined powers, just page 42. I'l probably keep the slots, but just for purposes of power level of the attack in question.




I think even I'd find that more agreeable than the mishmash of exploits/spells that 4e is right now.


----------



## fanboy2000

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I'm torn, because I _completely _empathize with the "4e is too magic" crowd. I get it. I feel it too.



I don't know about you, but for me it's the power system. I don't think 4e is "too magic" but I do feel like the power system lends itself to that. I also think the power system is almost too unwieldy. 

But I've ran a 4e game for several months now (my second one, but my first since I moved to San Diego) and I really like it. I think my personal unease comes from the fact that this is the first edition of D&D to really embrace an exception based rules system. D&D has always had a kind of exception based structure, but a lot of it was hidden under special rules that supposedly worked for anyone, but in reality only worked under very special (i.e. exceptional) circumstances. The rules for etherealness in 3.x come to mind.

The advantage of the exception base rules is that it allows classes to have separate and distinct abilities using a common rules system. This is in contrast having several separate subsystems that supposedly anyone can access but again, in reality, PCs specialized in one rule subsystem sometimes to the exclusion of others.

The disadvantage is that each class has it's own separate powers or list of exceptions. Each class re-invents the wheel with it's own at-wills and such, thus leading to unweildness. (Is that a word?)

The advantage of have one set of rules with several sub-systems is that new flavors of classes can be created simply by changes how they access the subsystem. Also, a smaller number of exceptions is built into each class. 

The disadvantage of several sub-systems is that often one class access that subsystem very well and the other either don't access it at all or do so poorly. In an exception based rules system, there simply needs to be a way for a class access that particular exception or exceptions to combine concepts and ideas.

Just my thoughts, I've kept the only six 3.5 I'll ever need for any such occasion where a person may wish play that game with me.


----------



## Scribble

billd91 said:


> I think even I'd find that more agreeable than the mishmash of exploits/spells that 4e is right now.




Shrug, maybe.

I like the powers, because: 

1. I've never been one (as mentioned before) to feel like the game needs to tell me how to interpret how an effect happens.  (Only what happens after it happens.)

2. They make stuff happen on the battlefield that otherwise might not. 

3. It's less for me the DM to have to rule on.

But I don't let them be a straight jacket for me; they're open to modification by myself and my players.

They're kind of like instant suggestions of fun stuff to do. They inspire me to be more descriptive about the events happening, as opposed to falling back on simply "you hit him with a powerful slash of your sword."

I've found myself describing scenes that are more like action scenes in books/moves because of things like slides and pushes. Like the other night one of my players was knocked prone, and used a power that let her attack, and shift a few squares. I found myself describing it like the typical action scene moment where the hero gets knocked down, then takes a swipe and pushes off the wall/enemy sliding along the ground to safety.

It just resonates with me I guess for descriptive purposes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Your trying to use circular logic here that is incorrect.
> 
> It's not magic (unless you want it to be) so your statment is incorrect.




Oh.  Well.  *Now* I'm convinced.  Why didn't you say so before?



Obviously, if we re-define the meaning of the term "magic" it will change whether or not something is "magical".


----------



## Sadrik

Scribble said:


> In the future though I'm thinking about running a campaign where there are no predefined powers, just page 42. I'l probably keep the slots, but just for purposes of power level of the attack in question.



I look forward to hearing about this game!


----------



## Scribble

fanboy2000 said:


> I don't know about you, but for me it's the power system. I don't think 4e is "too magic" but I do feel like the power system lends itself to that. I also think the power system is almost too unwieldy.




I think the power system has something to do with it, but not in implementaion... More in presentation.

In the past we had classes that had various special abilities.

Like Barbarians got rage x times per day, and fast walk, and what not.

To me the power system is simply taking that concept, and letting he player choose what exactly the special abilities are. They aren't set in stone before you design your character. 

It's just because they're labled "powers" and presented in easy to use spell like boxes that makes them seem like something new in my opinion.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ariosto said:


> "Most of us will convert to RCFG by 2011."  Maybe, or to other games reflecting the sensibilities we associate with D&D. We can still be in keeping with 35 years of tradition, just not with Wizbro's new products. It's like yuppies taking over a neighborhood and changing its character; the former residents need somewhere to live. Where's the soul food?




RCFG.  Soul food that works with WotC-D&D and TSR-D&D.



Scribble said:


> Why was it not a problem when barbarians did it?




It was.  Weren't you a participant in those discussions, too?  I thought you were.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> Like a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive check?




Weren't these among the most reviled aspects of 3.x's worldview?  I.e., things people didn't like because of what they implied about the world, as opposed to things like grapple that were overly complicated?



> I'm torn, because I _completely _empathize with the "4e is too magic" crowd. I get it. I feel it too.
> 
> But some of these supporting arguments are weak-sauce.




Hrrm.

Especially if one forgets that they were the source of the same sorts of problems when introduced.



billd91 said:


> The barbarian rage came with an explanation why it was usable a limited number of times per day and included a condition to drive that home. Simply put, it was _tiring_. Makes perfect sense why a night's sleep would recharge the power.




RCFG mechanizes the "tiring" aspect and allows the player to determine how far to push it.



> The martial dailies? Not quite so clear. Nor does it really help to put in terms of taking narrative control, if you ask me, particularly when the effects of dailies are so varied, yet you have to have a fixed daily in each slot.




Indeed.  Extremely weak sauce.  



fanboy2000 said:


> Let me make sure I under stand this. You are saying that the implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all." You are also saying that people who disagree with you, like me, do so because previous editions did not have that implied setting. It is an interesting statement.




Glad you find it interesting, but I wouldn't phrase it like you did.  I'd say, instead:

The implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all."

Because previous editions did not have that implied setting, it is difficult for some people to accept that it is the implied setting of 4e.

Some folks might have additional and/or different reasons for not seeing the change in implied setting.​

RC


----------



## LostSoul

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Like a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive check?




These ones.  Can you roll Diplomacy, get a success, and dictate the NPC's actions as if he was your PC?

edit: That's what Come and Get It does, though instead of a roll it substitutes a resource expenditure to resolve whether or not you can control the NPC, and that control is pretty tightly controlled.


----------



## Scribble

Raven- Where are you getting this "Implied reality" idea from?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> It's just because they're labled "powers" and presented in easy to use spell like boxes that makes them seem like something new in my opinion.




Not so much for me. The "power" presentation does turn the bulk of the PHB into a mind-numbing wall of text but thats not the most off-putting thing about powers. 

The actual content of the powers and tone of the rules that support them convey the message that what happens on the battlemat is more important that what happens in the game world. Its kind of a tactical boardgame first/ rpg second vibe that I don't like. 

The "make up whatever explanation you like" theme seems to provide a great freedom to the DM but at the same time, it's just putting a positive spin on the boardgame first concept.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Raven Crowking said:


> Weren't these among the most reviled aspects of 3.x's worldview?  I.e., things people didn't like because of what they implied about the world, as opposed to things like grapple that were overly complicated?




Not that I ever saw. Maybe we patrolled different discussions.

The most common Diplomacy complaint I can recall was that the DC was static (as opposed to an opposed check).

I never heard anyone complain about Bluff or Sense Motive. They're pretty standard fare in multiple RPG systems.

But... The *most *reviled? AFAIAC that's hyperbole, and you might want to walk that back a little bit.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> The "make up whatever explanation you like" theme seems to provide a great freedom to the DM but at the same time, it's just putting a positive spin on the boardgame first concept.




If that's how you feel, that's how you feel, but this is how I've approached D&D and all RPGs since I started playing. 

If I liked a concept/power/rule/idea/whatever it's because it inspired soemthing in my imagination, and I couldn't care less how the designer "shows his work" so to speak. I don't need the designer to tell me why soemthing happens. Just give me the results.

Calling it the "boardgame first" concept feels to me like a quick snipe to push your point of view rather then an actual valid argument. You might as well be saying "Oh yeah??? Well you smell like cheese!"


----------



## fanboy2000

Scribble said:


> I think the power system has something to do with it, but not in implementaion... More in presentation.
> 
> In the past we had classes that had various special abilities.
> 
> Like Barbarians got rage x times per day, and fast walk, and what not.
> 
> To me the power system is simply taking that concept, and letting he player choose what exactly the special abilities are. They aren't set in stone before you design your character.
> 
> It's just because they're labled "powers" and presented in easy to use spell like boxes that makes them seem like something new in my opinion.



The presentation defiantly threw me when I first cracked open the 4e PHB. Fortunately, I had played KotS previously and knew something about how the powers actually played out in game. Still, it was something I hadn't seen in a previous RPG (though my experience with other RPGs is limited) and it put me off at first.


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> The implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all."
> 
> Because previous editions did not have that implied setting, it is difficult for some people to accept that it is the implied setting of 4e.
> 
> Some folks might have additional and/or different reasons for not seeing the change in implied setting.​



So you would say "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is objectively true and anyone who disagrees with that statement is wrong?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> If that's how you feel, that's how you feel, but this is how I've approached D&D and all RPGs since I started playing.
> 
> If I liked a concept/power/rule/idea/whatever it's because it inspired soemthing in my imagination, and I couldn't care less how the designer "shows his work" so to speak. I don't need the designer to tell me why soemthing happens. Just give me the results.
> 
> Calling it the "boardgame first" concept feels to me like a quick snipe to push your point of view rather then an actual valid argument. You might as well be saying "Oh yeah??? Well you smell like cheese!"




It isn't my intent to insult you or anyone else. For a roleplaying game, the why behind a rule is very important to me. The rules of board and war games I can accept more at face value for simple reasons of game balance or whatever. I think its because I view actual rules in a competetive style game as more important than those in a roleplaying game. In an rpg I am content with good guidelines provided they make some kind of sense. If I understand the why behind a general guideline in an rpg, its more satisfying to me than a dozen codified rules that simply work the way they do "just because". 

Rpgs are games, but different type of animal to me. Thats just how my brain works.


----------



## Mad Mac

> If that's how you feel, that's how you feel, but this is how I've approached D&D and all RPGs since I started playing.
> 
> If I liked a concept/power/rule/idea/whatever it's because it inspired soemthing in my imagination, and I couldn't care less how the designer "shows his work" so to speak. I don't need the designer to tell me why soemthing happens. Just give me the results.




  Yeah, I hear you. Personally, I started playing D&D by playing a few games at school, and then went home and "taught" my little brother to play by stealing a few bits and pieces I had picked up and then making up the rest. It wasn't for a few more years until we had all the books, so we continued to just snip bits of rules or concepts from D&D books, boardgames, choose your own adventure books, or whatever else sparked our imagination. We used to write up a new set of "rules" every time we started up a new game. 

  As a result, I've never seen official rules as anything more than a guideline, either as a player or a DM, and I don't feel every rule needs to be justified to me either. If I like it, I'll make it work in my imagination, and if I don't I'll just change it or ignore it.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> It isn't my intent to insult you or anyone else. For a roleplaying game, the why behind a rule is very important to me. The rules of board and war games I can accept more at face value for simple reasons of game balance or whatever. I think its because I view actual rules in a competetive style game as more important than those in a roleplaying game. In an rpg I am content with good guidelines provided they make some kind of sense. If I understand the why behind a general guideline in an rpg, its more satisfying to me than a dozen codified rules that simply work the way they do "just because".
> 
> Rpgs are games, but different type of animal to me. Thats just how my brain works.




It's all good, I misread internet intent as much as the next I guess. 

I understand what you're saying. I think there are two types of players personally.

The type that needs/wants the rules to indicate how or why an effect happens, and the type that needs/wants the rules to only indicate what happens when the effect takes place.

I'm of the second camp (mostly) and pretty much always have been. I can play either style, but I notice I have a lot more fun when I play games more in the second style- They get my imagination going more. I look at a rule/effect/option and start to envision all the scenes that might play out when it's used. The first style makes me feel like I have to scan/memorize too many rules elements to achieve an effect I want. Like you said: It's just how my brain is wired I guess.

I personaly feel D&D through the ages has been more in my camp then the first camp, but 3e pushed it more towards the second camp.  I liked a lot of the things 3e added to the game, but that part ended up always bugging me.

4e to me, feels like the updates I liked in 3e but with more of a gameplay style from the older editions. 

To each his own though.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> ... the target had no nature previous to the power's use...



The way I see it (ie, the correct way ), the target is a fictional character. It has whatever nature the author says it has. Usually the author is the DM. In certain, limited situations, it's one of the players. Clear as crystal, no?



> ...the target's nature can actually be changed by the power.



You could say that... so long as you recognize that the change is occurring at the metagame level. There's no corresponding in-game force acting on the target, no magic, psionics, etc. causing the change. 

These powers are a lot like the Swashbuckler Cards that made the rounds on ENWorld a few years ago (I _think_ they were Barsoomcore's doing). They produce in-game effects controlled by the players that don't neccessarily originate from their characters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I also wonder if the whole "magic" vs "mundane" distinction isn't a little stretched.

While magic is something that doesn't exist in our world, it is clearly something that exists in the game world. And if we take the rules of the game actually as an attempt to "simulate" the reality of the game world, that would suggest, since magic has rules, it is actually part of the natural world. And therefore it stands to reason that you should be able to cast Fireball or Invisibility even without the power on your list. You just need to try _very_ hard, and the long-standing training of a mage makes this considerably easier to you.

But a "narrative" approach avoids this. Magic isn't really all the spells and rituals described in the book. It is way more. But players are only given narration rights for the ones described in the book (and those the DM allows, maybe by relying on p.42 or just on a gut instinct.)


----------



## Mallus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Magic isn't really all the spells and rituals described in the book. It is way more. But players are only given narration rights for the ones described in the book (and those the DM allows, maybe by relying on p.42 or just on a gut instinct.)



This is how I've always played D&D (ed. 1-4)


----------



## Fanaelialae

Meaning no offense to anyone, but I find the whole CAGI argument a little silly.

I could walk into Perth Amboy right now, find a group of guys, insult their mothers and get my ass kicked.  Walking there would be the most strenuous part of it (apart from taking the hypothetical beating, of course).  Am I a sorcerer with unknowable and terrible powers?  (If I were, I probably wouldn't have taken the beat down in my example.)  

Why is it a power?  Because in addition to luring the enemy in, the fighter's "kung-fu" is so awesome that he makes them seriously regret it.  I could probably lure in the aforementioned guys, but I doubt I could make an attack against all of them at the same time- that would take serious skills that are probably beyond me, despite that I've had several years of martial arts training.

Why is it an encounter?  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me....  Additionally, like other martial encounter/daily powers, it's tiring.  Yes, that does sacrifice some degree of realism for simplicity.  Whether you like that trade-off or not is a matter of preference, but it still doesn't make it _magic_.

Is CAGI perfect?  Considering the amount of persistent debate that surrounds it, obviously not.  It probably would have been more agreeable to most had it included an Attack vs Will to lure the enemy in, then the AE attack.  Of course, another way of looking at it is that there is an Attack vs Will but the power grants the player an automatic natural 20.  I get the feeling that some would have been happier had that been literally spelled out in the PHB.  Nonetheless, flawed powers happen (I'm sure anyone who tries can find powers that are flawed for various reasons in any RPG that has anything even resembling powers).  

Whether you like it or not, 4E grants non-magical narrative control to players.  The intimidate skill is a great example of this (forcing a bloodied enemy to surrender).  If you believe that narrative control ought to be restricted to magical effects that's fine, but it's really more a matter of personal preference than objective law of good role playing game design.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Wulf Ratbane said:


> But... The *most *reviled? AFAIAC that's hyperbole, and you might want to walk that back a little bit.




The quote was _*among*_ the most reviled.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

fanboy2000 said:


> So you would say "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is objectively true and anyone who disagrees with that statement is wrong?




I would say that is (part of) the implied setting.

I wouldn't try to play games about what can, or cannot be, called "objectively true" about any _implied_ criteria.


RC


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Raven Crowking said:


> The quote was _*among*_ the most reviled.




My bad. 

But still... Seriously?

I'm genuinely confused because I think that by and large, you and I are coming at this with the same set of experiences and assumptions.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Wulf Ratbane said:


> My bad.
> 
> But still... Seriously?
> 
> I'm genuinely confused because I think that by and large, you and I are coming at this with the same set of experiences and assumptions.




Seriously.

I certainly participated in said discussions.

RC


----------



## Hexmage-EN

I sort of regret starting this thread now. For one thing I've done some thinking and I'm a lot happier with how magic is done in 4E than I was initially.

 As for Martial powers being difficult to rationalize, I agree to an extent. "Come and Get It" is the only power I've seen that I outright disallow in my games. It makes sense to me in regards to challenging warriors and unintelligent monsters, but I don't think an intelligent mastermind should be forced to attack if he's within 15 feet of a Fighter. 

 Most other Martial powers are okay to me; a few of them just require a bit of metagaming, and I feel it's worth it if it gives Martial characters more to do. Also, not all mundane powers that force movement are bad: skilled fighters have ways of tricking people into thinking their guard is down when really it's just a ploy to catch their enemy off-guard. 

 Besides, there are things in previous editions of D&D that are difficult to rationalize. For example, how exactly do Medium-sized characters armed with swords and warhammers effectively attack Gargantuan and Colossal creatures that they only come up to the ankles of?


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> I would say that is (part of) the implied setting.
> 
> I wouldn't try to play games about what can, or cannot be, called "objectively true" about any _implied_ criteria.




So you're saying that Raven's subjective feeling is that all abilities are magic, and since all characters have abilities, then all characters use magic?



Raven Crowking said:


> Seriously.
> 
> I certainly participated in said discussions.
> 
> RC




I remember argumnets about whether or not those skills harm roleplaying, but not about what they said about the world... But maybe I missed soemthing.


----------



## Ariosto

Some people just happen to like some things, and maybe even better when they're labeled "D&D"; at any rate, they don't particularly *mind* razing and paving over what used to be there and replacing it with something "modern". Other folks prefer the old game (at least as a common frame of reference, even if they change it up for a campaign), and as push has come to shove they'll take it by whatever name.

Magic, verisimilitude, role-playing, freedom, literature versus video and comic books ... all sorts of things figure in the equation.

*Anyway*, if the magical-or-whatever baseline in 4E is groovy but one wants some stuff with a bit more "sense of wonder", then I think it should be easy to tip in with magic items -- especially if one expands horizons beyond what "item" usually means. There can be magical places, times, creatures, deeds, etc..

If a wand of lightning bolts or the like is too old hat, then how about a container for storms? First, you've got to brave an actual storm ... but you can "suck it up" into a bag or something and let it out later.

How about a seed that when planted grows in moments into a mighty tree?

Maybe there are stones that "sing" each time a certain comet returns. There's a cryptic account of the last babbling words of a Woolly Man slave who upon hearing the song went into a seizure and died. To find one who speaks the tongue of Woolly Ones these days calls for a long and perilous journey into unmapped lands. (So long as it's not terribly anticlimactic, the solution of the mystery should be all the more marvelous for the effort needed to discover it.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> So you're saying that Raven's subjective feeling is that all abilities are magic, and since all characters have abilities, then all characters use magic?




No.



> I remember argumnets about whether or not those skills harm roleplaying, but not about what they said about the world... But maybe I missed soemthing.




Apparently you did.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

Scribble said:
			
		

> In the future though I'm thinking about running a campaign where there are no predefined powers, just page 42. I'l probably keep the slots, but just for purposes of power level of the attack in question.



That sounds like fun!


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> No.




Ok... Then end of discussion I guess.


----------



## Scribble

Ariosto said:


> That sounds like fun!




Not sure when it will happen. I also have plans for a low/no arcane (and possibly divine) campaign, in which the only "magic items" are the artifacts.


So many campaigns, so little time.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Ok... Then end of discussion I guess.




There are statements which are wholly subjective, statements that may be objectively true (but cannot known to be objectively true), and a great many statements which are neither wholly subjective nor objectively true.

"All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.  This statement cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true, but neither is it wholly subjective.

Anyone who disagrees with that statement may not be wholly wrong (depending upon his criteria for disagreement), but neither is he wholly right.  Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> There are statements which are wholly subjective, statements that may be objectively true (but cannot known to be objectively true), and a great many statements which are neither wholly subjective nor objectively true.
> 
> "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.  This statement cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true, but neither is it wholly subjective.
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with that statement may not be wholly wrong (depending upon his criteria for disagreement), but neither is he wholly right.  Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting.
> 
> 
> RC




That's certainly a lot of words to say that fantasy game mechanics are interpreted differently by different people.

What criteria do we have to provide to "prove" to you a Fighter, swinging a sword, is not magical?


----------



## Hexmage-EN

RefinedBean said:


> That's certainly a lot of words to say that fantasy game mechanics are interpreted differently by different people.
> 
> What criteria do we have to provide to "prove" to you a Fighter, swinging a sword, is not magical?




He's not so much saying that the abilities are magical as much as he's saying that the game mechanics are artificial and do not simulate reality. 

Previous editions limited martial characters to what made sense in real life (that is, having super strength is okay, but explaining that someone is too tired to use the same encounter power twice when they can still use a more powerful daily power doesn't cut it). Basically, martial characters were limited to how things work in reality while spellcasters could do whatever they want with magic. Fourth Edition relaxed this: it's not that Fighters are now spellcasters, rather it's that Fighters are now able to perform unlikely moves in battle with the condition that they follow an artificial limit on their power that does not exist in real life and did not exist in D&D before Fourth Edition. 

Basically, pre-4E martial characters were largely restricted to what a strong person in real life could do. Spellcasters had no such limitation; game mechanics related to supernatural ability were just explained away as how magic works.

I'd argue that previous editions had similar yet less prominent examples of this same sort of thing. Third Edition had characters whose development of talents, be they painting, singing, or metalworking, were reliant on how many monsters they had killed. A round of combat took place during a span of six seconds, yet characters take turns moving and can't act at the same time. Characters can only attack once during a span of six seconds even with a full-attack option at 1st level. Giants whose ankles lie at a PC's eye level can be killed by that PC's melee weapon (Is the giant hunched over to give the Fighter a better chance at hitting him?). 

Every edition has relied on game mechanics and has had some level of abstraction and handwaving. I'm not saying that this excuses Fourth Edition as there are a few powers that I wish the designers had not made (such as "Come and Get It"). I just wanted to point out that previous editions abstracted reality as well and that 4E is doing the same thing in new ways.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Assuming that is true, using the word "magic" is somewhat misleading (though I don't mean to imply that it was done intentionally).  Perhaps "non-simulationist" would be a more appropriate term?

("Some abilities are non-simulationist, and non-simulationist game elements are available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.)

I wouldn't say that ALL 4E abilities are non-simulationist in any significant fashion (How does Eldritch Blast lack for simulationism?), though I'd certainly agree that some or perhaps even many are.  Plus, it's pretty openly agreed that 4E is less simulationist than 3.x (for better of worse, which of course is rather subjective).  If that is all RC intended , I think much of the debate can be chalked up to a disconnect over terminology.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Is it me or is this whole topic nothing but people using "Come and Get it" on each other?


----------



## Hexmage-EN

MichaelSomething said:


> Is it me or is this whole topic nothing but people using "Come and Get it" on each other?




If you're right then it should probably be an at-will power.


----------



## nightwyrm

MichaelSomething said:


> Is it me or is this whole topic nothing but people using "Come and Get it" on each other?




And they come every time.  Thus proving that you don't need magic to use CAGI.


----------



## nightwyrm

Hexmage-EN said:


> If you're right then it should probably be an at-will power.




An encounter power refreshes every 5 mins, which sounds about right for this thread.


----------



## Mournblade94

ExploderWizard said:


> The "make up whatever explanation you like" theme seems to provide a great freedom to the DM but at the same time, it's just putting a positive spin on the boardgame first concept.




I agree completely.  There are about 8 posts you ahve made for which I would have given XP.  Alas I am unable to give you any.  I have not been able to do so for the last couple of days.  Quite a lame system.


----------



## RefinedBean

Hexmage-EN said:


> He's not so much saying that the abilities are magical as much as he's saying that the game mechanics are artificial and do not simulate reality.




Fair enough, I can get behind that.

It's my personal opinion that all game mechanics are artificial; it's how you use them that determines whether or not you can overlook this fact in play.

Some people don't like 4E due to whatever reason, that's fine.  But once again, it's not because "Everyone's magic!" or "The rules don't make sense!"  These are just red herrings for saying "My opinion should be regarded as fact!"

Also, let's stop using terms like boardgame, tactical miniatures, and what-not like they're inherently bad things.  They're not!


----------



## UngainlyTitan

RefinedBean said:


> Fair enough, I can get behind that.
> 
> It's my personal opinion that all game mechanics are artificial; it's how you use them that determines whether or not you can overlook this fact in play.
> 
> Some people don't like 4E due to whatever reason, that's fine.  But once again, it's not because "Everyone's magic!" or "The rules don't make sense!"  These are just red herrings for saying "My opinion should be regarded as fact!"
> 
> Also, let's stop using terms like boardgame, tactical miniatures, and what-not like they're inherently bad things.  They're not!



THis I agree with, the fact that the same arguments are being rehashed over the last year is evidence of that.


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> There are statements which are wholly subjective, statements that may be objectively true (but cannot known to be objectively true), and a great many statements which are neither wholly subjective nor objectively true.
> 
> "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.  This statement cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true, but neither is it wholly subjective.
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with that statement may not be wholly wrong (depending upon his criteria for disagreement), but neither is he wholly right.  Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting.



O.k.

Fighters in 4e can preform the amazing stunts that they do because of hard work, training, and innate talent., not magic. As they fight creatures of increasing power they learn, from experience, how perform amazing stunts of Epic proportions. The majority of people in the Known World simply couldn't even try most of the stunts pulled by fighters. This is a major part of the implied setting of 4e.

Some people who can't see this because they haven't read or watched enough fiction where martial characters do impossible things and get hung up on a simple and abstract mechanic because some of those people have no imagination whatsoever. 

A person who disagrees with this may not be wholly wrong, but they are not be wholly right either. So far, the arguments in this discussion have all ignored imagination.

Because, you know, it can't be a matter of personal taste.


----------



## Raven Crowking

fanboy2000 said:


> Fighters in 4e can preform the amazing stunts that they do because of hard work, training, and innate talent.




True



> As they fight creatures of increasing power they learn, from experience, how perform amazing stunts of Epic proportions. The majority of people in the Known World simply couldn't even try most of the stunts pulled by fighters. This is a major part of the implied setting of 4e.




Also true.

If you hadn't put the words "not magic" in there, it would be as true as the statement I made.

AFAICT, the remainder of your statements in this post are false.


RC


----------



## Fanaelialae

Raven Crowking said:


> If you hadn't put the words "not magic" in there, it would be as true as the statement I made.




RC, just so we're clear, when you say "magic" do you really just mean "non-simulationist"?  If not, what DO you mean when you refer to "magic"?


----------



## Imaro

Well besides CaGI I also think Unyielding Avalanche borders on "magical" in nature... I mean shouldn't actual regeneration, especially when one is exerting even more energy into a fight, be considered a magical ability? I almost wish 4e had taken a lesson from Earthdawn where they explicitely state a Warrior is able to do the extraordinary because he channels the magic of the world into his actions, instead of ignoring some of the implications many of the "martial" powers create.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Imaro said:


> Well besides CaGI I also think Unyielding Avalanche borders on "magical" in nature... I mean shouldn't actual regeneration, especially when one is exerting even more energy into a fight, be considered a magical ability? I almost wish 4e had taken a lesson from Earthdawn where they explicitely state a Warrior is able to do the extraordinary because he channels the magic of the world into his actions, instead of ignoring some of the implications many of the "martial" powers create.




Remember that in 4E healing can be mental and/or physical.  Martial powers like Unyielding Avalanche are mental in nature; the fighter is so determined to persevere that he shrugs off injuries like they are nothing.  IMO, it's no worse than the 3.x barbarian's damage reduction (which one would also likely imagine as being mental in nature if one wishes to avoid silliness).


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the remainder of your statements in this post are false.



Makes sense. I'm glad you agree that this statement is false:



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> it can't be a matter of personal taste.



Because I was getting a little worried there.

Whew.


----------



## Imaro

Fanaelialae said:


> Remember that in 4E healing can be mental and/or physical. Martial powers like Unyielding Avalanche are mental in nature; the fighter is so determined to persevere that he shrugs off injuries like they are nothing. IMO, it's no worse than the 3.x barbarian's damage reduction (which one would also likely imagine as being mental in nature if one wishes to avoid silliness).




See I would be inclined to agree with you, except for a few factors...

1. The Fighter is actually regaining previous damage taken, not pushing through it temporarily (temporary hit points).

2. It's not actually his own healing reserves or ability he's using (in the form of healing surges being spent) so where is this healing coming from? Regardles of whether it's mental, physical, spiritual or whatever... the normal way actual healing works in 4e is through healing surges (I mean even healing potions work this way) yet the fighter is drawing on some ouside force to heal himself in this instance.

3. This healing is endless (according to the definition of regeneration) unless the fighter is brought to zero hit points it will never go away... ever. He can wake up the next day and still be regenerating... two weeks from now and he's still regenerating unless something knocks him to zero or less hit points.

I'm sorry this sounds like magic to me.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Imaro said:


> See I would be inclined to agree with you, except for a few factors...
> 
> 1. The Fighter is actually regaining previous damage taken, not pushing through it temporarily (temporary hit points).
> 
> 2. It's not actually his own healing reserves or ability he's using (in the form of healing surges being spent) so where is this healing coming from? Regardles of whether it's mental, physical, spiritual or whatever... the normal way actual healing works in 4e is through healing surges (I mean even healing potions work this way) yet the fighter is drawing on some ouside force to heal himself in this instance.
> 
> 3. This healing is endless (according to the definition of regeneration) unless the fighter is brought to zero hit points it will never go away... ever. He can wake up the next day and still be regenerating... two weeks from now and he's still regenerating unless something knocks him to zero or less hit points.
> 
> I'm sorry this sounds like magic to me.




3. The healing is not limitless.  Since Unyielding Avalanche is a stance, it "lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes, or until you use another stance power" (PHB pg 55).  Since it is a daily it can be used once per day (for a maximum of one encounter or 5 minutes).  So no worries about unlimited healing.

2. The typical way that 4E handles healing is through healing surges.  However, it is an _exception based system_.  In this case, the resource the fighter expends is a daily power.  Nowhere in the PHB does is say that the entirety of a character's toughness is defined by his healing surges.

1. So you're saying that the only way to model shrugging off injuries is using temporary hp?  Remember that the hp system in 4E (and really all editions of D&D) is abstract.  HP "represent your character's skill, luck and resolve" in addition to physical endurance (PHB pg 293).  It doesn't seem far fetched to me that this power is primarily "regenerating" the fighter's resolve.

Which doesn't seem necessarily magical to me at all.


----------



## Henry

Imaro said:


> See I would be inclined to agree with you, except for a few factors...
> 
> 1. The Fighter is actually regaining previous damage taken, not pushing through it temporarily (temporary hit points).




You're talking game constructs, though -- temp hit points are not described absolutely as "pushing through it temporarily" and regeneration is not specifically defined as "making open wounds close." Remember, illusions can cause "psychic damage", and regen heals those, too; attacks don't always result in physical wounds, and hit points have always never meant "physical damage only." 



> 2. It's not actually his own healing reserves or ability he's using (in the form of healing surges being spent) so where is this healing coming from? Regardles of whether it's mental, physical, spiritual or whatever... the normal way actual healing works in 4e is through healing surges (I mean even healing potions work this way) yet the fighter is drawing on some outside force to heal himself in this instance.




However, it's not the only way healing is done. I'll admit, I don't like Regen as a mechanic available to martial PCs, just like I agree come and get it probably should have some provisions against some opponents - but by the same token it isn't impossible to think of Regen as just another way to represent a martial PC fighting well past the point he should be dead (namely, out of healing surges), a point which would have anyone else on the ground bleeding out.



> 3. This healing is endless (according to the definition of regeneration) unless the fighter is brought to zero hit points it will never go away... ever. He can wake up the next day and still be regenerating... two weeks from now and he's still regenerating unless something knocks him to zero or less hit points.
> 
> I'm sorry this sounds like magic to me.




If we're talking boundless endurance, it only lasts until end of the encounter, because it's a stance (looked it up on DDI).  It doesn't last all day, just five minutes, which means when the fight's done, their wellspring of last-ditch energy is done with.


----------



## Ariosto

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> ... those people have no imagination whatsoever.



Like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, whose imaginations *created* this hobby, eh? The fact is simply that they did not design *Dungeons & Dragons* to reflect the particular influences of which you are a fanboy. We're not discussing *Toon*, say, or *Macho Women With Guns*.


----------



## Imaro

Fanaelialae said:


> 3. The healing is not limitless. Since Unyielding Avalanche is a stance, it "lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes, or until you use another stance power" (PHB pg 55). Since it is a daily it can be used once per day (for a maximum of one encounter or 5 minutes). So no worries about unlimited healing.




You are more than likely right as I am going by memory right now. 



Fanaelialae said:


> 2. The typical way that 4E handles healing is through healing surges. However, it is an _exception based system_. In this case, the resource the fighter expends is a daily power. Nowhere in the PHB does is say that the entirety of a character's toughness is defined by his healing surges.




So...because everything is an exception, there is no baseline for powers to be categorized as far as magic vs. mundane... as they will always be exceptions. This makes it fundamentally impossible to draw any distinction between magic, mundane and anything else when it comes to PC's in D&D 4e. Essentially magic was the force that allowed one to create exceptions to the game rules as well as the rules of the fantasy world one was playing in... thus if all powers now do this, they have in fact all become magic. See IMO, a martial master would be someone who works within the reality or rules of the game to achieve greatness, while a magician or magic-user is one who breaks said rules to achieve greatness. Sort of similar to the followers of Law and Chaos in many of Moorcock's stories. Now however everyone is a manipulator and breaker of reality and game rules...mages



Fanaelialae said:


> 1. So you're saying that the only way to model shrugging off injuries is using temporary hp? Remember that the hp system in 4E (and really all editions of D&D) is abstract. HP "represent your character's skill, luck and resolve" in addition to physical endurance (PHB pg 293). It doesn't seem far fetched to me that this power is primarily "regenerating" the fighter's resolve.




First I didn't use the word only in any of my posts... however if there is no difference between regeneration, temporary hit points, using a second wind, etc. why do all of these different mechaics exist? If they all model the same thing then I would have to say it is both bad and wasted design to create fifty million ways to represent what is fundamentally the exact same thing. I do not believe the designers of D&D 4e are wasteful or bad at their job, thus I must believe these mechanics actually represent fundamentally different things as opposed to the same thing with a million different names. 

A second point is that there is still an amount of hit points that represent physical damage... not all but some. regeneration allows one to heal it in seconds as opposed to minutes or days.



Fanaelialae said:


> Which doesn't seem necessarily magical to me at all.




I'm sorry but having Wolverine's mutant healing factor (even for 5 minutes) is magical IMO. We can of course agree to disagree.


----------



## RefinedBean

Ariosto said:


> Like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, whose imaginations *created* this hobby, eh? The fact is simply that they did not design *Dungeons & Dragons* to reflect the particular influences of which you are a fanboy. We're not discussing *Toon*, say, or *Macho Women With Guns*.




Things change, sometimes for the better.

Remember back when boxers would fight until their hands broke, or they passed out from exhaustion or concussions?  I'm pretty sure we're all better off giving them gloves and 12-15 rounds only.

The simple fact is that there IS an edition of D&D that tried its hand at (almost) pure simulationism, and it's called D&D 3.5.

Now, it's time for something different.  You can say you don't like it, that's fine!  But invoking the names of Arneson and Gygax as a way of saying "This is how D&D SHOULD BE" is cheap and meaningless.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fanaelialae said:


> RC, just so we're clear, when you say "magic" do you really just mean "non-simulationist"?  If not, what DO you mean when you refer to "magic"?




I mean, specifically, that martial exploits are not firmly divided from magical exploits; that saying they are "not supernatural _*per se*_" indicates that they are not supernatural _*in one sense*_ but that they are _*in another sense*_.  Moreover, the implementation of the design shows this to be the case.

In order to meaningfully claim that X is magical and Y is mundane, then there must be some meaningful distinction between the two.  In 4e there is not.  Again, the implementation of the design supports this.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Imaro said:


> This makes it fundamentally impossible to draw any distinction between magic, mundane and anything else when it comes to PC's in D&D 4e.




I'd argue that this makes it possible for anyone to draw a distinction between magic and mundane, depending on their preferences.

Martial powers are magic?  Sure!  So long as everyone at the game is cool with that.

Rituals aren't magic, but a sort of pseudo-scientific way of affecting the world?  Cool!  Let's play.


----------



## Raven Crowking

fanboy2000 said:


> I was getting a little worried there.
> 
> Whew.




Pleased to put your mind at ease.


RC


----------



## Imaro

Henry said:


> You're talking game constructs, though -- temp hit points are not described absolutely as "pushing through it temporarily" and regeneration is not specifically defined as "making open wounds close." Remember, illusions can cause "psychic damage", and regen heals those, too; attacks don't always result in physical wounds, and hit points have always never meant "physical damage only."




Yes, but like I said in my earlier post... if these game constructs are all meant to represent the same thing, then why create a milion names and ways to accomplish the same thing, it just seems wasteful and inefficient (though it does seem to be the main argument point when discussing 4e with it's fans, since it's hard to come to any consensus or even have meaningful discussion when the only answer is that the game is so vague and abstract that anything can represent/be/model anything).



Henry said:


> However, it's not the only way healing is done. I'll admit, I don't like Regen as a mechanic available to martial PCs, just like I agree come and get it probably should have some provisions against some opponents - but by the same token it isn't impossible to think of Regen as just another way to represent a martial PC fighting well past the point he should be dead (namely, out of healing surges), a point which would have anyone else on the ground bleeding out.




Nope, it's not the only way... but then we have to ask the question what do these different ways of healing mean, why are they in the game and labeled seperately if all they are meant to do is accomplish the same thing? 

I mean honestly the answer to any questioning of 4e mechanics seems to be... even if the designers call it a chicken, and it has feathers and wings... you can still claim it's a crow... just squint and ignore the color, oh yeah and that it can't fly and a cluck sounds kind of like caw...What, you can't see how that's a crow... your imagination is the suxxors. 




Henry said:


> If we're talking boundless endurance, it only lasts until end of the encounter, because it's a stance (looked it up on DDI). It doesn't last all day, just five minutes, which means when the fight's done, their wellspring of last-ditch energy is done with.




Or they could use it outside of a fight and heal hella hit points in less than 5 minutes. Let's say +3 hp's per 6 seconds...that's 30hp's a minute, oh yeah and it doesn't tax his body (through healing surges) at all. Again that strikes me as beyond what most would consider mundane or natural.


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> In order to meaningfully claim that X is magical and Y is mundane, then there must be some meaningful distinction between the two.




You honestly think this has to be elaborated on or completely spelled out for you and your group in the rules, instead of having your group decide on what's best/most fun for them?

This is a game of pretend.  I don't need any meaningful distinction between X and Y written down because I create the distinction myself, in play.


----------



## Imaro

RefinedBean said:


> You honestly think this has to be elaborated on or completely spelled out for you and your group in the rules, instead of having your group decide on what's best/most fun for them?
> 
> This is a game of pretend. I don't need any meaningful distinction between X and Y written down because I create the distinction myself, in play.




Yeah, I don't even know why I bought a PHB... I didn't need those powers spelled out for me and my group... I shoulda created my own based on what powers my group would find most fun... in fact I should just create my own rules too, because I could just create.... 

Really this argument is pointless since you don't need anything to make up stuff... however I'm also not going to pay money to create everything myself.  

Also... why then did the designers try to create a distinction integrated into the basic design of the game... you know power sources. The Arcana skill, etc.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> In order to meaningfully claim that X is magical and Y is mundane, then there must be some meaningful distinction between the two.  In 4e there is not.  Again, the implementation of the design supports this.




Ah, I think I get it now!

Does that distinction have to come from the rules?  Can the group make that distinction for themselves?

What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?


----------



## Fanaelialae

Imaro said:


> You are more than likely right as I am going by memory right now.
> 
> 
> 
> So...because everything is an exception, there is no baseline for powers to be categorized as far as magic vs. mundane... as they will always be exceptions. This makes it fundamentally impossible to draw any distinction between magic, mundane and anything else when it comes to PC's in D&D 4e. Essentially magic was the force that allowed one to create exceptions to the game rules as well as the rules of the fantasy world one was playing in... thus if all powers now do this, they have in fact all become magic. See IMO, a martial master would be someone who works within the reality or rules of the game to achieve greatness, while a magician or magic-user is one who breaks said rules to achieve greatness. Sort of similar to the followers of Law and Chaos in many of Moorcock's stories. Now however everyone is a manipulator and breaker of reality and game rules...mages




Monks in previous editions could make more multiple unarmed attacks than anyone else.  While they did possess numerous magical powers, Flurry of Blows was an *explicitly* Extraordinary power (aka, non-magical).  Both magical and mundane effects have always introduced exceptions into the D&D rules in all editions.  

The big difference was that unlike mundane abilities magic allowed exceptions to _game world physics_, which are often mistakenly conflated with but do not actually have to be the same thing as the rules.  Neither CAGI nor Unyielding Avalanche break the laws of physics, IMO, and hence are both still within the realm of the mundane.



> First I didn't use the word only in any of my posts... however if there is no difference between regeneration, temporary hit points, using a second wind, etc. why do all of these different mechaics exist? If they all model the same thing then I would have to say it is both bad and wasted design to create fifty million ways to represent what is fundamentally the exact same thing. I do not believe the designers of D&D 4e are wasteful or bad at their job, thus I must believe these mechanics actually represent fundamentally different things as opposed to the same thing with a million different names.




I realize you didn't use the word "only", however it seemed to me that you were implying that temporary hp are necessary to model "shrugging off damage".  If I was mistaken in that assumption, I apologize.

There are differences between second wind, regen, etc, but these are primarily _mechanical_.  While some may be better at modeling certain types of recovery than others (regen models a gradual but sustained recovery better than a second wind which models a sudden burst of energy) they all work towards the same end (keeping your character alive).  What they do is offer mechanical variety (the spice of mechanical life)!  



> A second point is that there is still an amount of hit points that represent physical damage... not all but some. regeneration allows one to heal it in seconds as opposed to minutes or days.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but having Wolverine's mutant healing factor (even for 5 minutes) is magical IMO. We can of course agree to disagree.




Again, hp is abstract.  Sure your fighter may have taken a few injuries (losing some physical endurance) but if he regenerates to full using UA he's replaced that lost endurance with an excess bounty of resolve (effectively convinced himself that the scratches he took in the last fight are inconsequential and cannot slow him down).  

And yes, before someone says it, this does not necessarily perfectly model the _real world_.  4E is not a primarily simulationist game.  It sometimes sacrifices a degree of realism for ease of play.  That still doesn't make these effects magical (though they are rather _cinematic_).

Agreeing to disagree is fine.


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> Nope, it's not the only way... but then we have to ask the question what do these different ways of healing mean, why are they in the game and labeled seperately if all they are meant to do is accomplish the same thing?




I think it's because all the ways they interact create tactical complexity but mantain ease of play.


----------



## RefinedBean

Imaro said:


> Yeah, I don't even know why I bought a PHB... I didn't need those powers spelled out for me and my group... I shoulda created my own based on what powers my group would find most fun... in fact I should just create my own rules too, because I could just create....
> 
> Really this argument is pointless since you don't need anything to make up stuff... however I'm also not going to pay money to create everything myself.
> 
> Also... why then did the designers try to create a distinction integrated into the basic design of the game... you know power sources. The Arcana skill, etc.




C'mon Imaro.  Reductio ad absurdum arguments almost never work when fantasy games are being discussed.  

I need mechanics to work with.  Powers.  Dice rolls.  A system to add random chance to a game that (I believe Mustrum pointed this out way earlier upthread) would otherwise devolve into people shouting "Uh uh!" and "Uh huh!" at each other.

There's a distinction between Arcane and Martial because their given different names, different features to their classes, etc.  But the benefit of having a good group and a good imagination, as most gamers have, is that all this fluff and mechanics is just a loose guideline that people use as a springboard to maximize their fun.

What was the difference between a Barbarian's rage and a buff spell in earlier editions?  It was all just math.  If I created a spell that mimicked a Barbarian's rage, would it still be magic?  Yes, because I say it is.  "Here's a spell I created."  Done.

This isn't new to 4E, this is something that you can do with pretty much every RPG in existence.  People have been doing it forever.  Why complain about it now?


----------



## Fanaelialae

Raven Crowking said:


> I mean, specifically, that martial exploits are not firmly divided from magical exploits; that saying they are "not supernatural _*per se*_" indicates that they are not supernatural _*in one sense*_ but that they are _*in another sense*_.  Moreover, the implementation of the design shows this to be the case.




Thanks for the clarification!

Taken in this sense, you are quite correct!  In fact, the martial power source (PHB pg 54) states, "Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals".

Nonetheless, I would suggest using some term other than magic when referring to 4E martial powers.  Using the term magic as you have been is somewhat misleading, as many people (including myself) tend to reserve it for magic in the traditional sense (as opposed to superhuman exploits).  Perhaps "superhuman" or "supernatural" would suit your purposes just as well?

Mind you, I'm not trying to tell you what to do.  Just offering some advice based on the assumption that you might want to avoid future misunderstandings...


----------



## Imaro

RefinedBean said:


> C'mon Imaro. Reductio ad absurdum arguments almost never work when fantasy games are being discussed.




Exactly...



RefinedBean said:


> I need mechanics to work with. Powers. Dice rolls. A system to add random chance to a game that (I believe Mustrum pointed this out way earlier upthread) would otherwise devolve into people shouting "Uh uh!" and "Uh huh!" at each other.




No, you don't. There are diceless games like Everway, Nobilis and Amber where chance, in the traditional sense, isn't a part of gameplay...though I do agree at the least a minimum of mechanics is necessary.



RefinedBean said:


> There's a distinction between Arcane and Martial because their given different names, different features to their classes, etc. But the benefit of having a good group and a good imagination, as most gamers have, is that all this fluff and mechanics is just a loose guideline that people use as a springboard to maximize their fun.




So different names... *different features*, etc. The problem is that those should mean something in the context of the game. If they are interchangeable then they don't. I also notice you have a continuing theme in your posts where you try to subtly (or not so subtly as the case may be) insinuate that those with a deficient group, imagination, etc. are the ones who don't like the way 4e was designed... I disagree with this of course because gameplay (as in the actual mechanics of a game) can be enjoyable or not to a particular person and or group... no matter how great my imagination or group is I am not going to enjoy a game of Monopoly...period. 

I guess this is a long winded way of saying dude, quit trying to insinuate not liking the design of 4e is really because people don't have a "good" group or a "good" imagination. It's likely to turn people off of discussing anything with you.



RefinedBean said:


> What was the difference between a Barbarian's rage and a buff spell in earlier editions? It was all just math. If I created a spell that mimicked a Barbarian's rage, would it still be magic? Yes, because I say it is. "Here's a spell I created." Done.




The Barbarian's Rage was based upon something a mundane man (notably a berserker) was capable of doing, as well as being based upon the power of the character's physical body (Con) and limited only to affecting him since he is trained to rage. 

Creating a spell of this effect is magical because it is no longer based on the training (as a Barbarian) or physical attributes of the man but on the strength of the spell... and also because it allows you to instill this essence in another thus carrying this affect beyond oneself and onto others (and if it doesn't why would a wizard ever cast this spell on himself??).



RefinedBean said:


> This isn't new to 4E, this is something that you can do with pretty much every RPG in existence. People have been doing it forever. Why complain about it now?




The thing is there has always been a baseline that was pretty well defined from BECMI (didn't play anything ealier than this) up to 3.5 between magic and martial abilities. I never mistook a Fighter's abilities in BECMI for anything remotely magical as defined by the assumptions of the game. Core 1e, 2e and 3e were the same for me ... 4e is a different story. All IMO of course. 

NOTE: which is not to say I never diverged from the baseline once I was comfortable with the game, but it's good to have a baseline before you start diverging or else you can end up with an incomprehensible mish mash. Sort of how you start with addition and subtraction as opposed to algebra.


----------



## fanboy2000

First, let's quote the whole paragraph.


fanboy2000 said:


> Some people who can't see this because they haven't read or watched enough fiction where martial characters do impossible things and get hung up on a simple and abstract mechanic because some of those people have no imagination whatsoever.



I want it to be clear that I was saying people who disagreed with me on the issue of whether or not fighters use magic in 4e have no imagination. (I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to decide how serious I was.)



Ariosto said:


> Like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, whose imaginations *created* this hobby, eh? The fact is simply that they did not design *Dungeons & Dragons* to reflect the particular influences of which you are a fanboy. We're not discussing *Toon*, say, or *Macho Women With Guns*.



Second, Arneson and Gygax haven't expressed an opinion the matter.

Third, I don't play a game designed by either of them. Now I own Supplement II, but I don't play any games designed by them.

Fourth, 4e wasn't designed by either of them. Near as I can tell, it was designed by people who grew-up playing prior editions and watching/reading the kind of influences of which I am a fanboy of. You're right, we aren't discussing Toon, we're discussing the fourth edition of D&D, a very different game from the one that used the Chainmail rules for combat. I never got to play the original game, so I can't comment on it.

So if you thought I was insulting Arneson and Gygax, then I'm sorry for poorly wording my post.

Aside: Have you read the 4e DMG? I like it, it's a good read. In there is a sidebar about Wyatt running a game with his son. I don't have any children, so I find these little stories interesting as a window into the future. Now think about it, Wyatt's a huge influence on the design of 4e. I wonder how running a game with a child influences the way you design that game?


----------



## RefinedBean

Imaro said:


> No, you don't. There are diceless games like Everway, Nobilis and Amber where chance, in the traditional sense, isn't a part of gameplay...though I do agree at the least a minimum of mechanics is necessary.




Fine, fine.  I was looking more for the mechanics aspect, just throwing out dice rolls/random chance as an example.  Amber rocks!



> So different names... *different features*, etc. The problem is that those should mean something in the context of the game. If they are interchangeable then they don't.



The context is given by the players of the game.  That's the whole point of the powers system of 4E, I believe.  The players provide the context.



> I guess this is a long winded way of saying dude, quit trying to insinuate not liking the design of 4e is really because people don't have a "good" group or a "good" imagination. It's likely to turn people off of discussing anything with you.



???  I certainly didn't mean to insinuate this.  Groups should play their favorite games.  If 4E just doesn't do it for 'em, so be it.

I'm simply trying to explain that in 4E, it seems that the connection between the mechanics and the fluff/flavor of the game are provided by the players themselves.  The fluff is there...I'll be the first to admit that it's not particularly good fluff, but it's there, and it's mutable.

If some players or groups can't/don't want to do this, it's not a reflection on the system OR the group in question!  I dislike WFRP, but I don't see it as WFRP's fault.

But when these same arguments against 4E are trotted out time and again, it just gets...tiring.  In my games, there certainly is a difference between arcane and martial, divine and primal, what have you.  When ENworld posters come through and say "Well, no there's not," it's very hard to provide whatever evidence they're looking for other than "Hey, it's working for us!"



> The Barbarian's Rage was based upon something a mundane man (notably a berserker) was capable of doing, as well as being based upon the power of the character's physical body (Con) and limited only to affecting him since he is trained to rage.
> 
> Creating a spell of this effect is magical because it is no longer based on the training (as a Barbarian) or physical attributes of the man but on the strength of the spell... and also because it allows you to instill this essence in another thus carrying this affect beyond oneself and onto others (and if it doesn't why would a wizard ever cast this spell on himself??).




See, that's exactly how I see it working in 4E as well.  Mechanically similar, but different when used in play.  The mechanics are secondary, it's the spin the character puts on it that makes all the difference.


----------



## Mournblade94

Ariosto said:


> Like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, whose imaginations *created* this hobby, eh? The fact is simply that they did not design *Dungeons & Dragons* to reflect the particular influences of which you are a fanboy. We're not discussing *Toon*, say, or *Macho Women With Guns*.




Tried to give you experience there and epically failed...


----------



## Mournblade94

Fanaelialae;4772540

And yes said:
			
		

> real world[/I].  4E is not a primarily simulationist game.  It sometimes sacrifices a degree of realism for ease of play.  That still doesn't make these effects magical (though they are rather _cinematic_).
> 
> Agreeing to disagree is fine.




I concurr in regards to both the paragraph and the statement.  4e does not simulate anything really, except I suppose sci fi and fantasy films.  WHich is the direction the designers wished to go.

There is not a game that exists that simulates anything Really well.  3rd edition was a good shot at simulation though.


----------



## Mournblade94

fanboy2000 said:


> 4e wasn't designed by either of them. Near as I can tell, it was designed by people who grew-up playing prior editions and watching/reading the kind of influences of which I am a fanboy of. You're right, we aren't discussing Toon, we're discussing the fourth edition of D&D, a very different game from the one that used the Chainmail rules for combat. I never got to play the original game, so I can't comment on it.




I agree with you on this evaluation.  Some people think it a strength of the system, while others do not.



fanboy2000 said:


> Aside: Have you read the 4e DMG? I like it, it's a good read. In there is a sidebar about Wyatt running a game with his son. I don't have any children, so I find these little stories interesting as a window into the future. Now think about it, Wyatt's a huge influence on the design of 4e. I wonder how running a game with a child influences the way you design that game?




I did not like the first 35 pages or so of the DMG.  It seemed like I spent money on pages I did not need.  The rest of it is pretty good for a 4e DM.

The first 35 pages seemed like commentary of gaming culture and self help advice on how to deal with people.  

On the side bar, and your comment to it, (I had to re-read it to remember why I didn't like it)  D&D was not really the game to have the collaborative story told.  There are other systems for that.  Granted I did not give the sidebar much thought until you brought it up; previously I just thought it was an interesting note not necessarily indicative of how people play.

I do not set up an adventure and have the players dictate to me what is in an encounter.  This at least was never a part of my D&D games.  There are other systems for that.  One in fact that RYan Dancey keeps starting to try.  I played plenty of storyteller games in boyscouts and needed nothing more than a campfire.  I don't think D&D is the game where the players dictate the story.  THey may tell the story, but not dictate it.


----------



## Imaro

RefinedBean said:


> The context is given by the players of the game. That's the whole point of the powers system of 4E, I believe. The players provide the context.




And what if said players don't have a context to differentiate Arcane Powers vs. Martial Powers vs. Divine Powers vs. Primal Powers vs. Shadow Powers vs....

Or better yet why is it that WotC can define what power sources exist... but then it is up to me to define them, IMO that seems like a halfway type thing, I'd rather powers be generic and you decide what type of powers exist in your world and how they work...or they be named and defined... but not some halfway point where you're using "Arcane" power... but you will define what that means, even though we've already defined specific powers that fall under it as a category... so really you don't have the freedom to define what it is, only how you describe it. 



RefinedBean said:


> ??? I certainly didn't mean to insinuate this. Groups should play their favorite games. If 4E just doesn't do it for 'em, so be it.
> 
> I'm simply trying to explain that in 4E, it seems that the connection between the mechanics and the fluff/flavor of the game are provided by the players themselves. The fluff is there...I'll be the first to admit that it's not particularly good fluff, but it's there, and it's mutable.
> 
> If some players or groups can't/don't want to do this, it's not a reflection on the system OR the group in question! I dislike WFRP, but I don't see it as WFRP's fault.
> 
> But when these same arguments against 4E are trotted out time and again, it just gets...tiring. In my games, there certainly is a difference between arcane and martial, divine and primal, what have you. When ENworld posters come through and say "Well, no there's not," it's very hard to provide whatever evidence they're looking for other than "Hey, it's working for us!"




Maybe they're trotted out again and again because they are serious problems for some... What I don't get is if you don't have the same problem and aren't offering a solution, as opposed to trying to argue down an oppinion with your own... why even post in a thread with a topic you are tired of hearing about? 

And honestly, I'd like to se a concise summary of what differentiates the power sources, mechanically and fluff-wise, in 4e... because I'm not seeing it.



RefinedBean said:


> See, that's exactly how I see it working in 4E as well. Mechanically similar, but different when used in play. The mechanics are secondary, it's the spin the character puts on it that makes all the difference.




Uhm, you realized you just ignoreed the mechanical differences and only took into consideration the similarities, right... basically exactly what I think RC said many are doing whenever one of the wierder martial powers is brought up and an explanation for how it works is asked for. Just as a quick specific... how is only being able to rage myself vs. allowing anyone to rage not a huge mechanical and flavor difference?


----------



## RefinedBean

Imaro:

I post in these threads (and I hardly ever do so, but for some reason this one tripped my trigger) because I dearly love 4E, and I like to discuss it.

The core rule books define the differences between the power sources, as far as fluff goes.  Elaborations or consolidations are made based on a group's preferences.  As for mechanics, I don't really have the energy to make a list of all the differences.  Maybe someone else can help.

If said players don't have any context to work with, that sounds like a fundamental flaw of the campaign and not of 4E as a system.  The differences are there, in the book.

Are you saying there's too much of a disconnect between the power sources and how they're implemented in class design?  I might be able to see where you're coming from there.  It's an issue that's been part of D&D ever since I've started playing it (around 3.0).

As for your specific question:  Well, first of all, I never said that it wasn't a Personal spell.    Second of all, even if it could be thrown onto anyone, the mechanics of how the character is changed (by raging) is the same.  The fluff...well, once again, that's up to the players.


----------



## Starbuck_II

Imaro said:


> Uhm, you realized you just ignoreed the mechanical differences and only took into consideration the similarities, right... basically exactly what I think RC said many are doing whenever one of the wierder martial powers is brought up and an explanation for how it works is asked for. Just as a quick specific... how is only being able to rage myself vs. allowing anyone to rage not a huge mechanical and flavor difference?




 Exactly.

But no one said the hypothetical Barbarian Rage spell worked on everyone. You are adding context not mentioned. He didn't say the Rage spell.

Now, back to the original comment: Barbarian Rage spell on caster (personal). Is there now a flavor difference? What is that difference?


----------



## Imaro

Starbuck_II said:


> Exactly.
> 
> But no one said the hypothetical Barbarian Rage spell worked on everyone. You are adding context not mentioned. He didn't say the Rage spell.
> 
> Now, back to the original comment: Barbarian Rage spell on caster (personal). Is there now a flavor difference? What is that difference?




First, totally ignoring why a caster would ever do this willingly too himself, yeah there are still mechanical and flavor differences (since we were originally discussing mechanical differences.).

1. the number of times it can be used isn't a set number but is instead based on spell slots.

2. Dispell magic works on it now

3. Anti-magic prevents it now

4. The spell can be inscribed on a scroll and thus transferred to another individual.

5. Do I really need to keep going? Ok...

6. It can be counterspelled 

7. You can stop it from taking effect by smaking the caster right before he casts the spell and him failing a concentration check

8. I think I'll stop now.


----------



## Mad Mac

> As for mechanics, I don't really have the energy to make a list of all the differences. Maybe someone else can help.




  Sigh..that's a lot of work man. What the heck, I'll take a shot at it. 

  The thing with mechanical differences in 4th edition, is that 90% of class abilities are contained in the power lists for each class, to really understand what makes a class tick, you need to really look over the powers and notice the trends. 

It's like comparing spell lists between classes in 3rd edition, and as such there is often exceptions--like how in 3rd edition Clerics generally excell at healing and buffing but still have a small range of blasty or save or die spells. Wizards are still the blasty class compared to Clerics because they generally have access to a much deeper and more versatile selection of blasty spells. 

  Anyhow, here we go. 

*Martial* Martial is defined by classes who peform exploits through skill, training, and ability. What they do may be strictly impossible by human standards, but is not overtly supernatural. Martial classes rely heavily on the 3 physical stats, but may use one or more mental stats as a secondary. 

  Martial classes, whatever their primary role, tend towards striker as a secondary role. All the martial classes do good damage even compared to other classes in their role. Martial Classes use weapons exclusively in all their powers, they have no implement powers at all. 

  Martial Classes have access to a good range of status effects, and even some healing, but they never* (there is one exception) use any powers with elemental keywords, necrotic, radiant, psychic or force damage. They do not have teleport powers, and they do not create zones, summons or conjurations. They may have enhanced leaping, climbing, or shifting abilities, but cannot fly or grant flight to others. Some stealth based powers use the invisibility keyword, primarily for the Rogue. 

  Because all martial classes use weapons extensively, weapon choice is key for martial characters, and they are by far the most likely classes to invest in weapon specific feats to enhance their powers and fighting skills. 

  Martial Characters also have a large number of skill based powers, or abilities that require a minimum level of skill in order to use. 

 Martial Classes have by far the largest number of stance based powers. Stances are powers that provide effects that last the rest of the encounter unless the stance is cancelled, but cannot be stacked with other stances. 

  Overall, martial classes are much less flashy than the other power sources, and somewhat less versatile in the range of abilities they posess, but are often highly specialized in their role, and very dangerous to the enemy. 



*Arcane* Arcane is the polar opposite of martial in many ways. While martial characters forgo flashiness for solid damage dealing, Arcane is easily the flashiest and most unpredictable power source. 

  Arcane characters can gain their power through diverse means, whether they gain their powers by study, dangerous pacts with sinister powers, or harnessing the power inherent to their blood, the arcane power source 

  Whatever their primary role, Arcane Classes lean towards controller as a secondary role. Compared to other classes in their role, arcane characters have large numbers of aoe attacks and negative status effects. 

  Arcane classes have probably the largest variety of keywords, as technically almost anything is possible for them. They are especially fond of elemental powers, and have a decent number of relatively rare keywords such as poison, necrotic, and acid damage. 

  Where Arcane classes really dominate though, is their access to Fire, Cold, Psychic, Force, Teleportation, and Illusion powers. Force, Teleportation and Illusion particularly as almost the exclusive domain of arcane classes, while jedi mind tricks and fire or cold based explosions are just something they have even more of than other power sources that are good at the same thing.

 Overall, Arcane classes love combining base trickery with big explosions, preferably while teleporting someone into said explosion. 

  Arcane classes also make extensive use of conjurations, summons, and zones, and make good use of invisibility and flight as well. 

  Although a few arcane characters can use weapon powers, all arcane classes can and do use implements as well. In some cases (Wizard staffs, sorcerer daggers, swordmage swords) they use special weapons that can also act as implements. The wand in particular can be used by almost all arcane classes, and is a good choice for arcane dabblers and half-elves. 

  Arcane characters focus heavily on mental stats, paticularly Intelligence and Charisma, with Con being the most used physical stat. 

*Divine*

  Divine Classes are generally ordained with divine powers in order to serve the god they worship. Whatever their primary role, divine classes tend to lean towards leader as a secondary role, with the largest number of powers useful for healing and bolstering allies. 

  The primary implement for Divine Characters is the Holy Symbol, which is unique in that it does not have to be held in order to be used, making it easier for Divine Characters to make use of weapons and sheilds compared to Arcane or Primal Characters. The one exception is the Invoker, who forgoes the holy symbol in favor of Staves and Rods, carried by the Invoker as a symbol of divine authority. 

  All Divine Classes have the Channel Divinity Encounter power, which allows them to channel divine energy into a number of minor effects, or to smite the undead. Feats can be used to expand Channel Divinity with God specific powers. 

  Like Arcane, Divine Characters are much more flashy than martial characters, however their range of powers tend to be much more focused. Divine Powers make massive use of Radiant Damage compared to any other power source, for both attack and defense. It is almost possible to make a character of any divine class who uses nothing but radiant damage. 

  When not bursting with Divine Radiance, Divine characters most often make use of Thunder, Fear and Psychic Damage. Fear and Psychic are almost always paired, in a "bow down before your god" sort of way, possibly while a thunderclap rumbles overhead. 

  Fire also gets a fair bit of use, and Invokers like to toss in a bit of lightning from time to time as well. 

  As most divine characters carry weapons, many of their powers inflict weapon damage as well, but channeling radiant or thunder damage through weapon strikes is a popular way of smiting heretics for any divine character. 

  Cold, Poison, Necrotic, and Force Damage are almost unheard of among Divinely granted powers. 

  Divine Characters make good use of Zones and Conjurations, although these are often defensive in nature. They have more teleporation powers than Primal or Martial characters, but still far less than Arcane. 


  As mentioned above, Divine Characters make extensive use of healing and buffing effects, and Clerics stand out as the best healers in the game. 

  Wisdom and Charisma are the key stats for most divine classes, with Strength and Intelligence the second most common stats. 

  In general, Divine Classes stand out in their power against the undead, and their ability to support allies, but they aren't usually known for their massive damage potential, either with weapons or implements. 

  Primal is the 4th one, but it's harder, so I'm taking a break. I might add it later if there is any interest.


----------



## RefinedBean

Never said it was a GOOD spell.    Your mechanical differences stem from the nature of spells themselves, rather than the spell in question.  It's a fair point, but not relevant to all levels of play.

The benefits of the Rage for the barb and the Rage spell are equal, though, which is the point.  Both give...whatever the heck a Barb's rage gives him, I forget.  But the way you're getting access to this mechanical benefit, the flavor, is quite different!

That's basically how 4E works.  The powers might be mechanically similar (they certainly read that way), but the fluff, flavor, and fun of 'em can be as deeply personal as you like to make 'em.

It's like the difference between divine spells and arcane spells in 3.5 (the only other edition I'm relatively familiar with).  There's not really all that much of a difference in the spells themselves:  Mechanical benefit + Fluff

But we all know there's a huge difference between Cleric and Wizard spells, because...well, there has to be, right?  One's divine, one's arcane.


----------



## Imaro

RefinedBean said:


> Never said it was a GOOD spell.  Your mechanical differences stem from the nature of spells themselves, rather than the spell in question. It's a fair point, but not relevant to all levels of play.




That's the whole point since you've turned it into a spell... let's not forget casting time, components, etc. either. You asked me what the differences are in making it a spell... then turn around and say but it's the same besides everything that makes it a spell...



RefinedBean said:


> The benefits of the Rage for the barb and the Rage spell are equal, though, which is the point. Both give...whatever the heck a Barb's rage gives him, I forget. But the way you're getting access to this mechanical benefit, the flavor, is quite different!




No they aren't...again you're ignoring all the differences in how the two abilities work and only focusing on their similarities. The whole point is that a spell (magic) is effectively different from an ability like the Barbarian's Rage... it functions on a different paradigm because it is magic. The Barbarian's ability will function in an anti-magic room... the spell will not. Depending on the situation the benefits to having either will be different. 



RefinedBean said:


> That's basically how 4E works. The powers might be mechanically similar (they certainly read that way), but the fluff, flavor, and fun of 'em can be as deeply personal as you like to make 'em.




Right, only your again avoiding my whole point... a spell in previous editions had *mechanical* and fluff differences that clearly differentiated it as magic...as opposed to a natural,extraordinary, psychic, etc. ability



RefinedBean said:


> It's like the difference between divine spells and arcane spells in 3.5 (the only other edition I'm relatively familiar with). There's not really all that much of a difference in the spells themselves: Mechanical benefit + Fluff
> 
> But we all know there's a huge difference between Cleric and Wizard spells, because...well, there has to be, right? One's divine, one's arcane.




Uhm let's see...first it's important to remember that even though it was seperated into divine and arcane... both were still considered magic so I don't think there was that huge of a difference since they are effectively, pre 4e, subsets of the same power source...magic. Second while not as different in how they work as say psionics and magic there were still some differences...

1. Arcane had schools, Divine had domains.
2. The accesss to your spells was restricted by your alignment and/or your deity. (This IMHO really brough home the fact that you were different from a Wizard or Sorcerer they studied, learned, stole or whatever their magic... yours is a gift bestowed upon you by a greater force.)

Edit: Arcane is based around one's intelligence or force of personality... while divine magic is based around wisdom.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Uhm let's see...first it's important to remember that even though it was seperated into divine and arcane... both were still considered magic so I don't think there was that huge of a difference since they are effectively, pre 4e, subsets of the same power source...magic. Second while not as different in how they work as say psionics and magic there were still some differences...
> 
> 1. Arcane had schools, Divine had domains.
> 2. The accesss to your spells was restricted by your alignment and/or your deity. (This IMHO really brough home the fact that you were different from a Wizard or Sorcerer they studied, learned, stole or whatever their magic... yours is a gift bestowed upon you by a greater force.)




  The Schools vs Domain (or alignment restricted spells) thing was really only in 3rd, and even then it was a very minor difference. Mechanically they work very much the same way. 

  The difference between the two comes out mostly in the theme and focus of their respective spell lists, which is also how it works in 4th edition.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Right, only your again avoiding my whole point... a spell in previous editions had mechanical and fluff differences that clearly differentiated it as magic...as opposed to a natural,extraordinary, psychic, etc. ability




  You could easily create anti arcane/divine ect zones or similar effects in 4th edition if you were so inclined. These were taken out of the game for design reasons, but the keyword system has a lot of flexibility for this sort of thing. 

  Really, anti-magic zones, vsm components, spell interruption, this is mostly stuff they invented to nerf magic-users more than anything else. 

  A lot of things you are bringing up as well point towards 3rd edition's handling of things, which is not the same as earlier editions in many respects.


----------



## RefinedBean

You make good points, Imaro.  When I thought up the Rage/Spell(Rage) comparison, I had forgotten how complex the spellcasting system was in 3.5.  

I've pretty much forgotten what our spirited debate is about, so let me regroup here.

It seems like we're really arguing over whether or not all classes should use a single system.

Your argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's no fundamental differences between the power sources.  It might as well be named Power Source:  Fun or what-not, since it's all push-pull-slide.  A fundamental difference between the classes is defined by different mechanics.

My argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's only a need for a gaming group to differentiate between the sources if they see fit.  WotC provides the base fluff for beginning groups to work off of, and experienced groups can (and will) take things into their own hands, describing the push-pull-slide of powers as they like.

We're edging really close to simulationism/gamism debate, which leads to madness.  We might want to call it here.


----------



## Ariosto

RefinedBean said:
			
		

> Invoking the names of Arneson and Gygax as a way of saying "This is how D&D SHOULD BE" is cheap and meaningless.



On what basis?

Is it "cheap and meaningless" to observe that lemonade is traditionally a beverage made with lemons, not persimmons?  To distinguish Chess from Backgammon? To consider Robert E. Howard's depiction of Conan more proper than a bowdlerization?

"Cheap" seems to me more appropriate to fanboy2000's put-down of people as "lacking imagination" simply because their imaginations -- at least when playing D&D, as opposed to some other game -- tend toward scenes informed by classic sword-and-sorcery literature (and 35 years of *D&D*) rather than being derived from his preferred prototypes.


----------



## fanboy2000

Ariosto said:


> "Cheap" seems to me more appropriate to fanboy2000's put-down of people as "lacking imagination" simply because their imaginations tend toward scenes informed by classic sword-and-sorcery literature (and 35 years of *D&D*) rather than being derived from his preferred prototypes.




I don't have a problem with people preferring a game more closely aligned with Lieber than Loeb. I have a problem with people not recognizing Loeb, Kring, Morrison, Moore, Gaiman as influences on the design of 4e. To willfully not see those influences seems to lack imagination.

If you don't want to run a game with those influences, that's fine. I encourage you to fun a game that feels like the genre you like. I'm a fan of Lieber and Howard myself (I'm going to get my hands on some Kull stories soon) and those stories are indeed inspiring. If you dislike 4e because of the influences I've described, that's o.k. One day the new edition of D&D may not be what I want, so I'll be in your shoes then.

While I mean what I said above, that explanation is really just a cover for my annoyance at this:



Raven Crowking said:


> Anyone who disagrees with that statement may not be wholly wrong (depending upon his criteria for disagreement), but neither is he wholly right.  *Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting*.



Emphasis mine.


----------



## Ariosto

One might reasonably expect dismay in some quarters if the science-fictional physics of Traveller were shoe-horned into Marvel Super Heroes -- or vice-versa. The notion that a role-playing game (or even D&D as some sort of "special case") can have no particular character seems to me untenable.


----------



## RefinedBean

Ariosto said:


> On what basis?




On the basis that you probably didn't know Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson personally.  Maybe they liked to play Toon.  Maybe they secretly LOVED it.

You invoked their names as a defense of D&D in general.  Partially, I agree with you!  It's fairly ludicrous to think that 35+ years of gamers lacked imagination.  But they really haven't been crazy relevant to the direction of D&D as a game/brand for a while. 

I'm not defending Fanboy, really.  I'm just saying there were better, more informative ways to make your point.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Ah, I think I get it now!
> 
> Does that distinction have to come from the rules?  Can the group make that distinction for themselves?
> 
> What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?




If we are discussing the implied setting of the game?

Then the distinction must come from the game.

If we are discussing the implied setting of your campaign world?

Then you may (and should!!!) make whatever changes to the game seem appropriate to you.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

fanboy2000 said:


> While I mean what I said above, that explanation is really just a cover for my annoyance at this:





I still hold that to be true.

I find myself far more influenced by those who see something clearly and like it than by those who seem to unconsciously ignore fundamental aspects of something and like it.  Would they still like it if they were conscious of those aspects?  Who knows. 


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

RefinedBean said:


> You honestly think this has to be elaborated on or completely spelled out for you and your group in the rules, instead of having your group decide on what's best/most fun for them?
> 
> This is a game of pretend. I don't need any meaningful distinction between X and Y written down because I create the distinction myself, in play.






LostSoul said:


> Ah, I think I get it now!
> 
> Does that distinction have to come from the rules? Can the group make that distinction for themselves?
> 
> What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?




I find statements like these just a tad hilarious coming from fans of 4E.
If a gaming group wants to decide more for themselves exactly what is what, then why choose a ruleset that spans hundreds of pages just to tell the players exactly what they can and cannot do?

Why have the exact effects of every power spelled out in such detail if the players should decide whats best/ most fun for them?

Both the 3E and 4E rulesets are focused on telling players exactly what to do. The main difference is that 3E attempted to attach that heavy handedness to a kind of semi-logical simulation and 4E didn't bother with that. 4E just says: "This is what happens, flavor to your taste." 

I am entirely on board with the idea that not every fiddly detail needs to be spelled out in the rules thats why I like basic D&D so much. 
 I prefer to use my imagination to create solutions to game situations that are not covered by the rules rather than creating rationalizations for rules that don't make much sense.


----------



## Imaro

Mad Mac said:


> The Schools vs Domain (or alignment restricted spells) thing was really only in 3rd, and even then it was a very minor difference. Mechanically they work very much the same way.




Yeah, I used that because RefinedBean said he was only familiar with 3.x before 4e. But again arcane and divine *magic* are not totally seperate power sources pre 4e, they are subsets of the same power source, so really looking for gigantic differences in these two isn't exactly a fair comparison in the context we are discussing... a better example would be to compare psionics vs. magic in 3.5.



Mad Mac said:


> The difference between the two comes out mostly in the theme and focus of their respective spell lists, which is also how it works in 4th edition.




Yes, but again they are both the same power source in 3e.



Mad Mac said:


> You could easily create anti arcane/divine ect zones or similar effects in 4th edition if you were so inclined. These were taken out of the game for design reasons, but the keyword system has a lot of flexibility for this sort of thing.




Oh, I totally agree here... but in the end you can do-it-yourself with alot of games, so that really isn't an argument for or against the point I am making. Design reasons are exactly what I'm talking about... the problem is that many of these things provided a distinct line between the magical and the mundane that is blurred, IMO, in 4e.  And let's not even begin to discuss primal power... is it magical, is it mundane... it seems to power classes that would be either or (Barbarian vs. Shaman).



Mad Mac said:


> Really, anti-magic zones, vsm components, spell interruption, this is mostly stuff they invented to nerf magic-users more than anything else.




The funny thing is that while you may be correct in the reason these things were introduced... personally I don't know for sure... they still also resonate with the mythology of magic use. Places where magic is diminished, materials for spells, spells being interupted in the middle of their casting are all things straight out of mythology. 



Mad Mac said:


> A lot of things you are bringing up as well point towards 3rd edition's handling of things, which is not the same as earlier editions in many respects.




Yes, but again I and RefinedBean only have the context of 3.x to discuss as far as pre 4e D&D goes so that is what I am sticking to.


----------



## Imaro

RefinedBean said:


> You make good points, Imaro. When I thought up the Rage/Spell(Rage) comparison, I had forgotten how complex the spellcasting system was in 3.5.
> 
> I've pretty much forgotten what our spirited debate is about, so let me regroup here.
> 
> It seems like we're really arguing over whether or not all classes should use a single system.
> 
> Your argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's no fundamental differences between the power sources. It might as well be named Power Source: Fun or what-not, since it's all push-pull-slide. A fundamental difference between the classes is defined by different mechanics.
> 
> My argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's only a need for a gaming group to differentiate between the sources if they see fit. WotC provides the base fluff for beginning groups to work off of, and experienced groups can (and will) take things into their own hands, describing the push-pull-slide of powers as they like.
> 
> We're edging really close to simulationism/gamism debate, which leads to madness. We might want to call it here.





RefinedBean, we can agree to disagree... but I did want to clear up that I'm not necessarily talking about simulationism vs. gamism. I think you've got the jist kof what I'm talking about as far as subsytems go... but I don't agree it boils down to simulationism and gamism. Different subsystems can be used in a gamist sense to create different interactions, strategies and tactics in a game without necessarily simulating anything... 

For an example of what I am talking about, earlier LostSoul posted that the reason there are 50 million ways (regeneration, healing surges, healing word, temporary hit points, etc.) to essentially do the same thing (negate damage) is because the different methods allow for a greater mechanical difference and tactical richness in the game which can lead to a wider range of tactics and interactions. This has nothing to do with simulationism (though it does have the added benefit of making these ways of healing feel different in play) and everything to do with the gamist parts.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Raven Crowking said:


> I still hold that to be true.
> 
> I find myself far more influenced by those who see something clearly and like it than by those who seem to unconsciously ignore fundamental aspects of something and like it.  Would they still like it if they were conscious of those aspects?  Who knows.
> 
> 
> RC




I don't think you necessarily give people enough credit.  IMO, there is at least a significant portion of people here who see the fundamentals of 4E clearly and like it (though I don't deny that there are also those who see clearly and hate it).

For example, I'm currently playing around with some gestalt rules for 4E that I found in the House Rules section of these forums and modified a bit.  One of my players wanted to create a PC based on the character Hunk (from the Resident Evil series).  Basically, an elite, modern (zombie-killing) commando.

It took the player a little while to get out of the old mindset (he was unhappy for a while that Ranger didn't offer him the variety he was looking for), but we eventually settled upon a gestalt of Druid and Warlock.  Reflavoring Wild Shape, he assumes a martial arts stance so that he can riot kick zombies (and anything else that gets too close) using Savage Rend.  His Eldritch Blast became a spray of bullets from his machine gun (his implements were reflavored as special ammo clips that he uses for his gun).  Faerie Fire became a mustard gas grenade, Obscuring Mist became a smoke bomb, Fiery Bolt became a napalm canister that he tosses at enemies and shoots, etc.  

If he had wanted to have fighting techniques specialized for killing undead, I would have recommended a divine class instead of Warlock, though he still would have used technology instead of magic (sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic).

I can understand that the above may not be everyone's cup of tea (for varying reasons) but for us it works beautifully.  I honestly don't think we're unconsciously ignoring anything (If you think we are, could you please elaborate as to what you think that is?).  

We recognize that there's a certain degree of magic/mundane transparency in the system but for us it is a strength, not a weakness.  Falkland (the commando PC) is a martial character because he uses grenades and a gun (rather than Primal/Arcane as his classes would indicate) which are not inherently magical in nature.  The player constantly remarks to me how awesome he thinks his character is and how Falkland is exactly what he envisioned.

If this is ignorance, then I suppose I was wrong and ignorance really is bliss!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't think you necessarily give people enough credit.  IMO, there is at least a significant portion of people here who see the fundamentals of 4E clearly and like it (though I don't deny that there are also those who see clearly and hate it).




There certainly are.  I've had the please of conversing with several of them.  In a number of cases, seeing 4e clearly has allowed people to make rules changes that make the game work better for what they want.  Others like what they see right off.

In another thread, when I listed out the possibilities of interpreting damage in 4e (Schrödinger's Wounding), it was forcibly brought to my attention that I had skipped one possibility -- that everyone and everything in 4e was, indeed, magical.  "Mundane" (in the sense that it existed in all pre-4e D&D) has no real place in 4e.

This is so different from what had come before it that I didn't see it clearly.  Indeed, the next time I listed the possibilities in that thread, I had to be reminded again.  Nor was it the interpretation generally favoured or seen by pro-4e gamers.....not by a long shot.  Looking at the 4e rules and designer statements more closely, though, has convinced me that this "blind spot" is actually an intended, as well as an actual, part of the implied 4e setting.

Before I was blind.

Now I see.



RC


----------



## Starbuck_II

Raven Crowking said:


> This is so different from what had come before it that I didn't see it clearly. Indeed, the next time I listed the possibilities in that thread, I had to be reminded again. Nor was it the interpretation generally favoured or seen by pro-4e gamers.....not by a long shot. Looking at the 4e rules and designer statements more closely, though, has convinced me that this "blind spot" is actually an intended, as well as an actual, part of the implied 4e setting.
> 
> Before I was blind.
> 
> Now I see.
> 
> RC




Well, it isn't called "points of light" for nothing. When blind all you see is darkness.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Starbuck_II said:


> Well, it isn't called "points of light" for nothing. When blind all you see is darkness.




Indeed.

When you disavow the "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" interpretation, Schrödinger and quantum mechanical effects must either be accepted or ignored.

Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting.


RC


----------



## Storminator

Mad Mac said:


> Sigh..that's a lot of work man. What the heck, I'll take a shot at it.
> 
> ...SNIP...
> 
> Primal is the 4th one, but it's harder, so I'm taking a break. I might add it later if there is any interest.




Mad Mac,

This is a great post, and easily the best thing in this thread. Please follow up with the Primal Source as well.

I'd suggest making a blog post of this so you can add to it when other sources come out.

XP coming up.

PS


----------



## Storminator

Storminator said:


> XP coming up.
> 
> PS




Or not! Can someone help me out here?

PS


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> I find statements like these just a tad hilarious coming from fans of 4E.




I asked questions, I didn't make statements.



ExploderWizard said:


> If a gaming group wants to decide more for themselves exactly what is what, then why choose a ruleset that spans hundreds of pages just to tell the players exactly what they can and cannot do?
> 
> Why have the exact effects of every power spelled out in such detail if the players should decide whats best/ most fun for them?




I was talking about colour, its importance to play, and the way you translate mechanics into fiction.  

My question: "Does that distinction have to come from the rules?  Can the group make that distinction for themselves?"

What I'm trying to ask here is if the meaningful distinction between something like mundane and magical (or anything, like the Dark and Light Side of the Force) _must_ come from the rules, or if players can create meaning on their own.

My question: "What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?"

What I'm trying to ask here is, when you have rules that create meaning by themselves, how does that affect play vs. when the rules don't have any meaning?

A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game.  In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice.  Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6.  If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.

In another, there's no list.  PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like.  They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.


What does this mean in regards to 4E?  I don't know.  Maybe nothing.


----------



## LostSoul

Storminator said:


> Or not! Can someone help me out here?




Covered.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Mad Mac,
> 
> This is a great post, and easily the best thing in this thread. Please follow up with the Primal Source as well.
> 
> I'd suggest making a blog post of this so you can add to it when other sources come out.
> 
> XP coming up.




  Flattery will get you anywhere. Ok, coming up. 

*Primal*

  Primal is the power of spirits, weather, land, tree's and nature. It is the power of the earth itself and all natural living creatures. Primal powers have a theme of endurance and transformation. 

  Primal classes lean towards defender as a secondary role. All primal classes have more hps and staying power than is normally expected of their role, except the Shaman who comes equipped with a permanent spirit bodyguard. 

  Primal classes are geared towards the use of light armor and melee weapons. They don't often have Dex or Int as primary stats, but have class features that let them use other stats to boost their AC. 

 Primal classes tend to use weapons or implements, but not both. Their unique two-handed implement, the totem, enforces this. Unlike Divine characters, a primal Shaman or Druid with a totem will normally carry no weapons except their own powers (or claws)

  Primal powers frequently call upon spirts, weather, earth and plants. They are heavily biased towards using powers with the Cold, Lightning, and psychic keywords. (Note that wind, earth and plant are not keywords and usually deal untyped damage) 

  Primal classes make very little use of teleportation, and use of conjurations is limited primarily to the Shaman's spirit calling. They don't currently have any summoning powers. 

  Transformation is the other primary theme for primal, and primal classes are loaded with powers that transform and enhance their own body. Druids wildshape, Wardens polymorph, and Barbarians rage, and for all these classes, use of their transformation abilities is essential to unlocking their other class abilities and powers. The Shaman is unique in his use to spirtits to enhance allies instead of his own body. 

  Primal Powers are called evocations, as they evoke the power of specific primal spirits. The Barbarian Rages by channeling the spirits of assorted magical beasts, while the Warden physically transforms himself into avatars of spirit creatures. The Druid transforms himself into actual beasts, and the Shamans directly calls upon primal spirits to aid him and his allies in battle.


----------



## ExploderWizard

LostSoul said:


> I asked questions, I didn't make statements.




My mistake. Fair enough.



LostSoul said:


> I was talking about colour, its importance to play, and the way you translate mechanics into fiction.
> 
> My question: "Does that distinction have to come from the rules? Can the group make that distinction for themselves?"
> 
> What I'm trying to ask here is if the meaningful distinction between something like mundane and magical (or anything, like the Dark and Light Side of the Force) _must_ come from the rules, or if players can create meaning on their own.
> 
> My question: "What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?"
> 
> What I'm trying to ask here is, when you have rules that create meaning by themselves, how does that affect play vs. when the rules don't have any meaning?




If the rules don't have any meaning then there is no reason for thier inclusion IMHO. In an rpg, anything that is defined as a rule should have some meaning within the implied setting. Rules existing just for the sake of being rules are more appropriate for competitive games.Thus:

RPG (cooperative experience)  tone and flavor > rigidly defined rules

War/boardgame (competitive experience) rigidly defined rules > tone and flavor.


LostSoul said:


> A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game. In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice. Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6. If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.
> 
> In another, there's no list. PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like. They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.
> 
> 
> What does this mean in regards to 4E? I don't know. Maybe nothing.




The difference in your example is the lack of definition for an evil act. In both cases turning to the dark side means the end of the character as a PC. I guess it would depend on how close to the source material the players wanted to stay.

In the first case, the acts are defined for you. The rules spell out exactly what causes a dark side point. Players may find twisted things to do that are not officially on the list in order to avoid dark side points.

In the second case the players could decide that any use of the force for offensive purposes regardless of the actual act would result in a dark side point (per Yoda ).

A truly radical modification of this example would be to challenge the notion of the character being removed from play after joining the dark side. Why is this a rule? Does it serve a purpose in the implied setting?

What does this mean to 4E. Your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## Starbuck_II

LostSoul said:


> A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game. In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice. Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6. If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.
> 
> In another, there's no list. PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like. They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.




In game 1: You know what you need to do in order to do Dark Side. No one does it by accident, but lack of memory. 
In game 2: You choose to do Dark Side: 100% control. But this is dangerous as you don't know when it will take you over.

Game 1 is a little loose in fear of dark side. Game 2 is like Russian Roulette: Are you ready to take the chance?


----------



## Imaro

LostSoul said:


> My question: "What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?"
> 
> What I'm trying to ask here is, when you have rules that create meaning by themselves, how does that affect play vs. when the rules don't have any meaning?
> 
> A simple example: imagine a Star Wars game. In one game, there are a list of evil acts, and if you do one of them you get a Dark Side point and get some bonus dice. Each time you get a Dark Side point you roll 1d6. If the roll is lower than your current total you turn to the Dark Side and your PC is removed from play.
> 
> In another, there's no list. PCs call on the Dark Side in order to get bonus dice whenever they like. They still have to roll to see if they turn to the Dark Side, though what that means is undefined except that the PC is removed from play.
> 
> What does this mean in regards to 4E? I don't know. Maybe nothing.




Well the difference I see in the two approaches is this...

In example one, the group has a baseline, it facilitates quick understanding and cohesion of the "Dark Side" aspect of the game for all players. It let's those who just want to play, play without having to create mechanics, define the meaning of and often times bicker about what is or isn't an evil act. It also provides the DM with a very stable point from which to make rulings or modify things to suit his specific campaign.

In example two there is no baseline to begin with and thus time must be spent defining what is or isn't a dark side act (or else the same problems that so many complained about with the 3.5 Paladin's code and alignment will quickly arise). The DM has no examples to draw from and there is still the very real posibility that no matter how much beforehand discussion takes place...all the people in the group still aren't on the same page as far as what is or isn't a dark side act even after play has begun. There is also the distinct possibility that with numerous, even just slightly, divergent views on what the dark side is... eventually the dark side itself becomes meaningless as far as theme, narrative or anything else beyond it's effect of removing one's PC. 

I mean what happens if I don't ask for extra dice (call on the dark side) but I use the force to slaughter an audience hall full of innocent people... is it or is it not a dark side act since I didn't ask for extra dice?


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> My mistake. Fair enough.




No prob.



ExploderWizard said:


> If the rules don't have any meaning then there is no reason for thier inclusion IMHO. In an rpg, anything that is defined as a rule should have some meaning within the implied setting. Rules existing just for the sake of being rules are more appropriate for competitive games.Thus:
> 
> RPG (cooperative experience)  tone and flavor > rigidly defined rules
> 
> War/boardgame (competitive experience) rigidly defined rules > tone and flavor.




I agree with you.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this!

Let's assume all abilities are magic in 4E (or all abilities are mundane, which is strange, but a possible interpretation - I guess that would be the Dying Earth-type math-magic).  There's no distinction in the rules, no reason to say one thing is magic and another is mundane.  I can make an attack vs. Fort, close blast 3, deal 1d6 + stat mod and push 3 with a Thunderwave or (conceivably) a martial power.  (That wouldn't be a bad power for a staff or longspear.)

Spoilers for a Keep on the Shadowfell:

[sblock]Magic Circle: Ninaran followed Kalarel’s instructions
in creating this magic circle to raise the dead. The circle
pulsates with a sickly glow.
With a DC 15 Arcana or Religion check, a PC can
determine that the magic circle is the reason for the animated
undead, and that it can be disabled with the Arcana
skill. If a PC makes three DC 15 Arcana checks before
getting three failures, the circle is disabled and the animated
dead fall and become mere corpses again.

[text quoted from the free .pdf, I hope that's kosher]​[/sblock]

Can my fighter disable that magic circle with Arcana?  What if he's not trained in Arcana?  What if he wanted to use it to _Dominate_ the NPCs?  Can he disable it with a martial attack?  

If the answer is no, why not?

What's the difference between playing a game where the rules tell us this and one where the rules don't say anything?  

(I think, more specifically, I'm interested in how this relates to gamism; that is, _players_ overcoming challenges through smart choices based on their own skill and experience with the game or setting.  I think that these gaps in interpretations may open a space for players to learn about _a particular_ DM's world and, through experience, become more adept at overcoming challenges in that world.)


----------



## LostSoul

Starbuck_II said:


> Game 1 is a little loose in fear of dark side. Game 2 is like Russian Roulette: Are you ready to take the chance?




I'd put it this way: how far are you willing to go in order to get what you want?



Imaro said:


> In example two there is no baseline to begin with and thus time must be spent defining what is or isn't a dark side act (or else the same problems that so many complained about with the 3.5 Paladin's code and alignment will quickly arise). The DM has no examples to draw from and there is still the very real posibility that no matter how much beforehand discussion takes place...all the people in the group still aren't on the same page as far as what is or isn't a dark side act even after play has begun. There is also the distinct possibility that with numerous, even just slightly, divergent views on what the dark side is... eventually the dark side itself becomes meaningless as far as theme, narrative or anything else beyond it's effect of removing one's PC.
> 
> I mean what happens if I don't ask for extra dice (call on the dark side) but I use the force to slaughter an audience hall full of innocent people... is it or is it not a dark side act since I didn't ask for extra dice?




You don't have to worry about bickering about "Is this Dark Side or not?" stuff, unless you want to play "let's simulate the SW universe" game, where someone would get pissed off if you said, "No, releasing anger in a healthy way is not a bad thing."  "But that's not Star Wars!"  etc.  

In the second game, no one player can declare if an act is a "Dark Side" act or not; PCs can take any action they wish without penalty (such as losing Paladin abilities) until they cross that line and the PC is removed from play.  But players can choose when that risk is worth it.

If players are not on the same page - if someone thinks that slaughtering an audience hall full of innocents is worth it for the greater good and someone else thinks that person crossed the line - that's conflict and it makes for good drama.  Then the limbs start getting chopped off.  

And what does it say when the guy who's fighting for the memory of the innocents calls on the Dark Side?

I guess the point is that any action may be wrong or it may not be, but the rules don't decide that.  The players do.  They explore those themes through their characters.

I think this side-discussion is a distraction, though you can fork it if you'd like to talk about it more.


----------



## Imaro

LostSoul said:


> I'd put it this way: how far are you willing to go in order to get what you want?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to worry about bickering about "Is this Dark Side or not?" stuff, unless you want to play "let's simulate the SW universe" game, where someone would get pissed off if you said, "No, releasing anger in a healthy way is not a bad thing." "But that's not Star Wars!" etc.
> 
> In the second game, no one player can declare if an act is a "Dark Side" act or not; PCs can take any action they wish without penalty (such as losing Paladin abilities) until they cross that line and the PC is removed from play. But players can choose when that risk is worth it.
> 
> If players are not on the same page - if someone thinks that slaughtering an audience hall full of innocents is worth it for the greater good and someone else thinks that person crossed the line - that's conflict and it makes for good drama. Then the limbs start getting chopped off.
> 
> And what does it say when the guy who's fighting for the memory of the innocents calls on the Dark Side?
> 
> I guess the point is that any action may be wrong or it may not be, but the rules don't decide that. The players do. They explore those themes through their characters.
> 
> I think this side-discussion is a distraction, though you can fork it if you'd like to talk about it more.




So your example is based on playing in the Star Wars universe... with a decidely Star Wars trope... but you're not really playing Star Wars. Ok, perhaps explaining that earlier would have made it more clear... I guess. I have to ask though, if the "Dark Side" is not the "Dark Side" of the Star Wars universe...which is certainly not subjective... then my previous point is made... "Dark Side" becomes meaningless and pointless in it's thematic and narrative sense as in essence it is no longer the "Dark Side" as recognized by most people but whatever anyone decides at a given moment is the Dark Side.  Might be cool, but if I sat down at a "Star Wars" game and this was how the Dark Side worked... I wouldn't consider it a SW game, and I'd probably be lost if the GM didn't explain all of this before a jedi went on a murder spree and claimed it wasn't a dark side act because he didn't call on the dark side.


----------



## Ariosto

Fanaelialae's post on the previous page illustrates, I think, the fundamental approach to powers in 4E. Druid and Warlock are supposedly "magical" classes, but they can be treated as representing a "martial" character who uses machinegun and grenade.

It's like *Risus*, only orders of magnitude more complicated. It's also reminiscent of the generic powers with "special effects" overlaid in *Champions*.

That's a fine kind of game, and I don't think discussions such as this would have arisen in the first place if it had been called "Magic: The Ambiguation" instead of "Dungeons & Dragons".

Relative to D&D, it's upside-down and backwards. Instead of starting with an imagined world and then making up algorithms to represent it, abstract rules take precedence and the world is made to conform to them.

The distinction may be lost on those long accustomed to treat D&D as a set of literal rules rather than a collection of guidelines, which I think was not as far from the intent of the designers of 3E as from that in previous versions. With 3E, the attempt was made to provide a comprehensive "world machine" analogous to that in Champions, something into which one could put a "what if" question and get out an answer with some internal consistency and a genre-reflecting sort of verisimilitude.

The rules-lightnesses at the core of the TSR games can from that perspective be misleading. What Armor Class and Hit Points "mean" is a subtle matter, an abstraction derived from experience with historical war-gaming. A combat that literally consists of nothing but "roll to hit, roll for damage" with set factors, the numerical results being interpreted after the fact into a narrative, differs only in simplicity from the richness of abstract "tactical options" in 4E.

However, that is just a starting point. The examples of elaboration in supplements and later editions are notably directed at "simulation" of one aspect or another of the imagined situation. It was not presumed that such charts and procedures were either necessary or sufficient for proper adjudication of the myriad circumstances that arise in play. Any referee worth his salt would bring to bear a vastly more copious "tool kit" of common sense, knowledge and reason. Experience of the real world was the baseline, the default "set of rules".

In other words, what was intended (and by the target demographic generally understood) as _descriptive_ is misunderstood as _prescriptive_. Most of the old familiar criticisms of D&D begin with that fundamental misunderstanding.

Some elements of the classic design certainly are "pure game". Getting experience points for treasure comes to mind as one commonly house-ruled, and notably changed in the "official, standard" rules of some later versions. Understanding the rationale behind it may be helpful even to those desiring a different method. The same can apply to other features.

What seems to be coming to a head now is a long-brewing disjunction between the original "prototype first, malleable rules" view and the more recent "model first, malleable world" view. (Other rifts are also very evident, but perhaps less germane to the discussion at hand).

One thing I have learned the hard way is that it is easier to complicate a basically simple and modular game than to simplify (or to change the "paradigm" of) a complexly integrated one. Wizards of the Coast came out of the gate with the latter, and 4E stays that course. Its major departure is in what it's trying to accomplish.


----------



## Mad Mac

> I'd suggest making a blog post of this so you can add to it when other sources come out.




  It is getting off topic for this thread, so done. 

http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/mad-mac/1675-mechanical-thematic-look-power-sources.html


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> If the rules don't have any meaning then there is no reason for thier inclusion IMHO. In an rpg, anything that is defined as a rule should have some meaning within the implied setting. Rules existing just for the sake of being rules are more appropriate for competitive games.:




And this is the crux of my disagreement. I don't agree that the rules should have any applied meaning to the world. They're just there to resolve the question of what happens when I try to do X task.

Games that DO try to present the rules as some sort of representation of the world around them in my opinion get WAY to pointlessly cumbersome. They devolve into too many various charts, sub-systems, and diverse ways of doing essentially the same thing.

This doesn't mean I think rules should exist just for the sake of being a rule either though. I think rules should exist only to answer the question asked at the table. "What happens when I hit with my ax?" "You do X amount of damage."

For my tastes a magic arrow and a real arrow don't need to have two seperate sets of mechanics to make one "feel" like a real arrow and the other "feal" like a magic arrow.

In both cases I believe there should be a hit chance, plus damage if the hit is successful. The difference for ME comes in the description of the event in game.

"Johan mutters a few ancient arcane words and a glowing green orb of eldrich energy appears before his outstretched hand. With another command the orb speeds off towards his oncoming opponent."

Feels much different to me then:

"Johan peers down the shaft of his currently knocked arrow. With a twang the powerful string of his great ashen bow sends the missle speeding off towards his oncoming enemy..."

The two effects are essentialy the same thing (a ranged attack) so we don't need two seperate rules to achieve the effect. I feel we can use the same rule structure, but describe the action differently.


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> "Dark Side" becomes meaningless and pointless in it's thematic and narrative sense as in essence it is no longer the "Dark Side" as recognized by most people but whatever anyone decides at a given moment is the Dark Side.




I would say it becomes meaning_ful_ because it's an exploration of the beliefs that the players have instead of recreating what Lucas put on the screen.

But it's a personal preference thing.  Whether or not it's pointless or meaningful depends on your own tastes in gaming.


----------



## ExploderWizard

LostSoul said:


> Let's assume all abilities are magic in 4E (or all abilities are mundane, which is strange, but a possible interpretation - I guess that would be the Dying Earth-type math-magic). There's no distinction in the rules, no reason to say one thing is magic and another is mundane. I can make an attack vs. Fort, close blast 3, deal 1d6 + stat mod and push 3 with a Thunderwave or (conceivably) a martial power. (That wouldn't be a bad power for a staff or longspear.)




Leaving game mechanics/ effects out of this for a moment lets look at the differences between magic/ non-magic from a flavor/tone view. 
The actual effect it has in the game will be the same so what are the real differences? The differences are the expectations of the modeled reality of the fantasy world. The attack roll vs defense is a game construct that has no meaning to the setting. The important part is what the fantasy characters see happening and how it relates to what is known about the realities of thier world. 

For example if this attack is viewed as mundane in both cases, what causes this to be so? When Joe NPC watches the wizard shout and gesture, then sees the goblin fly backwards what qualities of the world cause Joe accept this as a mundane act? 
When Joe NPC watches the fighter swing his staff mightily striking the goblin in chest, then sees the goblin fly backwards what qualities of the world cause Joe accept this as a mundane act? 

Without a quantifiable difference in what is viewed as mundane vs magical in a given world there can be no meaningful difference. Without a frame of reference the is no difference between mundane and magical.



LostSoul said:


> Can my fighter disable that magic circle with Arcana? What if he's not trained in Arcana? What if he wanted to use it to _Dominate_ the NPCs? Can he disable it with a martial attack?
> 
> If the answer is no, why not?




Assuming that there is an actual divide between mundane and magical, it would depend upon how one defines the Arcana skill. If the skill does not require magical talent to use then a fighter should be able to try. Being untrained depends on the skill being used. GURPS handles this very well with defaults. A character can TRY most anything but the chances of success are not usually good. There are some skills that require some training to even attempt. 




LostSoul said:


> What's the difference between playing a game where the rules tell us this and one where the rules don't say anything?
> 
> (I think, more specifically, I'm interested in how this relates to gamism; that is, _players_ overcoming challenges through smart choices based on their own skill and experience with the game or setting. I think that these gaps in interpretations may open a space for players to learn about _a particular_ DM's world and, through experience, become more adept at overcoming challenges in that world.)




Cases where the rules don't say anything can be great or awful depending on who you ask. In my opinion the more complex and structured the rules are the more ridiculous "legal" loopholes there are to abuse. This leads to endless patching and fixing that can lead to yet more "broken" rules, ect.

A set of simple rules along with a good dose of guidelines to produce sensible rulings is pure heaven. There are terrible DMs out there that have led to outcry of "mother may I" games being no fun. I say that if you don't trust the DM to make sensible rulings then perhaps gaming with this person isn't worth the effort. Complex rules won't stop jerks from being jerks. If large tight ruleset is required to keep anyone at the table "in line" on either side of the screen then fun has already been assassinated and it isn't going to help.


----------



## Kask

People are still arguing that taking control of someones body at a distance isn't "magic"?  ROFL.  Well, it's good for comedy relief.


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> People are still arguing that taking control of someones body at a distance isn't "magic"?



Please don't make me explain this again. Please, I beg of you.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> Please don't make me explain this again. Please, I beg of you.




It isn't that you need to explain it again; it is that your explanation fails under examination.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> It isn't that you need to explain it again; it is that your explanation fails under examination.
> 
> 
> RC




Sure if you've already decided you're not willing to accept an alternative viewpoint to your own, any explaination will fail under examination.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Kask said:


> People are still arguing that taking control of someones body at a distance isn't "magic"? ROFL. Well, it's good for comedy relief.




Magic is defined by whats "normal" in the game world which can be very similar to or different from our own ( it IS a fantasy world) If telekinesis is common enough for the beings of the world to barely notice it then its mundane to them.


----------



## Mad Mac

> People are still arguing that taking control of someones body at a distance isn't "magic"? ROFL. Well, it's good for comedy relief.




  Ultimately, these threads leave me more and more convinced that there are people who look at game rules in a way that is so incomprehensible to me that I'm not sure constructive discussion is even possible.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Raven Crowking said:


> It isn't that you need to explain it again; it is that your explanation fails under examination.
> 
> 
> RC




How does the "it's a gamist narrative trope" explanation fail?


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> Druid and Warlock are supposedly "magical" classes, but they can be treated as representing a "martial" character who uses machinegun and grenade.



Yes. Good example, too. 



> It's also reminiscent of the generic powers with "special effects" overlaid in *Champions*.



There are places where 4e certainly does resemble effects-based systems like HERO or Mutants and Masterminds. I can see why some people don't like them, but I _love_ them, mainly because I get a lot of pleasure inventing my own 'fluff' to accompany the stated game mechanics. 



> Relative to D&D, it's upside-down and backwards. Instead of starting with an imagined world and then making up algorithms to represent it, abstract rules take precedence and the world is made to conform to them.



I'm not sold on the idea that this kind of design is so out of place in D&D. I never thought D&D 'started with an imagined world'. I'd say it started with things that were very obviously game rules, ones which prioritized speed and ease-of-play over any kind of accurate simulation, with a fictional world hung over them awkwardly in most places, like a drop cloth over bulky furniture. 

The imagined world shared by the players/DM arose mostly from their mutual agreement, not from the rule's algorithms (Really, algorithms? They were algorithms?).

There was always an inherent degree of tension between the rules and the 'world' created in play. Elements of 4e design put (several) new spins on this, but they're all of a familiar kind.


----------



## Imaro

Kask said:


> People are still arguing that taking control of someones body at a distance isn't "magic"? ROFL. Well, it's good for comedy relief.




It's easy...narrative control is the new "martial" magic...uhm... maneuvers... My question is when do wizards and warlocks get to take over narrative control, all they get is stupid regular magic.


----------



## Kask

Mad Mac said:


> Ultimately, these threads leave me more and more convinced that there are people who look at game rules in a way that is so incomprehensible to me that I'm not sure constructive discussion is even possible.





Yes, the mental contortions used to call something "not magic" are simply amazing.


----------



## Ariosto

> How does the "it's a gamist narrative trope" explanation fail?



 By way of the predicate context, the former referent of the term "D&D".


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> It isn't that you need to explain it again; it is that your explanation fails under examination.



I don't mean to quarrel RC (at least not today ), but you still haven't demonstrated that.

(It fails only in that it doesn't jive with your assumptions. Operate from the different set of assumptions --like many of the posters in this thread-- and it works swimmingly).


----------



## ferratus

So you are saying Kask that commander's strike, a warlord power in which you command an ally to hit an enemy is a magical ability?  If not, why is it any different when someone compels an enemy to do something?

You are telling a story, only the players now have some input on how their enemies act during the combat scene.  D&D has shifted from a storyteller game that had conceits of simulation (and it never did it at all well) to a purer storytelling game.  The tactical combat side of the game doesn't try to simulate medieval fantasy warfare, it simply tries to be a cinematic scene.  

Likewise, skills are not trying to simulate what an elf might have plausibly learned over the course of his life, it is trying to make available character archetypes who would have access to the skills needed for a particular scene.  What do science officers on the Star Trek Enterprise, or characters in comic books know as a skill set?  Whatever the scene requires them to know within their designated archetypal role on the team.   Likewise it is the same for a 4e D&D party.

Now maybe you miss the conceit that D&D had rules for living a mundane existence with an overlay of rules for fantastic elements.  I can understand why someone might think was the case, given that the D&D books of prior editions generally had that as one of their design goals.  It was a poorly executed dismal failure, but it was a design goal.  

But don't say that just because it is switching to a more narrative voice that it is a bad simulation.  You're just missing the entire point of the design shift.


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> Yes, the mental contortions used to call something "not magic" are simply amazing.



1) That isn't a argument. 

2) They're only exceeded by one's being used to prove something is (despite the fact the rules of the game explicitly say they're not)!

Really now, who is being more stubborn??


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> My question is when do wizards and warlocks get to take over narrative control, all they get is stupid regular magic.



Easy! When the description of the power doesn't describe an in-game mechanism for how the power operates.

(Honestly, there's no reason you _couldn't_ give wizards and warlocks powers like CaGI. It's just fluff. Arcane classes do great things through magical means, martial classes do them through grit, skill and outrageous coincidence. Six of one, half a dozen of the other).


----------



## Mad Mac

> Yes, the mental contortions used to call something "not magic" are simply amazing.




  I could fluff martial powers as "magical" if I felt like it, or vice versa. I could in fact do this in any version of D&D. As it happens, I once ran an adventure with my brother in 2nd edition where each "encounter" was created by an evil master illusionist and replicated some sort of video game. There was one involving godzilla esque giant monster battles, a run and gun zombie battle, ect. I ran each of them with just a few minutes of prep ruling some basic spell equivilents, a few attacks I made up on the spot, ect. 

  This is actually my point. While I enjoy fluff and crunch that suports said fluff, I don't ultimately see the rules as anything but convenient bits of math that I can use as I see fit. All the groaning about "mind control" of fictional characters that only exist for the purpose of the game/story I created is completely alien to my way of thinking about a game.


----------



## Ariosto

It comes, at least from where I stand, not down to the criterion of "liking" or "not liking" the approach that 4E enthusiasts so often hold up. Rather, it boils down to whether the game remains a faithful representation of what "D&D" has most consistently meant during my decades-long engagement with it. I see no basis for a standard of "improvement" that would make such a radical shift "the same, only better". I don't *want* D&D, RuneQuest and Dogs in the Vineyard to get homogenized into some theoretically perfect stew.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> Easy! When the description of the power doesn't describe an in-game mechanism for how the power operates.
> 
> (Honestly, there's no reason you _couldn't_ give wizards and warlocks powers like CaGI. It's just fluff. Arcane classes do great things through magical means, martial classes do them through grit, skill and outrageous coincidence. Six of one, half a dozen of the other).




I see, so... if there is no fundamental difference within the game (besides fluff which we've already determined has no in-game effect)... then aren't they the same thing just with different names being used?  And since the previous edition allowed this type of narrative control (where you're controlling other NPC's actions without them having a chance to resist)  in the form of magic... well doesn't that ultimately make these new martial abilities magic?


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> Without a quantifiable difference in what is viewed as mundane vs magical in a given world there can be no meaningful difference. Without a frame of reference the is no difference between mundane and magical.




I'm still not 100% sure I get it.  Does this mean that each group has to figure out what is magic and what's not for themselves?  If that step is taken, then we should be able to supply that frame of reference.

eg. In my game I say that Come and Get It isn't magical.  That means that, in this world, it's possible to... I don't know, learn a Dune-style "Voice" skill as a martial talent that nothing can resist.  (Oh, I had a cool idea for my campaign world... I'll sblock it.)  Does that give us a frame of reference to draw a line between mundane and magical in this game world?

[sblock=cool idea]My thinking is that the world is formed from "primordial" chaos, given form and order by the Gods.  Everything, even dirt, has a bit of that primordial spirit.  Magic manipulates the form (and uses Supernal as its language), but with a force of will you can manipulate the primordial spirit in anything.

Come and Get It might be exerting that will.  Which makes it "magic", but since everything's magic anyways, there's no real difference.  Huh.  Well, I thought it was a neat idea. 

I also like the idea of a fighter Intimidating a rock wall into opening up for him.[/sblock]

Does this make it more difficult for meaningful choices to arise?  (Given the "player challenge" critera for meaning.)  Maybe, maybe not.  Especially not if the players are interested in exploring the DM's world and learning about what works and what doesn't.




ExploderWizard said:


> A set of simple rules along with a good dose of guidelines to produce sensible rulings is pure heaven. There are terrible DMs out there that have led to outcry of "mother may I" games being no fun. I say that if you don't trust the DM to make sensible rulings then perhaps gaming with this person isn't worth the effort. Complex rules won't stop jerks from being jerks. If large tight ruleset is required to keep anyone at the table "in line" on either side of the screen then fun has already been assassinated and it isn't going to help.




Agreed.


----------



## ExploderWizard

ferratus said:


> You are telling a story,



Nope. Starting your stated position with this assumption is a bad idea.



ferratus said:


> only the players now have some input on how their enemies act during the combat scene. D&D has shifted from a storyteller game that had conceits of simulation (and it never did it at all well) to a purer storytelling game.




Once again, an assumption not shared by all. D&D started as a roleplaying game. Some people play it as a storyteller game but this isn't a universal truth and certainly not how the game began.



ferratus said:


> Now maybe you miss the conceit that D&D had rules for living a mundane existence with an overlay of rules for fantastic elements. I can understand why someone might think was the case, given that the D&D books of prior editions generally had that as one of their design goals. It was a poorly executed dismal failure, but it was a design goal.




Without the mundane as a base there can be no fantastic elements. Everything at that point is simply a standard element.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> Rather, it boils down to whether the game remains a faithful representation of what "D&D" has most consistently meant during my decades-long engagement with it.



And that's perfectly understandable. 

For me though, the game still _is_ a faithful representation of the D&D I've played for decades. My D&D is a fast-paced gonzo fantasy adventure story made from a mish-mash of genre elements. That hasn't changed. 



> I don't *want* D&D, RuneQuest and Dogs in the Vineyard to get homogenized into some theoretically perfect stew.



We're _almost_ there now...


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> And since the previous edition allowed this type of narrative control (where you're controlling other NPC's actions without them having a chance to resist)  in the form of magic... well doesn't that ultimately make these new martial abilities magic?



No.

(In any edition of D&D you can cause a foe to lose HP through a sword blow or a spell. Does that make a sword blow magic?)


----------



## Kask

ExploderWizard said:


> If telekinesis is common enough for the beings of the world to barely notice it then its mundane to them.




Wrong definition.  I am talking about what the cause of an effect is.  NOT the frequency of encountering said cause.  Totally different.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> No.
> 
> (In any edition of D&D you can cause a foe to lose HP through a sword blow or a spell. Does that make a sword blow magic?)




That's why I specifically cited taking over the actions of an NPC controlled by the DM with no chance for it to resist...  That's not comparable to hitting the NPC with a sword, you're still not controlling what it does.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> That's why I specifically cited taking over the actions of an NPC controlled by the DM with no chance for it to resist...  That's not comparable to hitting the NPC with a sword, you're still not controlling what it does.




Ok so a miss chance is the criteria for mundane vrs magic? So then anything that allows a saving throw is mundane? 

Just about all spells in prior editions by this argument are mundane effects.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ariosto said:


> By way of the predicate context, the former referent of the term "D&D".




It seems to me that your statement is purely subjective.

At least in the games that I've played in, gamist narrative elements have often been used, even in previous editions of D&D.

A classic example is the cavalry that rides over the hill just in the nick of time.  Sure, they might have been teleported there via magic, but it could just as easily be the DM creating an exciting scene (and they've been riding for days to get there in time).  

CAGI just puts this power (in a limited sense) within the player's realm of possibility (once per encounter).

It's like an example that another poster in another thread used (sorry, my memory is terrible and I can't seem to locate the post atm).  It's an ability called Master of Disguise (from a game called Spirit of the Century) that allows a character to disappear from a scene and later reappear in the place of an NPC (turns out that the NPC was the character in disguise all along).  It's very gamist/narrativist, but also very cool, IMO.

As I said, this is nothing new to D&D.  Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate were able to alter NPC behavior even in 3.x (it's been a while, but I don't think those proficiencies existed in 2nd ed so there's no real basis for comparison AFAIK).  A Diplomacy specialist at high levels could convert almost any NPC into a fanatical follower with a few (non-magical) words.

CAGI isn't necessarily the best designed ability out there (similar in that sense, perhaps, to high level Diplomacy in 3.x), but it also isn't necessarily magic either.  It's Conan tricking the enemy into closing with him, for example.  Conan wasn't exactly a rocket-scientist, but every now and again he managed to "get one over" on people much smarter than he was.  If ever a situation arises where I say _there's absolutely no way that enemy would do that_, I'd inform the player before he used his power and that's that.  That's partly the reason the DM exists ("No, I don't care what that supplement says, you're animal companion cannot have his own mount".).

CAGI certainly _could_ have a supernatural explanation, but I honestly think anyone who can't admit that it _could_ have a mundane, gamist, narrativist explanation is wearing blinders.  As for which is a better explanation, I certainly admit that it's open to debate.


----------



## Ariosto

Well, I am coming from a perspective but little informed by 3E or even 2E. I have plentiful experience with other RPGs (maybe even a majority of those published in the first decade after D&D), and have generally been on (if not ahead of) the cutting edge in experimental techniques.

I refer back to the "lingua franca" particularly characteristic of D&D in that period when other efforts were making their mark on the very basis of their novelty. The distinction was very notable when I became a RuneQuest enthusiast. Some considered the approach better or worse, but there was no question as to its being *something other* than D&D.


----------



## Scribble

Fanaelialae said:


> CAGI certainly _could_ have a supernatural explanation, but I honestly think anyone who can't admit that it _could_ have a mundane, gamist, narrativist explanation is wearing blinders.  As for which is a better explanation, I certainly admit that it's open to debate.




Exactly. If you wanted to, you could say CaGI is the warrior tapping into some supernatural warrior art. And possibly if you are playing from the "rules dictate what happens in the world" viewpoint then maybe that's the easiest explanation for you? 

It's certainly not the ONLY way it can be explained or utilized, and it most definitely isn't the universaly "most D&D way" to look at the rule.


----------



## Imaro

Scribble said:


> Ok so a miss chance is the criteria for mundane vrs magic? So then anything that allows a saving throw is mundane?
> 
> Just about all spells in prior editions by this argument are mundane effects.




Maybe that's your criteria but I never said that... I cited a specific example of a power in 4e.  The real question would be have their ever been mundane examples of this type of "narrative" control in other editions of D&D that didn't involve magic? 

Your logic is that since A & B share characteristic 1 then A=B without looking at any other characteristics.  Not sound at all.  By this logic all cats have 4 legs...so any animal with 4 legs must be a cat...


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Sure if you've already decided you're not willing to accept an alternative viewpoint to your own, any explaination will fail under examination.




Ironic.

Assuming that you are reading what I've written, rather than just responding blindly, you will know that the viewpoint I am espousing is one that I accepted as being superior to my own, and that my own viewpoint was largely similar to your current viewpoint prior to my accepting it.



Not accepting just any old alternate viewpoint is not the same thing as not accepting a well thought out and internally consistent alternate viewpoint.  One can be (and should be) open-minded without leaving their mind wide open to any old idea that might be out there.


RC


----------



## ferratus

ExploderWizard said:


> Nope. Starting your stated position with this assumption is a bad idea.
> 
> Once again, an assumption not shared by all. D&D started as a roleplaying game. Some people play it as a storyteller game but this isn't a universal truth and certainly not how the game began.




A roleplaying game is all about telling a collaborative story.  Whether the mechanics have the design goal of simulating realistic events, or providing a framework for a narrative, it is primarily about telling a collaborative story.  That's what makes it a roleplaying game rather than strictly a wargame or some other type of game.

You're just trying to have your cake every which way Exploder.  You complain that people have too many superhuman powers in 4e rather than plain mundane powers, but have you actually read 1e - 3e adventures?  You are killing Zuggutmoy the demon lord at 8th level in the Temple of Elemental Evil.  You are knocking down giants left and right in the G-series.  You fight dinosaur sized dragons with 4 foot long peice of metal as part of the very name of the game.  However, there isn't a power that says "leaping strike" or "thunderous blow", so that's all reasonable.  Nevermind that the fighter would have to be doing something superhuman to take on a creature that is 10x his size in melee combat, it is the fact that it is explicit that makes it a problem.  

Then you want to tell me that the game didn't start out as a storytelling game, but then you want to tell me that 4e in other threads (and probably this one too if we go back far enough) that 4e is too much about combat and powers and doesn't have enough storytelling.  You're always contradicting yourself, because you want to claim that certain elements of 4e aren't part of D&D, but D&D has always had them.  The game has always been about superhuman heroics, powerful monsters, common magic, dungeon crawling, and high fantasy.  That's what it is, and that's what it has always been.



> Without the mundane as a base there can be no fantastic elements. Everything at that point is simply a standard element.




Okay, but you should really tone down the fantastic elements if you want the world to be consistent.  A mundane world can only survive with dragons, giants, trolls, and demons hanging around in dungeons if those things are separated from the world somehow.  D20 Modern's concept of shadow perhaps, where supernatural things are kept secret from the world at large.

But people using actual magic?  Creatures that are almost invincible unless slain by demigod adventurers (cause let's face it, that's what a giant slayer is)?  Fireballs which slay entire legions of troops?  How can that world be possibly mundane?  The story simply makes no sense unless you assume that the world itself and the heroes in it are fantastical.   The only reason one could possibly think otherwise would be to swallow a huge amount of suspension of disbelief or even worse, assume its reasonable because you absorbed it at a time when you were too young to really question it.

So 4e went a little more fantastic and mythological for its cosmology, and ditched the mundane "simulation" parts which didn't make sense with the larger story.  I could see someone wanting a world where the fireballs aren't blazing, and giants don't roam the world, but a gritty sword and sorcery type setting where glimpses of fantastic elements intruded into the world... but that isn't any edition of D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Ok so a miss chance is the criteria for mundane vrs magic? So then anything that allows a saving throw is mundane?
> 
> Just about all spells in prior editions by this argument are mundane effects.





Intentionally misunderstanding an argument is a good sign that the person so doing understands how weak their own position is.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

In other words, while it is true that "gamist narrative elements have often been used", the statement is (based on my experience, and on the texts that became more explicit as it was realized that the game appealed to far more than the initially assumed audience) not a very accurate stereotype or archetype of seminal D&D play.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fanaelialae said:


> CAGI just puts this power (in a limited sense) within the player's realm of possibility (once per encounter).




If the *player*, rather than the _*player character *_had this power, then I would agree.  But it is one thing for the DM, or the players, to have the power of gods, and another for the player character to do so.  

"Each player has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" is, in the meta sense still a supernatural power (perhaps signifying how the gods watch out for their chosen).  "Bob the Fighter has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" makes Bob the Fighter the supernatural agency.


RC


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Raven Crowking said:


> If the *player*, rather than the _*player character *_had this power, then I would agree.  But it is one thing for the DM, or the players, to have the power of gods, and another for the player character to do so.
> 
> "Each player has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" is, in the meta sense still a supernatural power (perhaps signifying how the gods watch out for their chosen).  "Bob the Fighter has the ability to use CAGI once per encounter" makes Bob the Fighter the supernatural agency.



It is the player though that has the power. The player has the narrative power over the enemies, the fighter doesn't. The fighter could have been provoking the enemies throughout the fight, but once the player uses the power the player takes narrative control over the enemies and allows the fighter to succeed in provoking the enemy.

In-game to the Fighter it seems like the enemy was finally provoked into charging at him. Not that he actually mentally took control or anything like that.

I dunno, it makes sense to me and fits into other aspects of how I play my games. Like a player declaring that his PC knows someone, the PC doesn't suddenly make this NPC become created through supernatural means it is just the player took narrative control and introduced a NPC, etc.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> That's why I specifically cited taking over the actions of an NPC controlled by the DM with no chance for it to resist...



Once more, with feeling...

The question is, _who_ is taking over the NPC?

In previous editions, use of certain spells allowed a _player character_ to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. This is explicitly described as being magic, the control can be detected by use of magic, often dispelled by use of magic, etc. 

In the new edition, use of certain powers --that shall remain nameless!-- allow the _player_ to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. The _character_ exerts no force whatsoever over the NPC. Nothing occurs in the game world. All that happens is the _player_ gets to decide (in a very proscribed way) what the NPC is going to do next.  

Unlike the charms spells of the previous edition, this does not detect as magic. It cannot be countered by magic. Within the game world's frame of reference it is merely an NPC making a decision (albeit an unwise one). 

Got it?

You may not like this rationale, but it does have the benefit of not contradicting the stated rules.


----------



## Ariosto

I want to clarify that RQ was revolutionary in its day only if one took the "system" as a whole. Parts could be grafted onto an existing campaign without making it any more eccentric than a host of others using elaborations (perhaps very similar) either "home brewed" or cribbed from magazine articles.


----------



## Imaro

Fanaelialae said:


> It seems to me that your statement is purely subjective.
> 
> At least in the games that I've played in, gamist narrative elements have often been used, even in previous editions of D&D.
> 
> A classic example is the cavalry that rides over the hill just in the nick of time. Sure, they might have been teleported there via magic, but it could just as easily be the DM creating an exciting scene (and they've been riding for days to get there in time).
> 
> CAGI just puts this power (in a limited sense) within the player's realm of possibility (once per encounter).
> 
> It's like an example that another poster in another thread used (sorry, my memory is terrible and I can't seem to locate the post atm). It's an ability called Master of Disguise (from a game called Spirit of the Century) that allows a character to disappear from a scene and later reappear in the place of an NPC (turns out that the NPC was the character in disguise all along). It's very gamist/narrativist, but also very cool, IMO.
> 
> As I said, this is nothing new to D&D. Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate were able to alter NPC behavior even in 3.x (it's been a while, but I don't think those proficiencies existed in 2nd ed so there's no real basis for comparison AFAIK). A Diplomacy specialist at high levels could convert almost any NPC into a fanatical follower with a few (non-magical) words.
> 
> CAGI isn't necessarily the best designed ability out there (similar in that sense, perhaps, to high level Diplomacy in 3.x), but it also isn't necessarily magic either. It's Conan tricking the enemy into closing with him, for example. Conan wasn't exactly a rocket-scientist, but every now and again he managed to "get one over" on people much smarter than he was. If ever a situation arises where I say _there's absolutely no way that enemy would do that_, I'd inform the player before he used his power and that's that. That's partly the reason the DM exists ("No, I don't care what that supplement says, you're animal companion cannot have his own mount".).
> 
> CAGI certainly _could_ have a supernatural explanation, but I honestly think anyone who can't admit that it _could_ have a mundane, gamist, narrativist explanation is wearing blinders. As for which is a better explanation, I certainly admit that it's open to debate.





I see alot of points I want to address in this argument but let me just hit two points...

As far as Spirit of the Century goes, it explicitely presents a meta-game resource that allows one to bend the narrative... mainly aspects. Otherwise, without the meta-game mechanic of "aspects" this becomes magic, plain and simple. Where in 4e are powers stated to be this type of mechanic, and if so then what are spells? The fact of the matter is that unlike Spirit of the Century that specifically states this is a mechanic to affect the narrative of the story... D&D 4e states nothing, and in fact since spells are the same type of mechanic (a power) as martial exploits one would assume they operate on the same principle and that one isn't magic and the other narative control.

Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. skills in 3.5 do not allow one to dictate the actual actions of an NPC... how they respond to your lie, con, friendliness, or whatever is still very much in the DM's hand. Yes their actions are and should be influenced by your skill check, but the NPC never falls under your control.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> Once more, with feeling...
> 
> The question is, _who_ is taking over the NPC?
> 
> In previous editions, use of certain spells allowed a _player character_ to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. This is explicitly described as being magic, the control can be detected by use of magic, often dispelled by use of magic, etc.
> 
> In the new edition, use of certain powers --that shall remain nameless!-- allow the _player_ to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. The _character_ exerts no force whatsoever over the NPC. Nothing occurs in the game world. All that happens is the _player_ gets to decide (in a very proscribed way) what the NPC is going to do next.
> 
> Unlike the charms spells of the previous edition, this does not detect as magic. It cannot be countered by magic. Within the game world's frame of reference it is merely an NPC making a decision (albeit an unwise one).
> 
> Got it?
> 
> You may not like this rationale, but it does have the benefit of not contradicting the stated rules.




First Mallus, this has nothing to do with what I do or don't like... nowhere in the 3 4e corebooks is narrative control as it pertains to powers ever discussed, so honestly I see this as a cop out. You see the other rpg's I've played that allowed narrative control were generally explicit in signifying this to the people playing through explanation of the rules.  

So wait, after I as the player make the NPC's move adjacent to my fighter...is it me or the character who then attacks the NPC's that I as the player and not player character made move there?  I mean it's still part of the same power... right?

Second going by your explanation that means depending on which class you pick then the nature of what a power is changes? Are you seriously arguing that when I play a Warlock my player character uses his actual powers... but if I play a Fighter he doesn't actually use any powers... instead I as the person playing him does...Uhm, ok if you say so. But how about we ascribe to Occam's razor, though I realize you may not like this answer, and go with a simpler answer...magic?


----------



## Ariosto

Ferratus: Your conflation of "role playing" with "story telling" -- or perhaps more accurately making the former subservient to the latter -- is historically parochial and naive. The evolution has led to a species of game I consider most worthy of recognition, and quite enjoyable to play ... but a distinctive species nonetheless.


----------



## ferratus

Imaro said:


> The fact of the matter is that unlike Spirit of the Century that specifically states this is a mechanic to affect the narrative of the story... D&D 4e states nothing, and in fact since spells are the same type of mechanic (a power) as martial exploits one would assume they operate on the same principle and that one isn't magic and the other narative control.




If you misunderstand the rules and then adamantly refuse to be corrected.  The flavour text is quite clear on whether each power is or isn't magical.  You were the one that inserted the meta-narrative that the power had to be magical, because in prior editions only spells allowed players to take control of the actions of monsters and NPC's.  Though of course, that assumption has problems too (see below).



> Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. skills in 3.5 do not allow one to dictate the actual actions of an NPC... how they respond to your lie, con, friendliness, or whatever is still very much in the DM's hand. Yes their actions are and should be influenced by your skill check, but the NPC never falls under your control.




Sure it does.  There is a difficulty class for a diplomacy or bluff check to succeed, you roll to beat that DC, and if you succeed the NPC acts accordingly.  If you want to provoke an enemy into attacking you, you roll to beat a defense, and if you succeed the enemy attacks you.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Maybe that's your criteria but I never said that... I cited a specific example of a power in 4e.  The real question would be have their ever been mundane examples of this type of "narrative" control in other editions of D&D that didn't involve magic?
> 
> Your logic is that since A & B share characteristic 1 then A=B without looking at any other characteristics.  Not sound at all.  By this logic all cats have 4 legs...so any animal with 4 legs must be a cat...




You stated that because it "takes control" of an NPC without that NPC having any chance to avoid that control then it's magic. 

This argument implies that if it allowed a miss chance then it would be mundane. 

Plenty of spells in previous editions have allowed saving throws. Why are they not viewed as mundane?

If a spell can have a miss chance and still be magic, then why can't a mundane effect NOT have a miss chance and still be mundane?




Raven Crowking said:


> Ironic.
> 
> Assuming that you are reading what I've written, rather than just responding blindly, you will know that the viewpoint I am espousing is one that I accepted as being superior to my own, and that my own viewpoint was largely similar to your current viewpoint prior to my accepting it.




I'm saying that Mallus has explained a viewpoint that works for him, and others as well.  

Just because you dissagree with his statement doesn't mean his explaination "failed."

Kask indicated that he couldn't believe how anyone could still be viewing CaGI as non magic.

Malus gave a reason why others might still be doing so.

Stateing that his viewpoint "failed" in this case indicates that you seem to be saying his viewpoint could not possibly be valid for himself, or others that agree with him. So yes, I feel in this case you are deciding without allowing for individual viewpoints on rules interpretation that his answer has failed, without accepting that others play in a different style.




Raven Crowking said:


> Intentionally misunderstanding an argument is a good sign that the person so doing understands how weak their own position is.




Good thing I wasn't doing that, so I'd appreciate an end to the snide remarks.


----------



## Imaro

Scribble said:


> You stated that because it "takes control" of an NPC without that NPC having any chance to avoid that control then it's magic.
> 
> This argument implies that if it allowed a miss chance then it would be mundane.




No it doesn't you are focusing on one component and runing with it, read my previous response to your post about cats and 4-legged animals.



Scribble said:


> Plenty of spells in previous editions have allowed saving throws. Why are they not viewed as mundane?




Because they ascribe to all the other defining characteristics of spells that mundane abilities do not... as an example, a mundane ability cannot be put on a scroll and used by another...



Scribble said:


> If a spell can have a miss chance and still be magic, then why can't a mundane effect NOT have a miss chance and still be mundane?




 The problem is that if it has every other (or even just a majority) of the same characteristic of a spell (like taking explicit control of a DM's NPC)...plus the spell characteristic of "not having a miss chance" then it's effectively become magic (or the two have become so muddled there is no differentiation which for all practical purposes is the same thing)... regardless of what you try to label it.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ariosto said:


> In other words, while it is true that "gamist narrative elements have often been used", the statement is (based on my experience, and on the texts that became more explicit as it was realized that the game appealed to far more than the initially assumed audience) not a very accurate stereotype or archetype of seminal D&D play.




While I can't say how an "archetypal" D&D group might play, my personal experiences run directly counter to your research.  Gamist and narrativist tropes have always had a strong presence in our D&D games.  

I'm not saying every group plays this way, or even that it's the "right way" to play (frankly, I don't believe that there is a right way beyond having fun).  It is the way _my_ group and some seemingly significant number of others play, and have always played D&D (though some editions support this play style better than others).

4E is pretty close to my ideal of the "perfect edition of D&D" because it supports my play style better than previous editions did.  You might argue that it is because earlier editions of D&D were never meant for my play style, but it certainly seemed to work even back then (I just had to bodge the rules harder than I do with 4E; let's face it, a great many groups have house ruled D&D over the years for various reasons related to play style).

IMO, 2nd and earlier editions weren't strongly biased towards any one part of the G/S/N "division".  They were what they were (early RPGs).  3.x was designed to be very simulationist, whereas 4E is much more gamist and narrativist.  I honestly believe that D&D has room for all three elements, and that all three have shaped it through its birth and evolution.  I'm not saying that 4E is the epitome of D&D.  Just one incarnation in the evolution thereof.


----------



## Kask

Fanaelialae said:


> While I can't say how an "archetypal" D&D group might play, my personal experiences run directly counter to your research.  Gamist and narrativist tropes have always had a strong presence in our D&D games.




Must be some new direction.  In 30+ years I've never seen it.  Whether it was playing with the creator of RPGs, tournament play, etc., etc.  Safe to say it wasn't a design consideration of the 1st 4 editions...


----------



## Ariosto

I regard it as notably less versatile, due to its rules-heaviness (which both influences practical concerns and serves as an attitudinal selective filter).


----------



## Imaro

ferratus said:


> If you misunderstand the rules and then adamantly refuse to be corrected. The flavour text is quite clear on whether each power is or isn't magical. You were the one that inserted the meta-narrative that the power had to be magical, because in prior editions only spells allowed players to take control of the actions of monsters and NPC's. Though of course, that assumption has problems too (see below).




I'm sorry, but what? What "rules" am I misunderstanding? Since you follow this up with talk about flavor text I really need some clarification here. In fact most of the flavor text doesn't explicitly state that a power is magical or mundane... it's descriptive in nature, gives a visual, but doesn't go into how something was accomplished... but nice try. As far as the meta-narrative... I don't think you understand what you're talking about. The meta-narrative "control" explanation is the opposite of it being magic...not the same, but whatever.




ferratus said:


> Sure it does. There is a difficulty class for a diplomacy or bluff check to succeed, you roll to beat that DC, and if you succeed the NPC acts accordingly. If you want to provoke an enemy into attacking you, you roll to beat a defense, and if you succeed the enemy attacks you.




Uhm, you roll to beat the DC and the NPC acts accordingly does not equal... you dictate what the NPC does. As an, admittedly contrived, example... if you don't know enough about the NPC you can predict wrong how they will respond to a lie...

Player A: " old man there's a monster in the cellar of your inn, a beast with slavering jaws and eyes the color of blood." I rolled a 20 plus 10 is total 30.

DM: A gleam apppears in the old man's usually dull eyes, he reaches behind the bar and pulss an old blade from beneath it. "Come on lad, enough chater it's time to deal with that bugger."

Player A: What! That's not fair... I wanted to scare him so he'd leave the inn and I could rob the place.

DM: Well, old Grondar here used to be an adventurer and has been missing the old days... he's ready for a little action...of course he's gonna be a little p'd there really is no monster.

Now how is Player A controlling the NPC by making a Bluff check again? Whether the NPC believes the lie is decided by the roll... how he reacts to it is determined by the DM.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> No it doesn't you are focusing on one component and runing with it, read my previous response to your post about cats and 4-legged animals.




Sure, I understand your comment, but I was responding to your comment about the sword swipe.

He said a sword swipe takes control of the enemy by saying that enemy HAS to take damage.

I was commenting on your response.




> Because they ascribe to all the other defining characteristics of spells that mundane abilities do not... as an example, a mundane ability cannot be put on a scroll and used by another...




Maybe this would be easier if you listed what you thought the characteristics of spells vrs mundane must be? (Or did you do this and I missed it? I was out yesterday so I admittedly hurredly cought up on the thread.)

What are the characteristics of something mundane in the game?




> The problem is that if it has every other (or even just a majority) of the same characteristic of a spell (like taking explicit control of a DM's NPC)...plus the spell characteristic of "not having a miss chance" then it's effectively become magic (or the two have become so muddled there is no differentiation which for all practical purposes is the same thing)... regardless of what you try to label it.




So then conversely, if we had a spell that has many of the characteristics of a mundane effect then it would be mundane?

I don't really agree with this viewpoint, as for instance, a "car" has many of the characteristics of a living creature, but it's still not a living creature.

Even from the viewpoint of rules describe the game world, I think it's possible for two effects to have many of the same characteristics and still not be the same.

Please understand, Imaro, I'm not looking to make your argument prove 'wrong." If this is how you view things, I'm cool with it. It's just alien to how I view game rules, so I don't instinctively jive to your way of seeing the rules. 

As I've said before, my view of the rules is that they do not describe the game world so for me it doesn't matter if two different effects utilize the same rule set. 

So in effect it doesn't matter to me that the in game "rules" effectively allow the player to "take control" of the NPC because that's not how I'm seeing it or describing it.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Kask said:


> Must be some new direction.  In 30+ years I've never seen it.  Whether it was playing with the creator of RPGs, tournament play, etc., etc.  Safe to say it wasn't a design consideration of the 1st 4 editions...




As scintillating as this conversation's been, you'll have to excuse me.  I have some badwrongfun to prep for this weekend.


----------



## Bumbles

Imaro said:


> Because they ascribe to all the other defining characteristics of spells that mundane abilities do not... as an example, a mundane ability cannot be put on a scroll and used by another...




That explains my VCR instructions.

Thanks!


----------



## Imaro

Bumbles said:


> That explains my VCR instructions.
> 
> Thanks!




Hey no problem... though I'd be curious to see VCR instructions on a D&D 3.5 scroll...or were you just being witty and I missed it.


----------



## Ariosto

It is easier to "break the old rules" by telling Lydia that her character can attack 8 foes in 6 seconds with 1 thrown dagger than to "break the new rules" by saying that she cannot.

In the latter case, it is an entitlement she has purchased via the resource-allocation sub-game. To deny that is to start down a slippery slope that quickly ends in wondering to what end one has invested so much money in purchasing, and so much time and energy in digesting, so many pages of rules.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Uhm, you roll to beat the DC and the NPC acts accordingly does not equal... you dictate what the NPC does. As an, admittedly contrived, example... if you don't know enough about the NPC you can predict wrong how they will respond to a lie...




Going by the rules as written for intimidate for example:

If you beat the check you can force the NPC to act on your behalf, or be friendly towards you. The "effect" lasts while you're in their pressence.

You can also cause them to gain the "shaken" effect while in combat.

Why are these not the same as spells? You are effecting the nature of the NPC (it can no longer act hostily) or casuing it to gain some type of effect, for a durration of time.


----------



## Bumbles

Imaro said:


> Hey no problem... though I'd be curious to see VCR instructions on a D&D 3.5 scroll...or were you just being witty and I missed it.




Well, I'm pretty sure it's not a magical item.

I think somebody cursed the toaster though.


----------



## RefinedBean

Hey guys, I'm back.  I brought donuts!

I'm thinking we should all get together and really hash this stuff out over a beer at GenCon.  And then play some Dread.

At any rate, maybe part of the problem we're all encountering in coming to a consensus (because, you know, I assume we're going SOMEWHERE with this debate  ) is that the words "mundane" and "magical" are really very loaded.  Dependent on setting, group preference.

Regardless of edition, are a Fighter's abilities "mundane?"  Are a monk's abilities "magical?"  Where do we draw the line between them?  The thing is, there's many, MANY ways we could draw that line, because we all have different attitudes/thoughts on the matter.

I mean honestly, if we wanted to answer the OP's question in the thread title, I think we could all conclude that magic is equally important for both editions.  It's D&D.  There's gonna be magic, in one way or another, and it's probably going to be important.

That was a bit rant-y, apologies.  Long day so far.


----------



## Scribble

bumbles said:


> well, i'm pretty sure it's not a magical item.
> 
> I think somebody cursed the toaster though.




action frank!!!!


----------



## Imaro

Scribble said:


> Going by the rules as written for intimidate for example:
> 
> If you beat the check you can force the NPC to act on your behalf, or be friendly towards you. The "effect" lasts while you're in their pressence.
> 
> You can also cause them to gain the "shaken" effect while in combat.
> 
> Why are these not the same as spells? You are effecting the nature of the NPC (it can no longer act hostily) or casuing it to gain some type of effect, for a durration of time.




Scribble I'll try to explain this but I feel like you may just not see the difference no matter what I post...

The Intimidate skill, and I'm looking at it right now still does not give a player control over an NPC... yes the PC is influenced by you but he will still act towards that influence in the manner the DM sees fit. The same as I presented in my example, you don't get to dictate what the NPC does, where he goes or anything else.

Shaken in and of itself does not allow you to control the actions of an NPC, plain and simple...like intimidate it creates a condition on the NPC but it is still nowhere near forcing the NPC to do what you want it to do over what the DM, consistency, common sense or anything else would have it do in that situation.

I already went through some of the characteristics of spells that differentiate them from other abilities...affected by anti-magic, can be dispelled, placed on scrolls, couterspelled, components needed etc. Not going to list all of them but hopefully you get the jist.


----------



## ExploderWizard

ferratus said:


> A roleplaying game is all about telling a collaborative story. Whether the mechanics have the design goal of simulating realistic events, or providing a framework for a narrative, it is primarily about telling a collaborative story. That's what makes it a roleplaying game rather than strictly a wargame or some other type of game.




Not at all. A roleplaying game is about portraying a fictional character within a given game world. Simulation/realism is a separate issue from this and isn't connected. If you are participating in a roleplaying game, then you are deciding how your character will respond to events in the game as opposed to actively telling a story during such participation. After the action takes place, a story may be made out the events.



ferratus said:


> You're just trying to have your cake every which way Exploder. You complain that people have too many superhuman powers in 4e rather than plain mundane powers, but have you actually read 1e - 3e adventures? You are killing Zuggutmoy the demon lord at 8th level in the Temple of Elemental Evil. You are knocking down giants left and right in the G-series. You fight dinosaur sized dragons with 4 foot long peice of metal as part of the very name of the game. However, there isn't a power that says "leaping strike" or "thunderous blow", so that's all reasonable. Nevermind that the fighter would have to be doing something superhuman to take on a creature that is 10x his size in melee combat, it is the fact that it is explicit that makes it a problem.




Well I do loves me some cake. Too many powers is a minor issue. The bigger problem is the lack of definition between the magical and mundane. The blending of it all together into "superpowers" is an unwanted genre shift to me. If I want to play a supers game I will, there is no need to morph a fantasy game into one. This has nothing to do with the scale of the abilities. D&D has always featured a steadily rising power curve. The only "realism" that has ever been important (to me) has been the relative consistent reality of the game world, which includes magic that is identifiable as such.I have never seen a game in which humans fighting huge dragons ever approached what I would call realistic.



ferratus said:


> *Then you want to tell me that the game didn't start out as a storytelling game,* but then you want to tell me that 4e in other threads (and probably this one too if we go back far enough) that 4e is too much about combat and powers and doesn't have enough storytelling. .




[bolded part] I do want to tell you, because its a fact.

IMHO 4E is too much about about combat. The rules presentation supports the grid first/ world second approach to the game.I also have stated on more than one occasion that 4E does not inhibit roleplaying and I stand by that. Unless the mad-cow has advanced in my brain, I do not recall complaining about a lack of storytelling.



ferratus said:


> You're always contradicting yourself, because you want to claim that certain elements of 4e aren't part of D&D, but D&D has always had them. The game has always been about superhuman heroics, powerful monsters, common magic, dungeon crawling, and high fantasy. That's what it is, and that's what it has always been.




Yes. I never claimed that D&D at its core was an implied low magic game. Please enlighten me about these contadictions. 4E has adjusted the scale of things to remove the " zero to hero" aspect of power gain that had been there before. Fledgling adventurers are virtual X-men at 1st level in 4E which is a dramatic change from prior editions.




ferratus said:


> Okay, but you should really tone down the fantastic elements if you want the world to be consistent. A mundane world can only survive with dragons, giants, trolls, and demons hanging around in dungeons if those things are separated from the world somehow. D20 Modern's concept of shadow perhaps, where supernatural things are kept secret from the world at large.
> 
> But people using actual magic? Creatures that are almost invincible unless slain by demigod adventurers (cause let's face it, that's what a giant slayer is)? Fireballs which slay entire legions of troops? How can that world be possibly mundane? The story simply makes no sense unless you assume that the world itself and the heroes in it are fantastical. The only reason one could possibly think otherwise would be to swallow a huge amount of suspension of disbelief or even worse, assume its reasonable because you absorbed it at a time when you were too young to really question it.




Why tone down fantastic elements? Its a fantasy world and I think it should have them. Heroes are powerful beings and get to operate outside the regular laws of the world, and thats called magic or supernatural power. If there is no underlying mundane world how do the heroes stand out from everyone else? Old D&D took a semi-medieval world and overlayed a layer of the fantastic. This made the fantasy elements really stand out. If the whole world is over the top fantastical then everything seems kind of the same.



ferratus said:


> So 4e went a little more fantastic and mythological for its cosmology, and ditched the mundane "simulation" parts which didn't make sense with the larger story. I could see someone wanting a world where the fireballs aren't blazing, and giants don't roam the world, but a gritty sword and sorcery type setting where glimpses of fantastic elements intruded into the world... but that isn't any edition of D&D.




I see 4E as world where fireballs aren't blazing. Can you really kill anything but a constructed pinata monster with that thing?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fallen Seraph said:


> It is the player though that has the power. The player has the narrative power over the enemies, the fighter doesn't.




Hogwash.

You can say that the player has the power to choose to attack a goblin, and the fighter does not, with no difference whatsoever.

If a player has a power, then the player can exercise that power regardless of the character being used.....regardless of whether or not a character is used at all.  

In one campaign I ran, for instance, players were given Swashbuckler Cards.  These cards were used by the player, regardless of the character, and could be used regardless of whether the character was conscious, unconscious, living, or dead.  They were an asset that the _*player*_ had, not the character.

Conversely, if my 3.5 wizard memorizes _sleep_, then the ability to cast sleep is an ability that the character has, not the player.  The player decides when the character uses that ability, but the ability does not reside with the player.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> Once more, with feeling...
> 
> The question is, _who_ is taking over the NPC?
> 
> In previous editions, use of certain spells allowed a _player character_ to control an NPC being controlled by the DM. This is explicitly described as being magic, the control can be detected by use of magic, often dispelled by use of magic, etc.
> 
> In the new edition, use of certain powers --that shall remain nameless!-- allow the _player_ to control an NPC being controlled by the DM.




Hogwash, for reasons described above.


----------



## Kask

ExploderWizard, have you tried C&C?  It is much closer to actual D&D than 4.0 and has the flavor that made D&D a worldwide phenomenon.


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> If a player has a power, then the player can exercise that power regardless of the character being used.....regardless of whether or not a character is used at all.




What?


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Scribble I'll try to explain this but I feel like you may just not see the difference no matter what I post...




Possibly, but not intentionally. I honestly don't understand how you see a difference.



> The Intimidate skill, and I'm looking at it right now still does not give a player control over an NPC... yes the PC is influenced by you but he will still act towards that influence in the manner the DM sees fit.




But the same is true for many spells. I guess that's what is confusing to me. I feel like you've given elements that make a mundane thing into a spell, but not the reverse, and I feel that's equaly important.



> The same as I presented in my example, you don't get to dictate what the NPC does, where he goes or anything else.




Sure you do. You are dictating that the enemy stop being hostile. 



> Shaken in and of itself does not allow you to control the actions of an NPC, plain and simple...like intimidate it creates a condition on the NPC but it is still nowhere near forcing the NPC to do what you want it to do over what the DM, consistency, common sense or anything else would have it do in that situation.




Ok I can accept that for the shaken part, and going by your points below, it's not a spell. (It doesn't go on a scroll, it can't be counterspelled, isn't effected by anitmagic, doesn't require components well I guess you could say maybe verbal and somantic...)

Which is why I guess this way of thinking is weird for me. Because essentialy I see the same overal effect if you DID make a spell for achieving this effect, so a "spell" version wouldn't need to be handled in a different way. The same end result applies, so why do I need a second system to handle it? It just seems redundant to someone like me. 



> I already went through some of the characteristics of spells that differentiate them from other abilities...affected by anti-magic, can be dispelled, placed on scrolls, couterspelled, components needed etc. Not going to list all of them but hopefully you get the jist.




Ok so Cagi:

Can't be counterspelled, dispelled, or effected by antimagic, can't be placed on a scroll, and doesn't need components (unless you count weapon?)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> I'm saying that Mallus has explained a viewpoint that works for him, and others as well.
> 
> Just because you dissagree with his statement doesn't mean his explaination "failed."




No.  The statement fails because it doesn't address the actual qualities of the power it attempts to explain.  It works for Mallus because he ignores certain qualities of that power (or those powers).  This is a valid way to play the game, and a successful way to house rule, but it is not a successful way to explain the power within the context of the actual RAW.

If, in 3.5, I said that the paladin's pokemount worked for me because its extadimensional homespace represented it wandering green fields in the material plane, this would be a valid way to play the game, and a successful way to house rule, but not a successful way to explain the power within the context of the actual RAW.  Claiming that the pokemount wasn't magical on the basis of this interpretaion would be naive, at best.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Good thing I wasn't doing that, so I'd appreciate an end to the snide remarks.




Scribble, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  

If you really don't understand an argument that says "X is magic because it has qualities 1, 2, 3, and 4" does not imply that anything with quality 4 must also be magic, then I have no words.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> What?




If a player has a power, then it resides with the player.  It can be used regardless of the character.

If a character has a power, then it resides with the character.  It can only be used because of the qualities of the character selected.

"Decide when my character attacks" is a player power.

"Cast _sleep_" is a character power, and so is CAGI.

Or is the meaningful distinction between a "player power" and a "character power" to be, rather than where the power resides, how weird it might seem that the power resides where it does?  I.e., "Anything which makes no sense within the context of the game is a player power!  Woot!"




RC


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I see it as a combo. The character/class is trying to perform certain deeds. The Fighter with his CaGI is trying to provoke the enemies, this is a aspect of this character and class. The player aspect is the player decides when he actually manages to perform this and thus also dictates the movement of the enemies.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Can't be counterspelled, dispelled, or effected by antimagic, can't be placed on a scroll, and doesn't need components (unless you count weapon?)




No weapon needed.



> If a player has a power, then it resides with the player. It can be used regardless of the character.
> 
> If a character has a power, then it resides with the character. It can only be used because of the qualities of the character selected.




  CAGI is a character power. The explanation for how it works is anything that the Player/DM wants it to be. If you are unable to imagine the power working through anything but magic, then call it magic, change it, or ban it. Either way, the only thing obstructing you is your own preferences and hang-ups. 

  There are many ways to interpret the power. The only "correct" interpretation is that slides enemies two squares and then the fighter makes an attack. Everything else is fluff.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Kask said:


> ExploderWizard, have you tried C&C? It is much closer to actual D&D than 4.0 and has the flavor that made D&D a worldwide phenomenon.




Yes I have and its not a bad game at all. It just doesn't give me exactly the game I want. I am currently working on that project.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fallen Seraph said:


> I see it as a combo. The character/class is trying to perform certain deeds. The Fighter with his CaGI is trying to provoke the enemies, this is a aspect of this character and class. The player aspect is the player decides when he actually manages to perform this and thus also dictates the movement of the enemies.




Like the 3.5 wizard is constantly trying to cast _sleep_, and the player determines when he succeeds enough to require a save?

You can play the game that way.  It is a valid way to play.  It is a valid house rule.  It is not the RAW.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> If a player has a power, then it resides with the player.  It can be used regardless of the character.
> 
> If a character has a power, then it resides with the character.  It can only be used because of the qualities of the character selected.
> 
> "Decide when my character attacks" is a player power.
> 
> "Cast _sleep_" is a character power, and so is CAGI.
> 
> Or is the meaningful distinction between a "player power" and a "character power" to be, rather than where the power resides, how weird it might seem that the power resides where it does?  I.e., "Anything which makes no sense within the context of the game is a player power!  Woot!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RC




Ah.  I was just a little confused with you saying a player can use a power without using a character, which doesn't make sense.  Thanks for the clarification!

Might want to stay away from the word "power," though, considering it's a 4E term now.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Scribble, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> If you really don't understand an argument that says "X is magic because it has qualities 1, 2, 3, and 4" does not imply that anything with quality 4 must also be magic, then I have no words.
> 
> 
> RC




Thats not what was being argued, however. You seem to be misprepresenting my argument- Perhaps you fail to understand it?




> No. The statement fails because it doesn't address the actual qualities of the power it attempts to explain.




That's not what was being addressed.



As to player vrs Character power...

All powers are powers are elements players can use to interact with the game. A character is a collection of such powers bound by various rules as to how they can be collected and used.

Players might have other powers not linked to the character.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Well, my point was that it doesn't make sense.

CAGI is not a player power; it is a character power.


RC


----------



## Imaro

Scribble said:


> Possibly, but not intentionally. I honestly don't understand how you see a difference.




Then perhaps this discussion is hopeless because from reading your answer to the intimidate scenario I'm starting to think you aren't trying.





Scribble said:


> But the same is true for many spells. I guess that's what is confusing to me. I feel like you've given elements that make a mundane thing into a spell, but not the reverse, and I feel that's equaly important.




No I have listed common mechanics that make something magic in 3.5... now if you can't do the same in 4th edition it actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument that it's all magic.





Scribble said:


> Sure you do. You are dictating that the enemy stop being hostile.




You honestly don't see the differnce between limitations and the dictating of an exact action you must perform? Really? It's the differnce between you can't hit me (but you can do anything else you want) and ...you must hit me now and nothing else. One is influencing yet not actual control over actions... the second is actual control.





Scribble said:


> Ok I can accept that for the shaken part, and going by your points below, it's not a spell. (It doesn't go on a scroll, it can't be counterspelled, isn't effected by anitmagic, doesn't require components well I guess you could say maybe verbal and somantic...)




Yep, in 3.5 there was differentiation between magic and mundane through the actual mechanics.



Scribble said:


> Which is why I guess this way of thinking is weird for me. Because essentialy I see the same overal effect if you DID make a spell for achieving this effect, so a "spell" version wouldn't need to be handled in a different way. The same end result applies, so why do I need a second system to handle it? It just seems redundant to someone like me.




But if it isn't handled in a different way (regardless of what you do or don't prefer) then everything becomes magic or nothing becomes magic... in other words the distinction becomes meaningless complexity.





Scribble said:


> Ok so Cagi:
> 
> Can't be counterspelled, dispelled, or effected by antimagic, can't be placed on a scroll, and doesn't need components (unless you count weapon?)




You realize this is for 3.5 right? CaGI doesn't exist in 3.5... just as many of these characteristics & mechanics for magic no longer exist to differentiate it in 4e. So you tell me what differentiates magic powers (not necessarily arcane) from mundane powers in 4e?


----------



## Mad Mac

> You can play the game that way. It is a valid way to play. It is a valid house rule. It is not the RAW.




  This is the RAW in regards to powers:

*Flavor Text*

The next section of a power description gives a brief explanation of what the power does, sometimes including information about what it looks or sounds like. A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you *might* describe it when you use use it. _You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like._ When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows. 

  EG, raw is that the fluff of the power is whatever you want it to be. 

  This, for reference, is the flavor text for Come and Get it

_You call your opponents towards you and deliver a blow they'll never forget. _


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:


> If a player has a power, then the player can exercise that power regardless of the character being used.....regardless of whether or not a character is used at all.



Are you certain? Having an active character is a prerequisite for using the power? Can all powers have an effect independent of the game world?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Thats not what was being argued, however. You seem to be misprepresenting my argument- Perhaps you fail to understand it?




If you insist.

I could go back and make nested quote boxes, but perhaps it's best to simply agree with you?



> That's not what was being addressed.




If you insist.

I could go back and make nested quote boxes, but perhaps it's best to simply agree with you?

After all, if you are responding to me (responding to Mallus), it should be obvious to all that I know what was being addressed that you responded to.



> All powers are powers are elements players can use to interact with the game. A character is a collection of such powers bound by various rules as to how they can be collected and used.
> 
> Players might have other powers not linked to the character.




That's a limiting definition of "character" & does nothing to make CAGI a player power.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

RC, could you elaborate on how a "character power" is different from a "player power?"  If a player utilizes one of his character's powers, doesn't it automatically become a "player power?"

Could you also elaborate on why this is important to the discussion?  Are you saying that only "character powers" can be magic?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mad Mac said:


> This is the RAW in regards to powers:
> 
> *Flavor Text*
> 
> The next section of a power description gives a brief explanation of what the power does, sometimes including information about what it looks or sounds like. A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you *might* describe it when you use use it. _You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like._ When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows.
> 
> EG, raw is that the fluff of the power is whatever you want it to be.
> 
> This, for reference, is the flavor text for Come and Get it
> 
> _You call your opponents towards you and deliver a blow they'll never forget. _





The RAW says that you can change what the power looks like; this is not the same thing as saying that a power is mutable in its basic qualities.  So you can change what "You call your opponents towards you" looks like and you can change what "deliver a blow they'll never forget" looks like, but it is still a power used by the character, and it still allows the character to control the actions of others.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> but it is still a power used by the character, and it still allows the character to control the actions of others.




Right, but where in RAW does it say that controlling the actions of others has to be magic?


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> RC, could you elaborate on how a "character power" is different from a "player power?"  If a player utilizes one of his character's powers, doesn't it automatically become a "player power?"
> 
> Could you also elaborate on why this is important to the discussion?  Are you saying that only "character powers" can be magic?




See upthread, as these questions have been answered already.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> Right, but where in RAW does it say that controlling the actions of others has to be magic?




Sorry, but just to be clear, are you agreeing that when using CAGI the character controls (not influences) the actions of others?

And are you then suggesting that controlling (not influencing) the actions of others is a "naturally" occuring phenomenon within the context of the 4e implied setting?


RC


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Then perhaps this discussion is hopeless because from reading your answer to the intimidate scenario I'm starting to think you aren't trying.




Feel how you want I guess.  




> No I have listed common mechanics that make something magic in 3.5... now if you can't do the same in 4th edition it actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument that it's all magic.




Only if you're looking at it from the viewpoint that the rules MUST dictate the environment. I don't, and 4e works well for that.

A green ball of flame that springs forth from nothingness. A powerful force gripping your mind compelling you to do something...

Each of these might use the exact same rules as something described  as mundane, but because the description of the outcome is different, at my table in my game they FEEL different.

That's the gist of it I would say. 4e works for me because it doesn't try to differentiate effects (as much) in game by using rules to do so.

If thats how YOU need a game to be set up in order to feel a difference, that's fine I'm cool with people playing however they want or looking for whatever they want in a game.

I just get irked when people say a game is poorly designed because it fails to meet THEIR specific wants in a rules system. 




> You honestly don't see the differnce between limitations and the dictating of an exact action you must perform? Really? It's the differnce between you can't hit me (but you can do anything else you want) and ...you must hit me now and nothing else. One is influencing yet not actual control over actions... the second is actual control.




I can say the same thing about the opposite.

You honestly see a difference here? Both are dictating actions, both are forcing control over the NPC. 



> Yep, in 3.5 there was differentiation between magic and mundane through the actual mechanics.




Which is fine if that's what you want.



> But if it isn't handled in a different way (regardless of what you do or don't prefer) then everything becomes magic or nothing becomes magic... in other words the distinction becomes meaningless complexity.




From your side of the fence maybe. From my side, the rules difference is needless complexity.




> You realize this is for 3.5 right? CaGI doesn't exist in 3.5... just as many of these characteristics & mechanics for magic no longer exist to differentiate it in 4e. So you tell me what differentiates magic powers (not necessarily arcane) from mundane powers in 4e?




Largely descriptive elements, which I feel is how it should be.

An arrow and a magic missle might use the same mechanics, but they are described differently at the table, and thus feel different.


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> Maybe that's your criteria but I never said that... I cited a specific example of a power in 4e.  The real question would be have their ever been mundane examples of this type of "narrative" control in other editions of D&D that didn't involve magic?




Wandering monster tables.  

They create a "Schrodinger's Dungeon", where no one can be sure what's in the dungeon until the DM makes the roll on the wandering monster table.

The implies setting of pre 4E-D&D is that all PCs are inherently magical, with the ability to create monsters out of nothing.


----------



## Intense_Interest

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, my point was that it doesn't make sense.  CAGI is not a player power; it is a character power.




How?  Is there a detection device in your 4E campaigns that pings when a Player is using a power versus a Character?  You say there is a line in the sand when there isn't any, because the system is vague on that point _just so that_ in-world explanations can be crafted to meet the desires of the group instead of being judged from afar by people arguing on the internet!

My group doesn't say that the Dwarf Fighter reaches into his bag of powers and strikes the enemy with his Brute Strike paint-gun.  And you can't tell me any different, either.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Sorry, but just to be clear, are you agreeing that when using CAGI the character controls (not influences) the actions of others?
> 
> And are you then suggesting that controlling (not influencing) the actions of others is a "naturally" occuring phenomenon within the context of the 4e implied setting?




  When the character uses the power, enemies who are already close to him (15') get closer, if they are able to move on their own, and there is room for them to do so. Why they choose to do so can be described in all manner of different ways by the player or the DM.

  Probably dozens of interpretations of how this can work have been offered already in this very thread.

  If none of those work for you, and you can't imagine the power working short of magical "mind control" then I can't help you. 

  I'm still bored to death with discussing CAGI, mind you. Are there no other martial powers that fill you with rage?


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but just to be clear, are you agreeing that when using CAGI the character controls (not influences) the actions of others?
> 
> And are you then suggesting that controlling (not influencing) the actions of others is a "naturally" occuring phenomenon within the context of the 4e implied setting?




Yes, when using CaGI, the character controls the actions of others.  's how the power is written.

This control is a phenomenon of the game being played, not the setting presented.  It's not setting dependent, obviously.

Also, could you answer my question?  Answering questions with more questions facilitates sloppy debate, since none of us are Socrates.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> An arrow and a magic missle might use the same mechanics, but they are described differently at the table, and thus feel different.





Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!

Colour me confused!



 


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Mad Mac said:


> I'm still bored to death with discussing CAGI, mind you. Are there no other martial powers that fill you with rage?




How about those Fighter powers that do automatic damage to adjacent enemies?  That's gotta be magic, right?  A fighter can't swing his sword without a ROLL.  That implies some kind of phantom...sword...thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mad Mac said:


> Are there no other martial powers that fill you with rage?





No martial powers fill me with rage.

You?




RC


----------



## ferratus

ExploderWizard said:


> Not at all. A roleplaying game is about portraying a fictional character within a given game world. Simulation/realism is a separate issue from this and isn't connected. If you are participating in a roleplaying game, then you are deciding how your character will respond to events in the game as opposed to actively telling a story during such participation. After the action takes place, a story may be made out the events.




Well that's not too far off from what I was saying, and I don't see how 4e breaks away from it based on what you are saying here.




> Yes. I never claimed that D&D at its core was an implied low magic game. Please enlighten me about these contadictions. 4E has adjusted the scale of things to remove the " zero to hero" aspect of power gain that had been there before. Fledgling adventurers are virtual X-men at 1st level in 4E which is a dramatic change from prior editions.




It is hilarious how you are complaining that fledgling adventurers are no different from anyone else in the world, and here you are complaining that they are "virtual x-men superheroes".

As for the zero-to-hero aspect of D&D in prior editions, I guess you didn't notice 0-level characters or NPC classes such as the warrior, commoner, expert and adept.  PC's have always been a cut above the rabble regardless of edition.   However, like other editions, PC's still start out fighting kobolds and goblins, weak enough that the town guards will probably beat them, and the mages still start out with only a few weak spells.  The only difference is that non-spellcasters have a few signature combat techniques themselves.  



> Old D&D took a semi-medieval world and overlayed a layer of the fantastic. This made the fantasy elements really stand out. If the whole world is over the top fantastical then everything seems kind of the same.




I hated the semi-medieval flavour because it absolutely ignored how arcane and cleric magic would impact the world.  Besides, just because you have a mythic world, doesn't mean you can't have fantastic or exceptional heroes.  Just crack open a book on pretty much any culture's mythology.



> I see 4E as world where fireballs aren't blazing. Can you really kill anything but a constructed pinata monster with that thing?




Well, given that I upped the damage of fireballs to 5d6 in my own home game, I can't fault that criticism.


----------



## ferratus

Raven Crowking said:


> Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!
> 
> Colour me confused!




I'm confused that you seem to think making saves against a spell attack vs. attacking a defense score makes it somehow more magical.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> Yes, when using CaGI, the character controls the actions of others.  's how the power is written.




XP for you.  Reading is fundamental.



> This control is a phenomenon of the game being played, not the setting presented.  It's not setting dependent, obviously.




The setting presented is one in which a character can control the actions of others.  What can occur within a game is always a phenomenon of the implied setting of the game.



> Also, could you answer my question?  Answering questions with more questions facilitates sloppy debate, since none of us are Socrates.




There is nothing, AFAIK, within the 4e RAW that states that the ability to control the actions of others is magical.  If you are willing to claim that, within the implied setting of 4e, the inhabitants do not view this as magical I would agree -- that magical effects are considered mundane within the implied setting supports the statement that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.

Confused about what the word "magic" means?  This might help:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

Magic, sometimes known as sorcery, is a conceptual system that asserts human ability to control or predict the natural world (including events, objects, people, and physical phenomena) through mystical, paranormal or supernatural means.






​


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!




When did I say this? You seem to be making up stuff I said left and right! Color me annoyed! 

I've even said (over and over) that if that's how YOU want or need to see the rules then that's fine. But don't tell me it's how the rules are MEANT to be played (according to some predetermined D&D bible somewhere) or it's the only way someone can possibly see the rules and be correct. That's what offends me.

I see the rules as not describing the world, therefore the rules do not say anything to the implied setting. If they do for YOU that's fine, but again it's not a universal thing.



			
				RefinedBean said:
			
		

> Yes, when using CaGI, the character controls the actions of others. 's how the power is written.
> 
> This control is a phenomenon of the game being played, not the setting presented. It's not setting dependent, obviously.




I would say when using CaGI the player controls the actions of an NPC. How that is "depicted" in the world is mutable.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ferratus said:


> I'm confused that you seem to think making saves against a spell attack vs. attacking a defense score makes it somehow more magical.




Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?


----------



## ferratus

Raven Crowking said:


> The setting presented is one in which a character can control the actions of others.  What can occur within a game is always a phenomenon of the implied setting of the game.




No it isn't.  Otherwise, people in the setting would fight by sitting down at a table and rolling 20 sided dice.

The mechanics of the table don't have to represent the mechanics of the fight, they just have to represent a means to arbitrate how a particular scene plays out.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Mallus said:


> The fighter taunts nearby opponents, seeming to drop his guard. Believing the fighter to be over-confident (and perhaps under-skilled) his foes close to melee...
> 
> Can you visualize it better now?




Just wanted to say that the cognitive dissonance I face with Cagi is that it can make the artillery say, "Righty-O, lets leave our cover, run up and batter the armoured man with our little fists rather than continue to shoot him with our bows or magic spells".

I'm fine with it working with brutes, soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers and perhaps even leaders... but artillery who never want to get into direct contact with foes - that doesn't make sense to me.

Cheers


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble, as pertains to this discussion, I think that you and I are finished.

I am sorry that you are annoyed with the observation that an RPG ruleset perforce implies something about the nature of the game world the ruleset describes.  

However, if you cannot accept the premise that what actions are possible in a game, and the way that they are resolved, contains implications for the world in which the action in said game takes place, then we are simply not speaking the same language at all.

In general, I respect your opinion, and I will be happy to discuss other topics with you.  It's not worth getting irate over.


RC


----------



## ferratus

Raven Crowking said:


> Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?




Well you are making the claim that magical powers are too similar mechanically to how martial powers work right?

It isn't as if the mechanics for resolving attack spells in 3e to 4e really changed all that much.  Heck, it was a much bigger change moving from 3e from 2e.  Back then, a wizard player in 2e didn't even need a d20 most nights because he didn't roll attacks for his spells at all.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ferratus said:


> No it isn't.  Otherwise, people in the setting would fight by sitting down at a table and rolling 20 sided dice.
> 
> The mechanics of the table don't have to represent the mechanics of the fight, they just have to represent a means to arbitrate how a particular scene plays out.




You are conflating the actions of the players with the actions that can occur within the artificial construct of the game.

"What can occur within a game is always a phenomenon of the implied setting of the game" doesn't mean that your stopping the game to get ice cream has an implication in the game setting.  What occurs in the game is what occurs within the artificial construct of the game (i.e., the game setting).

Clearer?  I hope?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

ferratus said:


> Well you are making the claim that magical powers are too similar mechanically to how martial powers work right?





No.


----------



## ferratus

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm fine with it working with brutes, soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers and perhaps even leaders... but artillery who never want to get into direct contact with foes - that doesn't make sense to me.




That's a perfectly valid criticism.  I wonder if it is still a useful power if you houserule that it doesn't work against artillery monsters, or is the ability to draw artillery monsters specifically what makes the power worth taking in the first place?


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> There is nothing, AFAIK, within the 4e RAW that states that the ability to control the actions of others is magical.  If you are willing to claim that, within the implied setting of 4e, the inhabitants do not view this as magical I would agree -- that magical effects are considered mundane within the implied setting supports the statement that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.




I'm claiming that the inhabitants of a 4E game don't view this as magical because it isn't magical.  RAW doesn't say it's magical, nothing in the power says it's a magical effect.

Here's the problem:  You're seeing the "pull" portion of CaGI as inherently magical.  It's not.  It's whatever the player wants it to be!  Your wikipedia description is nice, but really has no basis in the discussion, I don't think.  We'd have to fork a thread and title it "What is magic?"

As PS mentioned, there can be some disconnect here.  It's up to the players (or the DM) to work past it.  If it doesn't work for the group, well, that's why retraining rules exist.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Just wanted to say that the cognitive dissonance I face with Cagi is that it can make the artillery say, "Righty-O, lets leave our cover, run up and batter the armoured man with our little fists rather than continue to shoot him with our bows or magic spells".




  It's a fair point, but keep in mind that the power only works if the fighter is already within spitting distance. (3 squares) At the distance that the power is effective at, the Fighter _could_ easily be up in Mr. Artilleryman's grill and kicking him in the groin instead of using CaGI.

  It also only works if the target can reach the fighter by shifting 2 squares, so pretty much any sort of difficult terrain, obstacles, pits, walls with arrow slits, ect is going to negate the power.


----------



## ferratus

Raven Crowking said:


> Clearer?  I hope?




Not one bit, because I still don't understand why a fighter saying "come and get it" like he's in a kung fu movie automatically means he has supernatural powers of mind control to force people to come fight him in melee combat.

You don't assume the kung fu master has mind controlled the villain to fight him hand to hand, you just understand that it is a more exciting scene in the movie to have that happen.  Likewise for a fighter, it is a more exciting scene for the player to fight a tough enemy one on one, instead of watching him beat on the easier targets in the party.

So your thesis that fighters must have mind control powers, or that it is too much like magic for the player of a fighter to control the NPC is odd.  Why can't you accept that the player of a fighter who controls the action of an NPC for one round is like an actor conferring with a director about changing the upcoming scene, where the villain attacks his character instead?


----------



## ferratus

Raven Crowking said:


> No.




*Ahem*

Scribble wrote:
_An arrow and a magic missle might use the same mechanics, but they are described differently at the table, and thus feel different._

You said:
Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> Here's the problem:  You're seeing the "pull" portion of CaGI as inherently magical.  It's not.





I suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.  


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Mad Mac said:


> It's a fair point, but keep in mind that the power only works if the fighter is already within spitting distance. (3 squares) At the distance that the power is effective at, the Fighter _could_ easily be up in Mr. Artilleryman's grill and kicking him in the groin instead of using CaGI.




Plus, there are plenty of ways to describe it other than a taunt/jeer.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Scribble, as pertains to this discussion, I think that you and I are finished.
> 
> I am sorry that you are annoyed with the observation that an RPG ruleset perforce implies something about the nature of the game world the ruleset describes.
> 
> However, if you cannot accept the premise that what actions are possible in a game, and the way that they are resolved, contains implications for the world in which the action in said game takes place, then we are simply not speaking the same language at all.
> 
> In general, I respect your opinion, and I will be happy to discuss other topics with you.  It's not worth getting irate over.
> 
> 
> RC




Hrmm... I'm not getting irate... I was just using "offended" because you used it. 

That said, I can accept that YOU feel the rules contain implications about how the world works, and I am fine with that. I just do not accept that it is a universal viewpoint because I know of at least 1 person (me) that does not see it that way. Actually I know 5, because my current game group appears to agree with me.

But if you can't accept that it's not a universal viewpoint, or some sort of objective truth, then maybe we are done.


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.
> 
> 
> RC




Camouflage, drugs, alternate medicine.  You got me on the "granting wishes" though.

We could do this all day, RC, but the fact of the matter is, the descriptor you're giving to "magic" is YOURS, and is thus subjective.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ferratus said:


> *Ahem*
> 
> Scribble wrote:
> _An arrow and a magic missle might use the same mechanics, but they are described differently at the table, and thus feel different._
> 
> You said:
> Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!




*Ahem*

Without any desire to engage Scribble again, and with apologies aforehand if I misinterpret what he intended with that quote, but I was rather focusing on the idea that an arrow and magic missile were essentially the same thing, yet the idea that mundane and magic were the same thing was (seemingly) offensive.

Something could be "magic" (as the term is generally defined) due to mechanics (if those mechanics themselves imply a supernatural source), but barring a rational explaination, some described effects (because they themselves imply the supernatural) are "magical" regardless of the mechanics used.

In the case of CAGI, the mechanics don't imply the supernatural; the effect does.

I hope that this is clearer.


----------



## Kask

raven crowking said:


> i suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.




roflmao!


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> Plus, there are plenty of ways to describe it other than a taunt/jeer.




Of course, it is difficult to understand how artillery boy is taunted into the lava or off the cliff.........


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, it is difficult to understand how artillery boy is taunted into the lava or off the cliff.........




Which is why I wouldn't describe it as a taunt, unless we're talking...I don't know...some kind of Super Taunt.

And heck, they get a save against that, anyway.  These artillery guys need to man up.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Of course, it is difficult to understand how artillery boy is taunted into the lava or off the cliff.........




  Doesn't work. anything that would prevent the target from reaching the fighter with a 2 square shift negates the power. For a target 3 squares away, a single patch of difficult terrain is enough to prevent the power from working. 

  Basically, if they can't punch the fighter after moving, they won't move. Since it's a shift, the target also chooses it's own route within the limits of the power. Hardly mind control.


----------



## RefinedBean

Mad Mac said:


> Doesn't work. anything that would prevent the target from reaching the fighter with a 2 square shift negates the power. For a target 3 squares away, a single patch of difficult terrain is enough to prevent the power from working.
> 
> Basically, if they can't punch the fighter after moving, they won't move. Hardly mind control.




Yeah, whoops, forgot about that little clause.

Well heck!  That should put this whole issue to bed.  Who's up for some Tex-Mex?  

I might be back for more discourse later, y'all have fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> Camouflage, drugs, alternate medicine.  You got me on the "granting wishes" though.




Cool.

Yes, one could say that an invisibility power mimicked stealth and/or camoflauge, up to and including Predator-style armour.  However, were this the case, there are rational limitations caused by the explanation that limit how the power can be used.

Likewise if a power was granted through the use of drugs or alternate medicine.  Or if one could apparently grant wishes in a holodeck.  Alternative explanations to "magic" all have limitations caused by the explanation used.

We could do this all day, but the fact of the matter is, the RAW deliniates no such limitations, even going so far as to indicate that an opponent can be controlled to move into lava or off a cliff.

Of course, if we change the language, and decide that "magic" means something other than its definition, we can come up with all kinds of crazy conclusions.  You are, of course, free to knock yourself out coming up with whatever conclusions you like, but this is (again) more wishful thinking than accepting 4e at face value.

"All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" isn't some kind of condemnation of the game system.  It is a setup which might very well appeal to quite a large group of gamers.  (It is, in some ways, superior to having to mark what type of ability every.  single.  ability. is, as in 3e.)  It is also what makes Mallus' setting (as I understand it, at least) a perfect match for the 4e implied setting.

Knowing that this is part of the implied setting helps prospective players and DMs determine whether or not 4e is for them.  It can help them shape a setting that makes use of the strengths of 4e.  It can help avoid some of the disconnects that might otherwise occur.  It can help point out areas where some groups might wish to houserule in order to avoid those disconnects.

Of course, YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

ferratus said:


> Not one bit, because I still don't understand why a fighter saying "come and get it" like he's in a kung fu movie automatically means he has supernatural powers of mind control to force people to come fight him in melee combat.




Depends upon the film, doesn't it?

I also think that you are confusing authorial control (author controls both Kung Fu Joe and his opponent) with a game system.  This is just another form of the conflation of what the player can do within the game and character powers.


RC


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> We could do this all day, but the fact of the matter is, the RAW deliniates no such limitations, even going so far as to indicate that an opponent can be controlled to move into lava or off a cliff.




Are those limitations what you were talking about when you mentioned "meaningful distinctions" between mundane and martial abilities?

[Come and Get It can't make someone walk into lava, but Positioning Strike can (though that requires an attack vs. Will and implies a shove).  Come and Get It _could_ make someone walk through a Freezing Cloud, though, as far as I am aware...]


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Are those limitations what you were talking about when you mentioned "meaningful distinctions" between mundane and martial abilities?
> 
> [Come and Get It can't make someone walk into lava, but Positioning Strike can (though that requires an attack vs. Will and implies a shove).  Come and Get It _could_ make someone walk through a Freezing Cloud, though, as far as I am aware...]




Thanks, LostSoul.  I no longer have 4e books easily accessible, as I wasn't using them.  Obviously, I am conflating these abilities.

Could anyone copy out the text on Positioning Strike? 

Then we could give poor CAGI a rest.

(BTW, wouldn't one resist a push with Reflexes or Prowess rather than Will?  That's what you'd do in RCFG, anyway!  Will seems more like a superJedi mind trick...."This isn't the lava you think it is!")


RC


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Good God. Why oh why didn't they just make Come and Get It require a Bluff check or an attack versus Will? 

 I certainly understand the concept behind the power, but I think goading enemies into rushing towards you should be handled by roleplaying and not by game mechanics. 

 4E did a lot of things I liked, and a few things I don't. Unfortunately some of the things I don't like are too jarring. I'm just going to ban Come and Get It and call it a day.


----------



## Shroomy

Would this be a bad time to mention that you can become invisibile or gain regeneration via Martial powers?

Positioning Strike
A false stumble and a shove place the enemy exactly where you want him.

Encounter        Martial, Weapon
Standard Action      Melee weapon

Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.

Target: One creature

Attack: Dexterity vs. Will

Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and you slide the target 1 square.

  Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Charisma modifier.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Would this be a bad time to mention that you can become invisibile or gain regeneration via Martial powers?




I knew there was a reason I picked those two!


----------



## Mallus

Plane Sailing said:


> Just wanted to say that the cognitive dissonance I face with Cagi is that it can make the artillery say, "Righty-O, lets leave our cover, run up and batter the armoured man with our little fists rather than continue to shoot him with our bows or magic spells".



That is a bit tricky. Personally, I _enjoy_ the challenge of trying to find a reasonable (enough) way to narrate a fighter using GaGI on a group of bowmen or mages.  

It's not unreasonable for bowmen to drops their bows and draw swords when a swordsman's bearing down on them. That makes sense in a realistic context, even though the smart D&D-world tactic would be to continue firing at point-blank range. Similarly, the DM could describe magicians, full of hubris, wreathing their hands in fire and answering the fighter's challenge to meet him hand-to-hand.

I know they're both a stretch, but no more idiotic than any one of a number of beloved genre conventions ("You're going to fight a giant, flying dragon with a _sword_? Good luck with that.")


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> No.  The statement fails because it doesn't address the actual qualities of the power it attempts to explain.  It works for Mallus because he ignores certain qualities of that power (or those powers).



Which qualities am I'm ignoring, specifically?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> It's not unreasonable for bowmen to drops their bows and draw swords when a swordsman's bearing down on them.




Sure.

But oddly enough, it's the bowmen who are drawing swords and bearing down on the unmoving swordsman.......


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure.
> 
> But oddly enough, it's the bowmen who are drawing swords and bearing down on the unmoving swordsman.......



They're trying to get the jump on him!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> Which qualities am I'm ignoring, specifically?




Well, one big one is that the movement doesn't need to make sense for the character being moved in the situation he is being moved in.

Another is that, unless I am mistaken, the power isn't limited by the target's actual movement rate.  So, you can CAGI a creature which is normally immobile, paralyzed, etc.  Indeed, I am fairly certain that you could use CAGI (or other, similar powers) to move your paralyzed friend out of harm's way.



RC


----------



## Shroomy

Raven Crowking said:


> I knew there was a reason I picked those two!




To be fair, while regeneration and invisbility mechanically still largely work like they did in earlier editions (you regain hit points, you can't be seen), they do operate within a different rules context.


----------



## Kask

Shroomy said:


> Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Charisma modifier.




Hilarious!  Sounds like a board game rule.


----------



## Shroomy

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, one big one is that the movement doesn't need to make sense for the character being moved in the situation he is being moved in.
> 
> Another is that, unless I am mistaken, the power isn't limited by the target's actual movement rate.  So, you can CAGI a creature which is normally immobile, paralyzed, etc.  Indeed, I am fairly certain that you could use CAGI (or other, similar powers) to move your paralyzed friend out of harm's way.
> 
> 
> 
> RC




Forced movement is not considered a move action and the power that causes the forced movement determines the distanced move.  It applies to immobilized targets, but not restrained ones.  Specifically, CAGI cannot be used on allies.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Good God. Why oh why didn't they just make Come and Get It require a Bluff check or an attack versus Will?




  Oversight, probably. Most similar powers do require an attack vs will, and it's an easy enough houserule to make. 



> Another is that, unless I am mistaken, the power isn't limited by the target's actual movement rate. So, you can CAGI a creature which is normally immobile, paralyzed, etc. Indeed, I am fairly certain that you could use CAGI (or other, similar powers) to move your paralyzed friend out of harm's way.




  Nope. CAGI forces targets to shift, which means it is not considered forced movement. So if they are restrained, immobile, ect the power fails. It also doesn't work on allies. 

  Positioning Strike is a power for swashbuckly or tricky rogues, and implies a feint to draw the target off-balance, followed by a shove.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Shroomy said:


> Forced movement is not considered a move action and the power that causes the forced movement determines the distanced move.  It applies to immobilized targets, but not restrained ones.






Mad Mac said:


> Nope. CAGI forces targets to shift, which means it is not considered forced movement. So if they are restrained, immobile, ect the power fails.




So, which is it?



Also, can you Artful Dodge or Positioning Strike your paralyzed ally?  Your immobile enemy?

And, to take a page from RefinedBean, does the RAW specify that the other PCs are your allies?    (I kid with this one; I am more than willing to assume that English is English unless specified otherwise, as with specific game terms!)


RC


----------



## Hexmage-EN

_


			
				Shroomy said:
			
		


			Would this be a bad time to mention that you can become invisibile or gain regeneration via Martial powers?
		
Click to expand...


_


Raven Crowking said:


> I knew there was a reason I picked those two!




The powers that grant invisibility are Rogue powers, ones similar to the Living Shadow class feature in your game, Raven.


----------



## Mad Mac

> So, which is it?




  Me, naturally.  More specifically, forced movement rules only apply to pull, push and slide effects, and CAGI is none of those. If the creature is unable to move on it's own, the power has no effect. 

  Positioning Strike is a slide, which means it can be used on immobile targets but not restrained ones. Note that that the immobile condition prevents a target from moving but not from making melee or ranged attacks, casting spells, ect. Slide is basically the same as push except with more control. 

  The target line for Positioning Strike is creature, which means it can be used on anything, assuming you are striking with the intent to kill. (That is, it can target allies the way that Magic Missle and fireball can target allies)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hexmage-EN said:


> The powers that grant invisibility are Rogue powers, ones similar to the Living Shadow class feature in your game, Raven.




First off, thank you for taking the time to examine my game.

*Living Shadow:*  Once per day, a 15th level rogue can achieve an almost supernatural level of stealth.  He is able to achieve this level of stealth beginning at any time when he is not observed, even for a second.  It lasts until the rogue chooses to have it end, until the rogue does something that it is impossible to do stealthily, or until the rogue makes an attack – whichever comes first.

When using his Living Shadow ability, the rogue is effectively invisible and silent.  He cannot be detected by any mundane means.  In the event that the rogue makes an attack, surprise is determined normally at that time.  The rogue is treated as having an effective Stealth skill check of 50.​
Let us note that this is an Epic ability in RCFG terms, and while it is noted as being "almost supernatural" the ability is intended to indicate that the rogue has become something more than human.  15th level RCFG characters may become minor divinities.  It is only described as "almost" supernatural so as to avoid confusion with antimagic zones and spells.

Indeed, this is rather similar to saying that an ability is not supernatural "per se".  

So, in effect, if you believe these abilities are like RCFG's Living Shadow ability, you are also saying that they are essentially supernatural.


RC


----------



## Shroomy

Raven Crowking said:


> So, which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, can you Artful Dodge or Positioning Strike your paralyzed ally?  Your immobile enemy?
> 
> And, to take a page from RefinedBean, does the RAW specify that the other PCs are your allies?    (I kid with this one; I am more than willing to assume that English is English unless specified otherwise, as with specific game terms!)
> 
> 
> RC




Its forced movement (a pull), not a shift; I'm looking at the text right now in the DDI Compendium.  To answer your second question, you could use _positioning strike_ against an ally if you wanted, because it targets a creature as opposed to an enemy or ally (and these keywords pretty much mean what you think) but if you want a fellow PC to move 1 square, there's probably better ways to accomplish that goal than inflicting damage on an ally.  Also, there is no "paralysis" per se in 4e, there are three mechanical conditions that can be used to model an effect like paralysis (immobilized, restrained, and stunned).  You could use force movement if a target is immobilized or stunned, but not restrained


----------



## Mad Mac

The lowest level Rogue power I can find that grants invisibility is Hide in Plain Sight, which is a level 16 power. It allows a rogue who is already hidden via conventional stealth to remain invisible as long as they don't move from their hiding place.



> Its forced movement (a pull), not a shift; I'm looking at the text right now in the DDI Compendium.




  Ah, now I see. They did issue errata to change it from a shift to a pull. Interesting. Making it a pull makes it seem more like the Fighter is dancing around and dragging people towards him instead of just taunting.

  I'm thinking they may have changed the mechanics of the power to resolve the "mind control" gripes but never updated the flavor text. Not that they've ever errated flavor text that I can think of.


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, if we change the language, and decide that "magic" means something other than its definition, we can come up with all kinds of crazy conclusions.  You are, of course, free to knock yourself out coming up with whatever conclusions you like, but this is (again) more wishful thinking than accepting 4e at face value.




RC, you seem to be treading both sides of the argument.

CaGI and other powers of that nature are by definition not magical, since they're used by Martial characters.  This is per RAW.

I'm not "changing the language," I'm going by RAW.  Martial characters use exploits.  These exploits represent training, opportunism, what have you.

How is this wishful thinking?  I'm following the rules.  My Fighter motions to the Wizard to drop a fireball behind the enemies.  It's a quick bluff, but they fall for it, and leap forward hastily, into the Fighter's reach.  Nothing magical about that.

Again, you really have to stop inflicting your own sense of what "magic" is.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Raven Crowking said:


> So, in effect, if you believe these abilities are like RCFG's Living Shadow ability, you are also saying that they are essentially supernatural.
> 
> 
> RC




Okay, sure.


----------



## Intense_Interest

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.




Willfully obtuse interpretation aside, you can explain how a character *with the ability to move* moves.  Wishes can't, because they purposefully break explanations down.

The player uses Come and Get It, the character expresses to the archer that he will gut him terribly unless he decides to face him on the field of honor.  The archer charges to smack the Character with his sword (what archer doesn't carry a back-up?), and the player marks off his narrative control ability for the day.

It isn't hard to say this.  It is all words, said in the same way as everything else.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.



In 3e a troll's regeneration power isn't considered magical, it's an extraordinary ability.


----------



## Shroomy

Mad Mac said:


> The lowest level Rogue power I can find that grants invisibility is Hide in Plain Sight, which is a level 16 power. It allows a rogue who is already hidden via conventional stealth to remain invisible as long as they don't move from their hiding place.
> 
> Ah, now I see. They did issue errata to change it from a shift to a pull. Interesting. Making it a pull makes it seem more like the Fighter is dancing around and dragging people towards him instead of just taunting.




A rogue could conceivably gain a power that grants invisbility at 12th level, if they take the Master Infiltrator paragon path, but your larger point still stands, since its still a paragon-level power.  The thing is, in 4e invisibility is not automatically magical; its a discreet set of mechanical effects that is put into a specific context by the fluff or other keywords (especially the power source ones).  In a martial context, invisibility is an application of immense skill.

As for CAGI, in terms of rules, it makes sense to change the effect to a pull.  A shift is a movement action and normally wouldn't work in this kind of context (against an enemy outside of its own term).  I don't see how this makes the fluff effect that different, since the fighter is still forcing the movement.


----------



## fanboy2000

RefinedBean said:


> Hey guys, I'm back.  I brought donuts!
> 
> I'm thinking we should all get together and really hash this stuff out over a beer at GenCon.  And then play some Dread.



I can't make it GenCon, but if _anyone_ on this thread is going to San Diego Comic Con, you can PM and we get together. I can talk about this stuff all day.


----------



## Mad Mac

> As for CAGI, in terms of rules, it makes sense to change the effect to a pull. A shift is a movement action and normally wouldn't work in this kind of context (against an enemy outside of its own term).




  Hmmm, possibly. I just looked it as the equivelent of classes like Warlords being able to grant shifts to allies outside of their normal turns. I could have sworn there are other powers that grant non-forced moves to enemies, but I may be mistaken, or they may have errated whatever I was thinking of.



> The thing is, in 4e invisibility is not automatically magical; its a discreet set of mechanical effects that is put into a specific context by the fluff or other keywords (especially the power source ones). In a martial context, invisibility is an application of immense skill.




  Yup, I'm in full agreement with you there.


----------



## Ariosto

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.



It looks as if this has already been addressed, but ... Yes, I think that is the 4E view. It's a big departure from what "role playing" has meant, but there it is. Theoretically, a DM could override a player's "authorial control" in the name of a world that makes some sense to an observer, but the player's entitlement to move pieces on the board clearly takes precedence. The old concept that one is limited to doing what one's character can do is right out the window (unless we get back to the idea that everything is magical, or the world is a video-game kind of place a la *Tron* or *The Matrix*, or some such rationale).


----------



## Ariosto

Mad Mac said:


> Since it's a shift, the target also chooses it's own route within the limits of the power. Hardly mind control.



Per the errata, it's a *Pull* effect. The target does not choose its route.

(Or, in keeping with the "non-magical" view, the *target* may indeed be imagined to choose ... but its *player* has no choice.)


----------



## Ariosto

Kask said:


> Hilarious!  Sounds like a board game rule.



Well, that's what it _is_. You play the board game, and meanwhile you can if you like improvise some narration about it. Of course, you can do the same with *Settlers of Catan* or *Ticket to Ride* -- but they're not advertised as RPGs and 4E is (and as D&D to boot), so that's what it is.


----------



## Ariosto

Shroomy said:


> CAGI cannot be used on allies.



I imagine a power that lets you temporarily turn "allies" into "enemies" for the purposes of your other powers could come in handy sometimes.


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:


> Well, that's what it _is_. You play the board game, and meanwhile you can if you like improvise some narration about it. Of course, you can do the same with *Settlers of Catan* or *Ticket to Ride* -- but they're not advertised as RPGs and 4E is (and as D&D to boot), so that's what it is.




Ariosto - out of curiousity, do you consider any game which uses a battle map to no longer be an RPG?  Because, even back in the day, when I was playing Star Frontiers, FASA Star Trek, Villains and Vigilantes, and a few that I cannot remember any more, they all had rules that specifically referenced the battle map.  Are those game also not RPG's but board games in your view?

I would also point out that in Settlers of Catan, at no point do you actually pretend to be anyone other than yourself.  Isn't that what differentiates a board game from an RPG?  I always thought the difference was down to, oh, I don't know, playing a role perhaps?  

But, maybe I'm just way off base here.

I'm curious about something else though.  For all those telling me that pre-4e, you had a clear demarcation between magical and non-magical effects, how do any large or larger creatures fly?  Is a hippogriff using magic to fly?  

Now, if a hippogriff is not using magic to fly, but is rather just flying through narrativium or something similar to that, then why is a fighter automatically using magic with his abilities?


----------



## rounser

> Ariosto - out of curiousity, do you consider any game which uses a battle map to no longer be an RPG?



Nice attempt at obfuscation.  Of course not, else merely using miniatures would constitute "not an RPG".  No, it's a level of abstraction codified into the rules that is difficult to resolve with being an RPG that is boardgamesque, not the mere presence of a map.


----------



## RefinedBean

D&D rules have always been abstract.  The rules in 4E are just abstract as 3.0 and 3.5, in my experience.

Also, I enjoy the boardgame influence on 4E combat.  REALLY enjoy it.  Are boardgames bad?  I didn't know they were, you know, bad.


----------



## rounser

> D&D rules have always been abstract.



Not "boardgame level" abstract to this degree.  Even HP weren't as abstract as they are now.  Sorry, can't wriggle your way out of this one.


----------



## Ariosto

Rounser answered the immediate question for me!

What I had in mind was how "Eurostyle" board games lay "theme" (what au courant D&Ders call "fluff") very superficially over the fundamentals of their design. Starting with the same abstract game, art direction could turn it as easily into one "about" any one of a number of subjects.

"Ameritrash" games, on the other hand, tend to start with a subject then attempt in some sense to model key features. What self-described wargamers are likely to consider a proper war game is a bit different from a merely "war-themed" game (although as with most such taxonomies things can get blurry at the edges).

There are other similarities in philosophy between 4E and the vogue in board games, but that is the most striking (and presently relevant) one.

What Gary Gygax meant by role-playing is utterly essential to play of old-style D&D. The question always posed to a player is, "What will _you_ do?" That refers to the player acting as if "in the shoes of" his persona, seeing through its eyes.

The more "thespian" aspect of role-playing was something he apparently (and most old-time D&Ders, in my experience) considered at best a secondary consideration and at worst an intolerable distraction. (There are some perhaps subtle demarcations, which I won't go into now.) Even if one is inclined to hold that in higher esteem, I think the first aspect remains fundamental.

A hippogriff might as well "use magic" to fly, as it is an utterly fantastic creature. To reduce it somehow to something nonmagical seems to me rather contrary to the point of including it in the game in the first place.

That said, it does not follow that the magic of a heraldic/mythological beast falls under the rubric of "magic" in its technical, game-mechanical usage. The latter encompasses but a small portion of the realm of supernatural wonders.

It is from the role-playing perspective that martial powers and other aspects of 4E most strikingly stand out as magical. The criteria for "magicalness" need be no fancier than what common sense is likely to suggest, perhaps accounting for the kinds of intellect and knowledge a bit more common in the demographic of D&Ders than in the general public.

Some science-fictional things are "magical" in the sense of Clarke's Third Law, or in the sense of contradicting the laws of physics we currently know. Other things are highly implausible in other ways, and have obvious analogues in other fields of fiction.


----------



## RefinedBean

rounser said:


> Not "boardgame level" abstract to this degree.  Even HP weren't as abstract as they are now.  Sorry, can't wriggle your way out of this one.




Because boardgames are bad, right?  Can't have 'em influencing D&D, even though they've been doing that since...gosh, years now.

C'mon now.  It's D&D.  It's always been an abstract game about combating monsters.  I could list off all the abstractions of the previous edition I'm familiar with (3.0/3.5), but it's late.  It's one game full of numbers and charts being compared to ANOTHER game full of numbers and charts.

And I'm not trying to "wriggle myself" out of this one, that would imply a whole bunch of caring on my part.  But thanks, rounser!  I like to be told what I'm doing.


----------



## rounser

> Because boardgames are bad, right?



No, but if I wanted D&D as a board game, I'd play something like Descent, Talisman or Heroquest.  All three are great fun, but they don't replace pre-4E D&D, and nor should they.


> C'mon now. It's D&D. It's always been an abstract game about combating monsters.



Not this abstract.  This is as abstract and in places as difficult to map to anything believable or visualisable going on as a boardgame or card game, and you're having a lot of difficulty refuting that.  For D&D (in it's true sense, not the new as-abstract-as-a-boardgame sense), that's poison, because depicting a believable fantasy world was it's stock in trade.  

Oh dear, that doesn't figure in your oversimplified definition of what D&D is "about", does it?  Heck, "killing things and taking their stuff" doesn't even mention traps or magic.  It's a quip (see my sig), not an incisive insight into all that is important about the game, although it appears that 4E was unwisely designed around that quip.  No wonder we're in such a mess.


----------



## LostSoul

rounser said:


> For D&D (in it's true sense, not the new as-abstract-as-a-boardgame sense), that's poison, because depicting a believable fantasy world was it's stock in trade.




Wasn't it the unbelievable aspect of D&D that led to the creation of games like Runequest?


----------



## LostSoul

Ariosto said:


> What Gary Gygax meant by role-playing is utterly essential to play of old-style D&D. The question always posed to a player is, "What will _you_ do?" That refers to the player acting as if "in the shoes of" his persona, seeing through its eyes.




What elements of 4E work against this, in your opinion?

I ask this because I never ran old-style games, and I want my 4E game to have that kind of style.


----------



## rounser

> Wasn't it the unbelievable aspect of D&D that led to the creation of games like Runequest?



I get the feeling that "I can do a game that is better than D&D" spawned the entire RPG industry, in a way.  But making D&D as abstract as a card game or board game in key places moreso than it ever was before is simply bad design for a game that purports to be D&D.  

We have to visualise and believe this stuff, it's not supposed to be comparable in abstraction to M:tG, with it's own equivalents of M:tG's commonly nonsensical card combinations.


----------



## LostSoul

rounser said:


> I get the feeling that "I can do a game that is better than D&D" spawned the entire RPG industry, in a way.  But making D&D as abstract as a card game or board game in key places moreso than it ever was before is simply bad design for a game that purports to be D&D.  We have to visualise and believe this stuff, it's not fracking M:tG with nonsensical card combinations.  Or, at least, it once wasn't.




I agree.

I've been trying to ask this question throughout this thread, though I don't think I rally have the words for it.  I'll give it a shot.

In my game, I want to challenge the players.  I want to challenge more than just their expertise with the tactical combat maneuvers.  I want to see them use their ingenuity in pulling stunts that aren't covered in the powers.  I want to challenge them strategically as well.  (Hope that makes sense.)

Given that, what is the effect of having abstract combat or non-combat resolution?  How does 4E work for or against my stated goals for the game?

I can't say that I'm really too concerned if healing surges represent Wolverine-type healing or if Come and Get It is a magical compulsion.  What I don't know is how the abstract nature of these mechanics impacts the choices of the players.

For example: Assume hp/healing surges/damage means whatever we want it to at the time.  The PCs get into a fight with a group of lizardmen scouts as they attempt to sneak into their lair.  One of the lizardmen gets away after taking damage, and the PCs want to track him through the swamp.

Do I give them a bonus to track him because he's leaving a trail of blood?  Do I only do that if he's bloodied?  Do I make that decision as a DM on the spot?  Do I require the player to describe the consequences of his successful attack so that there is no question?


Anyways, maybe I should fork this.


----------



## Ariosto

Elements of _RuneQuest_ (one of my favorite games) often lauded as more realistic go back to "house rules" for D&D. The treatment of the combat round, for instance, evolved directly from the "Perrin Conventions" published in _All the Worlds' Monsters Volume 2_.

D&D Supplement I introduced some combat factors (such as weapon type versus armor type) translated from precursor _Chainmail_, as well as variable damage by weapon (1d8 for swords, multiple attacks for some monsters, etc.).

Supplement II included hit locations (not so "playable" without the larger stocks of hit points in the Blackmoor campaign), weapon length / combatant height adjustments, and diseases such as dysentery and cholera.

Supplement III divided the combat round into six movement segments and pre- and post- movement segments to regulate the timing of missile fire and spell casting. Dexterity, adjusted for a large variety of factors, was indexed on a table similar to those in the later games _Star Fleet Battles_ and _Champions_.

These merely represented ideas being tried by one Dungeon Master or another and shared with his peers, albeit the originator was to some degree a "professional game designer". They were not in any sense officially binding, even (from what I have seen) for tournament play.

A "skill system" appeared in _Empire of the Petal Throne_. Spell points, critical hits and fumbles, and other variants were featured in _The Arduin Grimoire_.

That's just the barest tip of the iceberg of experimentation that was going on in the far-flung reaches of the D&D scene!


----------



## vagabundo

LostSoul said:


> <snippiedy snip>
> 
> For example: Assume hp/healing surges/damage means whatever we want it to at the time.  The PCs get into a fight with a group of lizardmen scouts as they attempt to sneak into their lair.  One of the lizardmen gets away after taking damage, and the PCs want to track him through the swamp.
> 
> Do I give them a bonus to track him because he's leaving a trail of blood? Do I only do that if he's bloodied? Do I make that decision as a DM on the spot? Do I require the player to describe the consequences of his successful attack so that there is no question?
> 
> Anyways, maybe I should fork this.





The DND level of abstraction allows for both and so it comes down to adjudication, by you, the DM. And a good rule of thumb: if it seems fun and makes sense to ya then run with it. 

You may feel the urge to say this should always the case, but I wouldn't, some factor may affect bleeding in certain cases and some wounds would bleed worse than others. The DC will generally account for this, maybe use the lower DC because you imagine him stumbling injured, bleed profusely, not being cautious... And is easy to track.

It is the DM who set the tone for the game, not the rules. The level of abstraction is irrelevant as a good, imaginative, DM can make anything make sense and that is what I focus on.* 

That's my take on it. And I think if one of my players said that they were looking for a blood trail I'd probably run with it and allow them to find blood splatter and use a lower DC than originally intended, but only to encourage player behaviour. You got to train them. 

My 4e games are now reminding me of how I used to run my 2e games and that warms my cockles...


* I'm not implying that I'm a good DM or an imaginative one.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Hit points have always been magical, as Gary Gygax says on page 82 of the 1e DMG.

In addition to physical toughness they represent "skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the *fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection*."

Emphasis mine. So a 10th level 1e fighter without magic items or spell buffs is still magic.

Makes sense. A high level fighter can consistently survive falls from any height. How could he not be magic?


----------



## LostSoul

Yeah, I get the level of abstraction of HP and all that.  That's just the example.  

I want to talk about the effects that abstraction in 4E - hp or healing surges or skill challenges or power sources - has on player choice.


----------



## Mallus

Hussar said:


> I would also point out that in Settlers of Catan, at no point do you actually pretend to be anyone other than yourself.  Isn't that what differentiates a board game from an RPG?



Only for people looking to make a sensible argument.

Or, if you _really_ want to be like that, then it's fair to say OD&D is a layer of narration slathered on top of a wargame about medieval combat (I believe that game was called 'Chainmail' ).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mad Mac said:


> The lowest level Rogue power I can find that grants invisibility is Hide in Plain Sight, which is a level 16 power.




Perhaps, but level 16 in 4e and level 15 in RCFG mean two differnt things.  In RCFG, there is no level over 15.  15 is the maximum potential.  It is defined as epic in terms of the game world.



> Ah, now I see. They did issue errata to change it from a shift to a pull.




Bully for errata!



RefinedBean said:


> RC, you seem to be treading both sides of the argument.
> 
> CaGI and other powers of that nature are by definition not magical, since they're used by Martial characters.  This is per RAW.




Quote it for me.



> Again, you really have to stop inflicting your own sense of what "magic" is.




If a game world describes an effect as "not magic" which would be magic within the common definition, then the game world implies that there are magic things in the world (common definition) that the inhabitants do not think are magic (game definition).



Intense_Interest said:


> Willfully obtuse interpretation aside, you can explain how a character *with the ability to move* moves.




(1) Some of these powers allow a character *without the ability to move* to move.

(2)  It is not explaining "how a character *with the ability to move* moves" which is problematic; it is explaining how the character has a non-magical power which controls not only that they move, but their precise route as well.



> Wishes can't, because they purposefully break explanations down.




Maybe we're in the Matrix.  Do the rules specifically say that we are not in the Matrix?  Perhaps we are in a holodeck.



> The player uses Come and Get It




Please quote from RAW where it says the *player* uses Come and Get It.  It is listed as a *character* power AFAICT.



Ariosto said:


> It looks as if this has already been addressed, but ... Yes, I think that is the 4E view.




Indeed.



Doug McCrae said:


> Hit points have always been magical, as Gary Gygax says on page 82 of the 1e DMG.




Yup.  For example, the hit points of a wizard might represent magical protections or those of a cleric divine protections.  It is even reasonable to suppose that, as characters rise in level, they all gain some form of supernatural protection.



> Makes sense. A high level fighter can consistently survive falls from any height. How could he not be magic?




Indeed.

And now they are SuperJedi.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> I want to talk about the effects that abstraction in 4E - hp or healing surges or skill challenges or power sources - has on player choice.





The effect on me was that it made me not want to play it.

The effect on some others is that it made them want to play it.

Six of one; half a dozen of the other.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Sigh...I foolishly hoped that 4E would be the perfect edition for me, but for all of 3E's mechanical problems it fixed there seem to be new problems that hinder suspension of disbelief.

I definitely don't want to go back to 3E, so I guess I'm gonna start working on making houserules for 4E that satisfy me. If that fails, I guess I could try RCFG.


----------



## FireLance

Come And Get It!


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, one big one is that the movement doesn't need to make sense for the character being moved in the situation he is being moved in.



Oh, I definitely agree that using CaGI in certain situations and/or against certain kinds of opponent --say like bowmen or mages-- strains credulity. But like I said before, I enjoy the challenge. It's a test of my DM'ing chops to find a way to narrate those situations so they approach the sensible (even if they don't _quite_ get there). 

Also, a lot of D&D combat situations strain credulity, so whats one more? 



> Another is that, unless I am mistaken, the power isn't limited by the target's actual movement rate.  So, you can CAGI a creature which is normally immobile, paralyzed, etc.



These are corner cases, and, in general, 4e is silent on corner cases. Powers get a line or two of description then a listing of mechanical effects. No attempt is made to provide explicit rules for every possible situation/interaction. It's left up to the DM's judgment and common sense. I rather like that 4e openly puts the DM _back_ into the equation.

I know how I'd rule if a player used CaGI on a paralyzed foe.



> Indeed, I am fairly certain that you could use CAGI (or other, similar powers) to move your paralyzed friend out of harm's way.



This isn't allowed.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FireLance said:


> Come And Get It!




That was funny, and I will send you XP for it when my ability to do so refreshes.

However, demonstrating that a person will probably follow a link to unknown content isn't the same as demonstrating that a cowardly unarmed person in a defensable position will always leave said position just because you tell him to, so long as you do it only once per day/encounter/whatever.

Thinking that these things are co-equal is wishful thinking, at best.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hexmage-EN said:


> I definitely don't want to go back to 3E, so I guess I'm gonna start working on making houserules for 4E that satisfy me. If that fails, I guess I could try RCFG.





Well, RCFG is certainly cheaper!


----------



## fanboy2000

rounser said:


> Nice attempt at obfuscation.  Of course not, else merely using miniatures would constitute "not an RPG".  No, it's a level of abstraction codified into the rules that is difficult to resolve with being an RPG that is boardgamesque, not the mere presence of a map.



Well, he did say it was out of curiosity.

The level of abstraction is greater, or at the very least more noticeable, in 4e because rather than have several subsystems emulating the different aspects of the game, we have a more explicit exception based rules system.

I also agree that there's a difference in the level of abstraction between a board game like Chess or Go and D&D. I think, however, it's a little to early to say that the current edition of D&D is a board game. For one thing, 4e still rewards roleplaying. Just last week my group took a duegar prisoner, shaved his beard off, and interrogated him about some slaves. So, unless I'm playing a different 4e from the one the designers intended (and so are many others), I think we can safely say 4e is still an RPG.


----------



## Mallus

fanboy2000 said:


> I think, however, it's a little to early to say that the current edition of D&D is a board game.



It's not too early. It's just _wrong_.



> Just last week my group took a duegar prisoner, shaved his beard off, and interrogated him about some slaves. So, unless I'm playing a different 4e from the one the designers intended (and so are many others), I think we can safely say 4e is still an RPG.



Damn straight!


----------



## Ariosto

Mallus said:


> Or, if you _really_ want to be like that, then it's fair to say OD&D is a layer of narration slathered on top of a wargame about medieval combat (I believe that game was called 'Chainmail' ).



Except that it's NOT just a layer of narration, and it IS more about medieval combat than 4E is "about" anything founded in reality.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> Except that it's NOT just a layer of narration, and it IS more about medieval combat...



I admit my medieval history is a bit sketchy, but I don't recall many battles taking place between orcs and elves in trap-laden, rectilinear underground structures.



> ...than 4E is "about" anything founded in reality.



Of course 4e is founded in real things: various kinds of fantasy adventure narratives. Just like its predecessors.


----------



## Ariosto

Tolkien seems to have considered orcs and elves similar enough to humans, and their world similar enough to ours, to apply what he knew of war.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> Tolkien seems to have considered orcs and elves similar enough to humans, and their world similar enough to ours, to apply what he knew of war.



While that may be true, it is also true that Tolkien did not write D&D.


----------



## Ariosto

Mallus, the relevance of your quips is obscure.


----------



## Imaro

LostSoul said:


> Yeah, I get the level of abstraction of HP and all that. That's just the example.
> 
> I want to talk about the effects that abstraction in 4E - hp or healing surges or skill challenges or power sources - has on player choice.





Lostsoul, I think I undeerstand what you're getting at with this question and if so I believe it is definitely an interesting conundrum to explore, so let me try to answer from my own experiences in 4e...

The greater abstraction, IMO, of 4e leads to a process that is mostly non-narrativist and non-simulationist in nature when the game is being played. To expound on that a little...

I have found, IME, that when making a decision (especially in combat but outside as well in such matters as skill challenges) are actually making decisions based on gamist (as in the behind the scenes mechanics) as opposed to what best fits a believable world or best suits the narrative. To further expound here's some examples...

In a skill challenge a simulationist approach would be to use a skill that interacts with the "reality" rules of the simulated world in a believable manner as to arrive at the result one wants.  So you would not use your History score to recall knowledge of rock formations in order to help you climb a sheer cliff face, it's (from most perspectives anyway) unbelievable to think that reading about rocks in some way taught or helped you climb cliffs.  However Athletics to actually climb would be totally acceptable to players and GM's in a simulationist game.

A narrative approach would be to use whatever skill is best suited to the story, whether they are good, bad or irrelevant in order to achieve the desired narrative flow of the story. In fact you would actually choose to use a bad skill on purpose if a failure would be more to the liking of everyone's sense of the "story", of course many narrative based games will reward the choice to fail with a special type of reward, meta-mechanic, or beenie... since the most important thing in a narrative game is sustaining the narrative flow, theme, etc. that the players want... not competing and succeeding against mechanical challenges.

Finally the gamist approach, and what I see in majority of D&D 4e games is to select the skill you have the highest score in and then try and justify it's use... not because it is appropriate narratively or because it interacts with the world in a way that it believably simulates a coherent reality... but because mechanically it is the optimal choice.

You can also apply these things to combat as well (and honestly I believe it is why the majority of players in 4e choose to only use powers as opposed to ad-hoc moves and stunts. If I'm an avenger who pumped up Wis because my powers are based on it... why would I ever try a maneuver that relies on Strength or Dexterity (unless I'm a Pursuing Avenger) and risk a way bigger failure chance? It's a mechanics first way of thinking.

I think both D&D 4e's abstraction and it's decidely gamist bent encourage and even reward this behavior as opposeed to the other two (and of course you can consciously choose to play it in a different style, but I am talking about what the default suggests), and thus your players, when making decisions, will either embrace "choose a superior mechanic first, and everything else later" attitude... or will eventually come around to this way of thinking as the game progresses and this way of play is enforced and rewarded more and more.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ariosto said:


> Mallus, the relevance of your quips is obscure.




Just consider it a new level of abstraction.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Just consider it a new level of abstraction.



Hush, you. Or I'll explain how CaGI works again!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Raven Crowking said:


> That was funny, and I will send you XP for it when my ability to do so refreshes.




Firelance - 

Apparently, I must spread some XP around first.

But, as soon as I can, you've got XP coming.

RC


----------



## fanboy2000

Ariosto said:


> Tolkien seems to have considered orcs and elves similar enough to humans, and their world similar enough to ours, to apply what he knew of war.



This reminds me of something. Every time I start a new game of D&D I have a speech. In that speech, I tell the victims that "I know nothing about real world combat or war. So any argument about why you should do something founded _solely_ one what is possible in the real world will fall on deaf ears."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> Hush, you. Or I'll explain how CaGI works again!







Out of curiosity, how did you manage to come up with what, to my mind, is the perfect fit for 4e as a setting if you don't believe that the rules naturally lend themselves to surrealism?  I mean, you have a world where everything is essentially surreal (AFAICT), and hence everything being sorta kinda magic makes sense.  Heck, even the weird movement rules kinda make sense within your world set-up (which seems to me to take place well outside normal space and time, in a kind of subconscious existentialist construct).

I mean, if you create a setting that takes the implied setting to its logical conclusions, and those conclusions are surreal, how can you not also accept that the implied setting is surreal?

I submit that you are a paradox, Sir!

(I mean that in a good way)


RC


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> Mallus, the relevance of your quips is obscure.



> VERBOSE

The relative realism of Tolkien's depiction of warfare is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the original version(s) of D&D featured realistic portrayals of medieval warfare, or the larger point that the game was once more grounded in the real world. Where is the connection? 

The majority of combat in early D&D took place in a dungeon environment, so any claim that the the game was once more 'about' real medieval warfare seems specious, at best. Did some groups use OD&D/AD&D to run more grounded, realistic campaigns? Of course. But other groups used them to run things like Arduin. 

The level of realism in a campaign is best seen as something the specific players/DM bring to the table. It's not something that rises from the particular rule set. 

> BRIEF


----------



## Ariosto

Mallus, the connection is that "orcs" in particular entered the bestiary of popular fantasy via Tolkien's work. For elves, one might cite such an acknowledged influence on D&D as Poul Anderson. The point is that fantasy need not be utterly unrelated  to reality. _Chainmail_, and the factors it was *designed to model*, was part of the assumed knowledge base for OD&D players.

The _addition_ of Underworld mazes and other fantasy elements is not inherently a _subtraction_ from the nature of spear and byrnie, flesh and blood -- any more than adding starships changes shotguns. Although some enjoyed elaborate systems, it was sufficient that the rules did not *get in the way* of applying sensible tactics and strategies. 

The ghastly wounds and long recovery periods (to mention just two elements of verisimilitude) in Arduin certainly resemble better what I know of armed violence than what I see in 4E.


----------



## Ariosto

Although prior experience with "medieval wargames campaigns playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures" was an asset in understanding the original presentation so that one might referee the game, it was not a prerequisite for participation as a player.

The beauty of a basis in reality is that everyone is acquainted with it. One need be no student of matters medieval, or acquainted with the exploits of John Carter, Conan, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The rules are "strictly fantasy", but fantasy of a sort only occasionally so bizarre as Alice's adventures in Wonderland.

With 4E, one has no such foundation. From what I have heard, prior experience with certain video games is an asset in learning the rules ... but learn the rules one must, for there is no other guide.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Ariosto said:


> With 4E, one has no such foundation. From what I have heard, prior experience with certain video games is an asset in learning the rules ... but learn the rules one must, for there is no other guide.




Where did you hear that, and what videogames are that? I´m curious.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Out of curiosity, how did you manage to come up with what, to my mind, is the perfect fit for 4e as a setting if you don't believe that the rules naturally lend themselves to surrealism?



Luck? Genius? (talented collaborators?)



> I mean, you have a world where everything is essentially surreal (AFAICT), and hence everything being sorta kinda magic makes sense.



I think our intent was to create a setting that was open to interpretation. If you believe everything in it is magical, that's perfectly fair. If you believe all the characters are, in fact, dead, and the whole thing is some kind of afterlife, that works too. We stayed away from a 'definitive' version of the setting, even as we were writing it. 



> I mean, if you create a setting that takes the implied setting to its logical conclusions, and those conclusions are surreal, how can you not also accept that the implied setting is surreal?



We weren't trying to take the 4e to it's logical conclusion, at least not consciously, though we did deliberately build in ways to rationalize some facets of the 4e rules; the ease of resurrection, the prevalence of rituals, the widespread magic... I'm sure they were more. The process was more trying to preemptively cover our tails than orderly extrapolation. 

I still don't accept that 4e neccessarily leads to a surreal setting, it just did in our case. I mean, in our setting, CaGI probably *is* magic (at least for some characters). All I was trying to do in this thread was offer a possible explanation of how it worked that was consistent with rules (and didn't involve magic). Which I did, ad infinitum, or so it seems. 


> I submit that you are a paradox, Sir!



Thanks!


----------



## RefinedBean

Holy crap, this thread is still going.  I'm almost rubbing my hands with glee.

Have we answered the OP's question yet?  I'd have to say that since this thread has been going for over 20 pages, it's safe to assume that magic is equally important to both 3E and 4E.  



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> The beauty of a basis in reality is that everyone is acquainted with it.




The ugliness comes from the fact that reality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy.  I'm not saying it's true for all, but that's been my experience.

Also, and this might be my own naivete speaking since I've only played two and a half editions of D&D, has D&D ever been grounded in reality, at all?  It seems to me it hasn't.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Keefe the Thief said:


> Where did you hear that, and what videogames are that? I´m curious.




Not having much to do with the actual RAW, but  if a would-be player had experirnce playing City of Heroes then he or she could come to the game with a good working knowledge about the roles of Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader and how they work as a team.

CAGI would be instantly understood by anyone who had experience with a World of Warcraft warrior (provided they played one long enough to learn challenging shout) as well as a good working knowledge of how stance powers work.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ariosto said:


> The beauty of a basis in reality is that everyone is acquainted with it.




This is an absolutely true observation.



RefinedBean said:


> The ugliness comes from the fact that reality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy.




And this is just a product of poor presentation.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> We weren't trying to take the 4e to it's logical conclusion, at least not consciously, though we did deliberately build in ways to rationalize some facets of the 4e rules; the ease of resurrection, the prevalence of rituals, the widespread magic... I'm sure they were more. The process was more trying to preemptively cover our tails than orderly extrapolation.




This sounds rather like an attempt to follow the rules to their logical conclusions, even if not consciously.  

And, as I said before, it seems the perfect setting for 4e.

You may call it a kind of genius if you like.  



> All I was trying to do in this thread was offer a possible explanation of how it worked that was consistent with rules (and didn't involve magic). Which I did, ad infinitum, or so it seems.




Well, you made a valiant effort, but not a successful one from where I am standing.  Certainly, it was an effort that impressed some folks who already agreed with you, and sometimes that is the best that one can hope for.  

And, while you didn't convince me with your arguments, at least I learned something, which is always nice.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

RefinedBean said:


> The ugliness comes from the fact that reality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy. I'm not saying it's true for all, but that's been my experience.
> 
> Also, and this might be my own naivete speaking since I've only played two and a half editions of D&D, has D&D ever been grounded in reality, at all? It seems to me it hasn't.




D&D has never strived to simulate any kind of reality. The default game world assumptions were that the laws of physics, and the way things interact with one another was similar to earth unless magic or supernatural forces showed up to make new rules.  The world works pretty much as expected EXCEPT when magic says otherwise.

That was old school exception based design.

There isn't anything wrong with changing this set of assumptions as long as they are spelled out as the established norm. The default assumptions simply provided the baseline that required the least amount of effort.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> I'm almost rubbing my hands with glee.




Why?  



> Also, and this might be my own naivete speaking since I've only played two and a half editions of D&D, has D&D ever been grounded in reality, at all?  It seems to me it hasn't.




That depends upon what you mean by "grounded in reality".  If you mean "Built upon a basis of reality with fantastic elements layered upon it", then yes.  I would go so far as to say that this was a hallmark of D&D up until 3e, and was still a strong element in 3e.  I mean, D&D devoted sections to the nomenclature of pole arms, and the type of clothing peasants might wear.

3e took a step away from that by introducing "mundane" equipment that was either alchemical in nature, or relatively impossible or unlikely to be of use (the gnome hammer that impales your forearm when you swing it, for example, or all those endless spikes).  These elements were (rightly, IMHO) criticized.  4e takes a huge leap in the same direction, and it shouldn't be surprising that those who didn't like these elements in 3e like them even less now that they are all-pervasive.

If you mean "realistic", then no.  Even the 2e Historical References made use of fantastic elements.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that D&D is better without fantastic elements.  Moreover, as language is generally used, "grounded in reality" means using reality as a baseline, not including only realistic elements.

YMMV, though.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> And this is just a product of poor presentation.




That could be.  And I'll admit that I don't have much experience with realistic heroic fantasy systems.  I couldn't even name any, really.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> That could be.  And I'll admit that I don't have much experience with realistic heroic fantasy systems.  I couldn't even name any, really.




"[R]eality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy" does not imply that all systems within the game are realistic.

You are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Why?




Because despite the heated disagreements in this thread, I've had an awesome time with the discussion.  Learned things, presented cases, discussed rules...pretty much what ENworld is all about.

Plus, this thread has flirted close to being an Edition War, but hasn't yet, and (as far as I know) mods haven't had to get in on the action, which is always a plus.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Cool.

All good reasons for glee.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> "[R]eality can be deathly boring when applied to heroic fantasy" does not imply that all systems within the game are realistic.




Fair enough.  In the editions of D&D I've played, every system has been unrealistic.  (shrug)  YMMV, of course!


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> Fair enough.  In the editions of D&D I've played, every system has been unrealistic.  (shrug)  YMMV, of course!




"Unrealistic" is a quality with variable settings.  A system that attempts to model reality is "unrealistic" wherever it fails in that attempt.  That doesn't make it "unrealistic" in the same way that cranking surrealism to 11 does.

Again, though, YMMV.  

Or am I falling for the Fallcy of the Unbounded Middle?  (<---Tick reference)


RC


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> And this is just a product of poor presentation.




This statement amounts to "if you don't like it, then you aren't doing it right."

In the past, such assertions have been found to be condescending, mildly insulting, and just plain incorrect.

I'm sorry, RC, but people can find it boring even with good presentation.  Not everyone finds everything interesting - including reality applied to their RPGs.


----------



## Ariosto

RefinedBean said:


> Also, and this might be my own naivete speaking since I've only played two and a half editions of D&D, has D&D ever been grounded in reality, at all?  It seems to me it hasn't.



My post on page 30 concerning the view of _RuneQuest_ as "more realistic" than _Dungeons & Dragons_ notes some of the elaborations in supplements to the original set. Note that where they treat matters that have real-world referents, such as combat, the aim consistently is to model those -- not to erect complex barriers between the game and common sense.

More significant, though, is the effect of _fewer_ rules than have become par for the course in recent versions. There was neither a generic "page 42" system nor such a host of specific rules governing non-magical activities. Nor, for that matter, were magical effects so rigidly defined in board-game terms.

As a consequence, reality was often the *only* common grounding.

Moreover, that rules-lightness reflected a fundamental principle that was stated pretty explicitly: The referee is the final arbiter in all cases. Theoretically, one might say that the principle still applies to 4E. As a practical matter, the inertial mass of rules makes that less tenable.

It would be a simple matter to make an old-style D&D game as devoid of verisimilitude as 4E. It would be much more difficult to restore some sense of realism to 4E without negating most of the value in having the voluminous rule books in the first place. I reckon it would probably be less work to design a whole new game from scratch!


----------



## Mad Mac

> It would be a simple matter to make OD&D (or even AD&D) as devoid of verisimilitude as 4E. It would be much more difficult to restore some sense of realism to 4E without negating most of the value in having the voluminous rule books in the first place. I reckon it would probably be less work to design a whole new game from scratch!




  As someone who did play older editions, I'm having an awfully hard time using _realism_ and _D&D_ in the same sentance. 

  I mean, lots of pole arms trivia, yes, but realism, not so much.


----------



## Ariosto

Well, that was your choice as to how to play it -- an excellent freedom, in my opinion! There was no binding set of rules imposing realism upon you any more than surrealism. The difference with 4E is that it is actively _anti_-realistic.


----------



## RefinedBean

Ariosto said:


> I reckon it would probably be less work to design a whole new game from scratch!




You can say that again!

Still though, with the whole verisimilitude thing...verisimilitude is subjective, right?  So until we can find an objective way of measuring it, saying that 4E (or ANY system) is devoid of the v-word can only be a matter of opinion.

I think it's a strength of the D&D brand that it has so many different editions under its belt, and each edition can provide either the exact same experience, or a completely different one.  I mainly play 4E, but there are a few things that I'd go back to 3E for.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> The difference with 4E is that it is actively _anti_-realistic.



Near the beginning of the 1e PHB (the edition I started with, BTW), EGG described D&D as 'swords and sorcery'. That is, he described in terms of a literary sub-genre. You may consider 4e anti-realistic, but it sure seems to produce an experience consistent with a swords and sorcery story when my group plays it (albeit surreal and metafictional one, but S&S-like nonetheless).


----------



## Kask

Ariosto said:


> The difference with 4E is that it is actively _anti_-realistic.




That's where the "board game" feel comes from.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Ariosto said:


> Note that where they treat matters that have real-world referents, such as combat, the aim consistently is to model those -- not to erect complex barriers between the game and common sense.



One of the aims. In its core concepts - classes, levels, hit points - D&D has always heavily favoured playability over realism.

"Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the _realism-simulation_ school and the other as the _game _school. *AD&D* is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism... It does little to attempt to simulate anything either." - Gary Gygax 1e AD&D DMG page 9


----------



## Doug McCrae

And sometimes D&D is just plain bizarre. Wtf was the deal with alignment languages?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Kask said:


> That's where the "board game" feel comes from.



Eh, hit points and armor class have kind of a civil war era naval wargame feel don't you think?


----------



## rounser

> It does little to attempt to simulate anything either.



And now we don't even have much of that "little attempt".  I see you trying to imply something along the lines of "it was always this abstract", but no, it wasn't.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Hmmm, 4e as board-gamey, anti-simulationist, sharing certain traits with video games. I´ve heard that before, but i sure like to see it re-explained in 34 pages of thread by people who don´t like the edition.  Even if it does not match my weekly play experience, or my experience while world-building. Lets get back to the discussion: back the, D&D was better at simulating... ?


----------



## fanboy2000

Keefe the Thief said:


> Lets get back to the discussion: back the, D&D was better at simulating... ?



...a game of Paranoia. 

Happiness is mandatory.


----------



## rounser

> sharing certain traits with video games.



I disagree.  Video games are generally _less_ abstract than 4E because you can see what's happening on the screen.  4E, you can't even visualise how some of the rules are manifesting.  The "yawn, heard it all before" thing is a good way to dismiss an argument you have difficulty refuting, but won't work this time.


----------



## Scribble

rounser said:


> I disagree.  Video games are generally _less_ abstract than 4E because you can see what's happening on the screen.  4E, you can't even visualise how some of the rules are manifesting.




Man... I'm glad *I*don't lack an imagination.


----------



## rounser

> Man... I'm glad Idon't lack an imagination.



And here's the ad hominem attacks, right on time.  I think that's the bottom of the barrel for you guys, you've tried every trick in the book and just plain run out of ammo.  You seem to have given up on trying to make a cohesive counterargument, but that's because you don't have a leg to stand on, so you're getting out the dirty tricks.

Here's a hint: the term you're looking for is not imagination, but "suspension of disbelief", and your game has trouble suspending it.  That's because it was overlooked or undervalued in the design process, and is therefore badly designed in this way.  There are IMO other ways as well, but they're off topic.


----------



## Kask

Doug McCrae said:


> Eh, hit points and armor class have kind of a civil war era naval wargame feel don't you think?





I was thinking more along the line of your speed increasing if you move at a 45' angle relative to the game board.  Like in 4.0


----------



## Scribble

rounser said:


> And here's the ad hominem attacks, right on time.  I think that's the bottom of the barrel for you guys, you've tried every trick in the book and just plain run out of ammo.  I'm so sorry you can't make a cohesive argument.  But that's because you don't have a leg to stand on, so you're getting out the dirty tricks.
> 
> Here's a hint: the term you're looking for is not imagination, but "suspension of disbelief", and your game has trouble suspending it.  That's because it was overlooked or undervalued in the design process, and is therefore badly designed in this way.  There are IMO other ways as well, but they're off topic.




Pot...

Rounser... you might say suspension of disbelief, but I have no trouble imagining ways for the powers to work- As I've said before. The rules have nothing to do with it. If this is not your play style that's fine, and I'm sorry D&D no longer supports your preffered playstyle. It supports mine very well.

If you're going to make statements like "you can't even visualize how some of the rules are manifesting" then my only answer is I'm glad *I* have the ability to imagine/visualize them "manifesting-" as if I didn't I wouldn't be having as much fun as I'm currently having.


----------



## darjr

rounser said:


> Here's a hint: the term you're looking for is not imagination, but "suspension of disbelief", and your game has trouble suspending it.  That's because it was overlooked or undervalued in the design process, and is therefore badly designed in this way.  There are IMO other ways as well, but they're off topic.




A willing suspension of disbelief is an act of will. It is a personal action of a human being. It is really to bad that you are not willing with 4e, I think that if you were you'd see what a great game it really is.

It's been said that to support someones willing suspension of disbelief a writer needs to infuse their work with "human interest and a semblance of truth", 4e has this in buckets.

The amount of infusion necessary is subjective and personal. IMHO you carry the burden of proof to show that there is some universal level that must be met in order to state your opinion of bad design as a universal fact. You have failed to do so, your arguments ring hollow.


----------



## D'karr

Kask said:


> I was thinking more along the line of your speed increasing if you move at a 45' angle relative to the game board.  Like in 4.0




Yawn...


----------



## rounser

> a writer needs to infuse their work with "human interest and a semblance of truth", 4e has this in buckets.



Do you have any idea how deeply ironic a statement this is?  

4E is anything but humanocentric, with bucketloads of gimmick PC races presented as non-optional.  And this entire thread is about how, Houston, we have a problem with 4E being true to anything but the metagame in significant areas.  Beating Gygaxian D&D for lacking verisimilitude is not "semblance of truth", more worthy of an olympic medal for self referencing irrelevancy.


----------



## Imaro

Kask said:


> I was thinking more along the line of your speed increasing if you move at a 45' angle relative to the game board. Like in 4.0




Dude that's not a problem that's a plus... now if I move diagonal I can describe my man as teleporting, moving at superspeed, or that he's a master of the space-time continuum... 

Better yet it allows me as a player to take over narrative control, as when I move only in a diagonal way, it actually represents the fact that I can move more swiftly when running after something important to my character... Yeah I know I can move diagonally anytime I want but that's just one of the reasons it makes sense...Didn't you see above, sometimes I'm a master of the space time continuum too.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Dude that's not a problem that's a plus... now if I move diagonal I can describe my man as teleporting, moving at superspeed, or that he's a master of the space-time continuum...
> 
> Better yet it allows me as a player to take over narrative control, as when I move only in a diagonal way, it actually represents the fact that I can move more swiftly when running after something important to my character... Yeah I know I can move diagonally anytime I want but that's just one of the reasons it makes sense...Didn't you see above, sometimes I'm a master of the space time continuum too.




Yeah you guys are so right...

I mean I can get behind D&D people moving in exact 5' squares at the exact same time over and over again almost roboticaly until their enemy is defeated (at which point their speed changes to another speed...) but adding this oddity about diagonals is CRAZYTIME.


----------



## rounser

> If you're going to make statements like "you can't even visualize how some of the rules are manifesting" then my only answer is I'm glad I have the ability to imagine/visualize them "manifesting-" as if I didn't I wouldn't be having as much fun as I'm currently having.



I can handwave too.  The problem you have is that your game makes so little sense in certain scenarios that your handwaving has to be inconsistent in it's excuses, because it doesn't handle corner cases, nor does it explain mundane superpowers away with magic as a dispensation.  There's a point where all that handwaving causes suspension of disbelief to fail, and you just have to concede that it probably should have been designed differently.


----------



## Scribble

rounser said:


> I can handwave too.  The problem you have is that your game makes so little sense in certain scenarios that your handwaving has to be inconsistent in it's excuses, because it doesn't handle corner cases, nor does it explain mundane superpowers away with magic as a dispensation.  There's a point where all that handwaving causes suspension of disbelief to fail, and you just have to concede that it probably should have been designed differently.




Maybe in your case this is true?

My case? I don't "handwave" as I've said- the rules of the game do not imply what is happening in the game world. The world determines what rules I use to determine outcome. This is why the "abstract" rules do not bother me (and even are a plus) because I can more easily utilize them as I want/need.

I understand this is not your style of play, and your above quote may apply to your own game experiences. It is not universal, however.


----------



## Shroomy

rounser said:


> I can handwave too.  The problem you have is that your game makes so little sense in certain scenarios that your handwaving has to be inconsistent in it's excuses, because it doesn't handle corner cases, nor does it explain mundane superpowers away with magic as a dispensation.  There's a point where all that handwaving causes suspension of disbelief to fail, and you just have to concede that it probably should have been designed differently.




No we don't.  I'm not the most immersive gamer out there, but I have not experienced any of the problems that you ascribe to 4e and its players, nor have I had any problem visualizing or imagining the events in-game or while reading the rules.


----------



## rounser

> No we don't. I'm not the most immersive gamer out there, but I have not experienced any of the problems that you ascribe to 4e and its players, nor have I had any problem visualizing or imagining the events in-game or while reading the rules.



Sorry, my fault, this 35 page thread is just a mirage.


----------



## rounser

> the rules of the game do not imply what is happening in the game world.



There's your problem.


----------



## Scribble

rounser said:


> Sorry, my fault, this 35 page thread is just a mirage.




No- it's a testament to people time and time again trying to tell me why I shouldn't be able to imagine the things I can imagine... for some odd reason.


----------



## Scribble

rounser said:


> There's your problem.




No... but apparently it causes a problem for you. 

Tell you what... when we all get together for the Refined suggested I'll buy you one?


----------



## rounser

> No... but apparently it causes a problem for you.



No, because I avoid games purporting to be D&D that can't even summon up a level of verisimilitude equal to Gygax/Mentzer/Zeb.  I do appreciate the loss of an entire edition under the D&D name, though.


----------



## Imaro

Scribble said:


> Maybe in your case this is true?
> 
> My case? I don't "handwave" as I've said- the rules of the game do not imply what is happening in the game world. The world determines what rules I use to determine outcome. This is why the "abstract" rules do not bother me (and even are a plus) because I can more easily utilize them as I want/need.




 I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the  setting?  I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it?  Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC.  Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on. 

 Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place?  Or is all of this meaningless?  I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Imaro said:


> I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the  setting?  I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it?  Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC.  Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on.
> 
> Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place?  Or is all of this meaningless?  I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.




Not in my opinion, and I suspect Scribbles and some others here. A basic attack (or a normal attack in other editions), the roll of the die does not represent a sword stroke, Fights do not in my experience proceed in 6 second increments, or in initiative order. The die roll tells you wheither you are winning or loosing at the moment. 

What actually happened is the wite up infered from the game results after the combat is over.


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> Lostsoul, I think I undeerstand what you're getting at with this question and if so I believe it is definitely an interesting conundrum to explore, so let me try to answer from my own experiences in 4e...




Thanks Imaro!  I appreciate the response.  (I need to spread more XP around, etc.)



Imaro said:


> Finally the gamist approach, and what I see in majority of D&D 4e games is to select the skill you have the highest score in and then try and justify it's use... not because it is appropriate narratively or because it interacts with the world in a way that it believably simulates a coherent reality... but because mechanically it is the optimal choice.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think both D&D 4e's abstraction and it's decidely gamist bent encourage and even reward this behavior as opposeed to the other two (and of course you can consciously choose to play it in a different style, but I am talking about what the default suggests), and thus your players, when making decisions, will either embrace "choose a superior mechanic first, and everything else later" attitude... or will eventually come around to this way of thinking as the game progresses and this way of play is enforced and rewarded more and more.




Let me start off by saying that I want the players to make gamist choices - to try and "win" because they are _good players._  "Winning" means different things based on the PC's goals, and I want it to be firmly grounded in the game world.  That's not too hard from my DM's point of view; I set up the threats, especially long-term ones the PCs can't deal with now, and they try and knock them down.  

Good players will achieve their PC's goals, and poor players will be struggling to keep their heads above water.

So, skill challenges/skill checks.  What you're saying is that the situation in the game world becomes less important than a high number on the character sheet because of this abstraction.  If I can't know what "Arcana" means (is it just knowledge about arcane lore or the ability to manipulate it?), then how does one decide when it can be used and when it can't?

What's the point of a player making _smart_ choices in order to use his best abilities when any ability can be used at any time, and all the smart choices can be found on the WotC Char-Op boards?

What do you think about this solution: the DM, as a referee and lorekeeper of the world, has a tight rein over what the skills mean in the gameworld.  He uses the in-game situation to decide what skills can be used, which ones can't, and which ones give a bonus/penalty or auto-success/failure.  By adding elements to the gameworld - that can be discovered by the players through experience - smart players can translate their knowledge of the game world into situations where their best skills come into play.

That's a lot of babble, but I can't think of an example right now to ground it in actual play.  Hmm...


----------



## alleynbard

Imaro said:


> I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the  setting?  I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it?  Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC.  Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on.
> 
> Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place?  Or is all of this meaningless?  I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.




I get what you are saying here and agree. I can't say whether Scribble meant exactly that or not, but I can answer for myself. 

 Even when a rule or power is not "simulationist" it implies something about what is going on in the setting.  For instance, if a power causes forced movement, it does imply that somehow the character is doing something to cause that movement to happen.

What I have noticed is that situation can change from encounter to encounter depending on a variety of factors.  For instance, Come and Get It might be a taunt or it could be the character firing a warning shot at the creature he is targeting (or tossing a rock, throwing a dagger, etc.), garnering its attention.  It depends on the situation.  It also depends on how the character described his action to me.  

This isn't always true though.  If a spell caused a cloud of noxious gas and forced movement, I would imagine I would rule the movement is for the same reason every time (the creatures are stumbling away from the nasty gas).  Now, another DM might state the gas burst moves so fast it knocks creatures out of the way (as odd as that sounds).  Both are right within the context of the game but are very different ways of interpreting it.

So how I interpret the power manifesting isn't necessarily related expressly to the rule. The environment feeds into it as well.  But the power/rule does give the basic structure of what happens.

Not sure if that helps the discussion at all, but that is how I see it.


----------



## Mallus

rounser said:


> Do you have any idea how deeply ironic a statement this is?
> 
> 4E is anything but humanocentric....



Fiction can be full of 'human interest' even though it technically about non-human characters. You'll note this is how most science fiction and fantasy that features alien characters you care about works.

For instance, Watership Down.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> I'm a little confused here... in general don't the rules imply things about the  setting?  I mean the fact that a basic melee attack relies on strength and targets armor class implies something about the way the world works... doesn't it?  Or that a basic ranged attack uses Dex and targets AC.  Or that there are "power sources" that categorize powers... or that monsters exist or that weapons can't be used as implements by Wizards...and so on.
> 
> Don't these things imply something, however insignificant you may think it is, about the world in which the game takes place?  Or is all of this meaningless?  I mean even if you change it, you've just changed what it implies... not the fact of whether it implies anything or not.




It's a way of looking at the rules/vrs world Imaro. I guess it's akin to one of those weird picture in a picture things? You know where like you see an old lady, but then if you "refocus" you see a young lady turning away? It's like that I guess.

Like when I see the rules, they don't translate into an image in my head. Like the fact that someone makes a melee attack using strength doesn't cause me to picture a physical attack against the enemy. It's kind of the opposite way around. I see the attack in my head, which causes me to utilize a rule that works to quickly get the game element out of the way, and get me back to my imaginary event.

In anycase remind me, and I will try to elaborate more on Monday. Right now I'm late for my weekly game. Have a good weekend!


----------



## Imaro

ardoughter said:


> Not in my opinion, and I suspect Scribbles and some others here. A basic attack (or a normal attack in other editions), the roll of the die does not represent a sword stroke, Fights do not in my experience proceed in 6 second increments, or in initiative order. The die roll tells you wheither you are winning or loosing at the moment.
> 
> What actually happened is the wite up infered from the game results after the combat is over.




I think you're missing my point, and it's probably my fault that I didn't go into depth with any one example (as I didn't want a singular example to become the focus of what I was stating) but let me go further...

Using armor raises AC... yet it doesn't raise Ref, Fort or Will defenses... thus we can surmise that in this hypothetical D&D world that attacks which target Ref, Will or Fort are not affected by armor, but those that target AC are... right? Now going a little further... a basic melee and ranged attack (barring magic) always target AC... thus it is implied, because of these rules, that Armor makes you harder to hit when someone wields a weapon against you...right? The fact that all basic melee and ranged attacks use Str and Dex respectively also implies that these weapons are used (again barring magic or some other extraordinary exception) better by someone with greater physical prowess...right?

And so on, what I'm saying is that the rules very much create implied things about the world by how they interact.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hexmage-EN said:


> Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.




It certainly is one issue. There are some people who liked fighters because they were so simple and didn't have so many options. You could roleplay a fighter knowing that (system wise) the experience was going to be mechanically simple. In 4E you are pushed toward more of a magic user level of resource juggling and managing power (spell) effects.

There is nothing "forcing " you to do this of course. You could just make basic attacks I suppose. With the bloated HP totals of things it would be like hitting with a spitball. I don't imagine that would last more than a session or two before the fighter gets booted from the group while the rest of the party joins the LFG channel in search of a tank.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.




  It's not really as bad as all that. You choose your own powers, so you can always stay away from powers you personally find weird or complicated. If you want a simple fighter, grab an axe or a hammer and stick to the "hitting stuff really hard" line of powers. 

  Alternately, just play a ranger and use twin strike 90% of the time like everyone else does.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Kask said:


> I was thinking more along the line of your speed increasing if you move at a 45' angle relative to the game board.  Like in 4.0



4e's diagonal movement rules prioritise playability over realism to a greater extent than 3e's do. Game designers always have to juggle these two factors. Playability is always an issue. I don't think there's a rule in an rpg anywhere that's 100% realistic. 3e's diagonal movement certainly isn't.

Likewise D&D's classes, levels and hit points are further along the playability axis than the rules of the majority of rpgs. Most lack classes and have abilities increase independently rather than all at once.


----------



## Kask

Imaro said:


> Better yet it allows me as a player to take over narrative control, as when I move only in a diagonal way,




So, can I take a 10' rope of gold, stretch it out parallel with the grid and then move it 45' off center and end up with more gold?  According to the rules I can.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Just to clarify, I think Martial characters definitely needed more options than what they had pre-4E. I just think the designers were encouraged to go overboard with it when they decided to give every class the same progression.


----------



## Kask

Doug McCrae said:


> 4e's diagonal movement rules prioritise playability over realism to a greater extent than 3e's do.




Playability? I never met anyone in my 35 years of gaming that found any playability issues with that type of movement.  So, I haven't a clue why they did it.


----------



## LostSoul

If the game's fiction (the gameworld/setting, whatever you want to call it) is important, yet a player can use Come and Get It at any time - even it if makes no sense in the game's fiction - yep, I see it, the game rule trumps the fiction.  That is a similar occurance to what happens in board games.

More importantly (to me), it reduces player choice to tactical manipulation of the rules on the battlemat, and not how it relates to the gameworld's fiction.  Smart play is "chess play" and there is little sense in manipulating - or even caring about - the fiction.  Even more so if all challenges are level-appropriate!

If one grants the DM the authority to overrule Come and Get It in order to maintain consistency in the fiction: "No, those archers are not going to jump off the wall to face you" (a possible result of Come and Get It), then what is the point to having a suite of powers pre-defined in the books?

But yet something about 4E intrigues me, especially since I consider the DM to have the authority to overrule powers (of PCs, NPCs, and monsters) so that he can maintain the consistency of the fiction - which is a primary responsibility for him.  (In my case, that responsibility is there so that players can make smart choices.)

This discussion (and the short one I had with *Ariosto* on skill challenges) has been interesting.  I need to think about it some more.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Hexmage-EN said:


> Now that I'm thinking about it, I think that the power system itself could be the cause of 4E's verisimilitude problems, especially in regard to Martial powers. It's not that the system itself is flawed, but that there are too many powers. Martial characters went from having a few options to having the exact same amount of options as every other class. The only way they could accomplish this was by increasing the level of abstraction, which resulted in several powers that make little sense in certain situations.



It's hard to balance magic guys with non-magic guys cause magic can do anything and non-magic can't.


----------



## jmucchiello

Kask said:


> Playability? I never met anyone in my 35 years of gaming that found any playability issues with that type of movement.  So, I haven't a clue why they did it.




Actually my group played 3e with the 4e rules 3 years before 4e came out. I hated it but was the only hold out against the non-euclidean aspects. Three other players just couldn't get a knack for the 2 then 1 aspect of diagonal moves especially as it applied to going around stuff.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Kask said:


> Playability? I never met anyone in my 35 years of gaming that found any playability issues with that type of movement.  So, I haven't a clue why they did it.



It's easier to count every square as 1 than it is to remember the 1-2-1 rule. The 4e rule is simpler, thus more playable, but at the expense of being less realistic.


----------



## Mad Mac

> So, can I take a 10' rope of gold, stretch it out parallel with the grid and then move it 45' off center and end up with more gold? According to the rules I can.




  Don't try that in SWSE, or else you could end up with less gold then you started with. 

  Alternately, you can do the same thing in 3.5 by breaking the gold rope into 5' sections.


----------



## Kask

Doug McCrae said:


> It's easier to count every square as 1 than it is to remember the 1-2-1 rule. The 4e rule is simpler, thus more playable, but at the expense of being less realistic.




Okay...  I've taught 8 year olds to play and there wasn't a problem with figuring movement. So, I guess it could be a playability issue with someone who has less math skills than that...  I've just never encountered it before.


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> So, can I take a 10' rope of gold, stretch it out parallel with the grid and then move it 45' off center and end up with more gold?  According to the rules I can.



Nonsense. The rules say the DM can intercede with common sense at any time. 

Just like in every other edition of D&D...


----------



## Mad Mac

> Nonsense. The rules say the DM can intercede with common sense at any time.
> 
> Just like in every other edition of D&D...




  You mean my characters don't magically move at triple speed by going outdoors in 1st edition? Meanie!


----------



## Ariosto

AD&D Gygax tooted a different tune than OD&D Gygax in many ways, so does not represent "the way it always has been" even from atop Gary's Soap Box. Some of the spiel represents a desire to pin down AD&D to a precisely codified set of tournament rules, but by the time it was published that was not quite accurate. (By all accounts, it never reflected how he actually DMed.) Then we got Late TSR Gygax tooting instead about the joys of endless supplements and a Second Edition, and delivering toys such as player-character Deep Gnomes to all the good little munchkins.

Greater simplicity, at any rate, is not a quality widely associated with AD&D over OD&D.

I will note again that where mechanical complications raise their heads, they tend to be inspired by some desire for simulation.


----------



## Piratecat

Folks, there's a lot of sniping in this thread. One more snide insult - yes, even those you think you can slide under the radar - and you will have an exceptionally cranky admin. Be warned.


----------



## LostSoul

This may have no relevance to anyone else but me!

If the minute details of your game's fiction don't contribute meaningfully to your play, then even if you're a stickler, over time you're going to let those minute details fall away. Where your character's standing, what he's doing with his hands, how his eyes move when she comes around the stone fence, whether clouds pass in front of the sun or it glares down unmitigated - these things come to be like the character sheet that you leave in a binder in the drawer.​
anyway: Magical Magic


----------



## Ariosto

Lost Soul, that is lovely -- and expresses where I find "realism" in the game. The term is irrelevant to reality, being confined to our second-hand depictions.

Magic is a matter of contrast with the normal world. If the latter is not realized vividly, the former tends to be tawdry.

A focus on arbitrary numbers, grids and game jargon is a distraction from the observation that makes particular things present in the mind's eye. Providing the material for that envisioning is a key part of a Game Master's work. A key part of a role-player's work is to pay attention, and to inquire more deeply.

As that is devalued in game relevance, moved ever further from its original central position as the actual medium of play, I see a thinning of the game's magic.


----------



## LostSoul

Ariosto said:


> A focus on arbitrary numbers, grids and game jargon is a distraction from the observation that makes particular things present in the mind's eye. Providing the material for that envisioning is a key part of a Game Master's work. A key part of a role-player's work is to pay attention, and to inquire more deeply.




Yes, I agree.  I don't think numbers, grids, jargon, etc. are too bad, but they need to feed back into the fiction - else why would you even care?

Have to say - thanks for the criticisms of skill challenges over in the other thread a week or so back.  That has made me take a look at how I should DM skill challenges.


----------



## Ariosto

There's significant overlap among enthusiasts of Traveller, RuneQuest, and 1st ed. AD&D. However, there is also a faction of the latter with a knee-jerk reaction of "Boo! Hiss!" to any sort of "skills system." I think that has to do with the coincidence of its introduction to AD&D with more truly "revoltin' developments".

The key question is whether we master the tools or are mastered by them. Properly (in my view, anyhow) there is a loop of "fiction" input > determination of reasonable probabilities > (sometimes) dice-rolls > "fiction" output > "fiction" input again.


----------



## darjr

rounser said:


> Do you have any idea how deeply ironic a statement this is?
> 
> 4E is anything but humanocentric, with bucketloads of gimmick PC races presented as non-optional.  And this entire thread is about how, Houston, we have a problem with 4E being true to anything but the metagame in significant areas.  Beating Gygaxian D&D for lacking verisimilitude is not "semblance of truth", more worthy of an olympic medal for self referencing irrelevancy.




I see a parade of posts showing that, Houston, there isn't a problem. Post after post showing, that a little imagination, and a willful suspension of disbelief, are the simple tools required for the game. It's as true for 4e as it has ever been for any version of D&D.

This thread goes on and on, in large part, because you have failed to make your case. Your rock rolls down that hill and you, stubbornly, have at it again. You'll twist and tack but your essential argument remains unconvincing.


----------



## darjr

Another thing that bugs me is the whole 'fighters use magic' meme.

AD&D characters got percentage STR if they had an 18 upon becoming a fighter.

A human getting a second class of fighter with an 18 STR earned a roll of the percentage dice. I don't think I missed somthing, I think that's how it works. The fighter gets an almost magical boost to STR. The only other way to get such a boost is via magic. So is it magic?

The rules say it isn't magic, and I've been willing to play along. It's a sound rule. One I've even had the joy to use. Rounser, is it a bad rule?


----------



## Ariosto

Darjr, I don't think the rules (at least in 1st ed.) actually stipulate either way. I think it is most commonly interpreted as a non-magical consequence of a fighter's training regimen, but some DMs might regard all exceptional strength beyond a certain level as supernatural. I highly doubt that many would take offense at either characterization. The cavalier class, on the other hand, may be contentious for more reasons than just ability score increases!

Now, why might one regard it as magical? That could arise from a comparison of the capabilities with those of real-world athletes. I'm not saying that the evidence would (or would not) warrant that conclusion, as I have not examined it.

Magic, the supernatural, is what breaks what we perceive to be the laws binding the natural. It is what we not only do not observe in the real world but consider practically impossible. Naturally, one cannot (for instance) simply will the movement of other beings; that does not match our knowledge of cause and effect.


----------



## darjr

One cannot gain 'exceptional strength' by any other means than magical.... except in the one instance when one becomes a fighter. It is an artifact of magical enhancement in all aspects except the one. Why? Because the rules do stipulate that it is NOT magical. That's it.

It isn't available to any other character in any other circumstance other than magical ones.


----------



## fanboy2000

darjr said:


> This thread goes on and on, in large part, because you have failed to make your case. Your rock rolls down that hill and you, stubbornly, have at it again. You'll twist and tack but your essential argument remains unconvincing.



I don't think it's that he hasn't made his case. (i.e. I think he has made his case, I just don't agree with it) The thread keeps going on and on because we're slowly working our way through every major gaming debate ever. Those debates weren't solved then and they won't be solved now.

It's like Emacs vs. vi: it'll keep going until the last Unix users die from surgery complications from a carpel tunnel operation.

Anyways, if we can keep our cool, I suspect we'll have a rollplaying vs roleplaying debate in about another 10 pages.


----------



## darjr

Wot? 

Like the 'D&D is only a wargame' one? I especially don't like that one. It is rather traditional, and dismissive. I wonder how far back it goes.

And it's vim for the win.


----------



## Derren

darjr said:


> I wonder how far back it goes.




Probably back to the time where D&D was just a wargame, a legacy it never managed to escape from completely and one it now came to embrace again.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Imaro said:


> I think you're missing my point, and it's probably my fault that I didn't go into depth with any one example (as I didn't want a singular example to become the focus of what I was stating) but let me go further...
> 
> Using armor raises AC... yet it doesn't raise Ref, Fort or Will defenses... thus we can surmise that in this hypothetical D&D world that attacks which target Ref, Will or Fort are not affected by armor, but those that target AC are... right? Now going a little further... a basic melee and ranged attack (barring magic) always target AC... thus it is implied, because of these rules, that Armor makes you harder to hit when someone wields a weapon against you...right? The fact that all basic melee and ranged attacks use Str and Dex respectively also implies that these weapons are used (again barring magic or some other extraordinary exception) better by someone with greater physical prowess...right?
> 
> And so on, what I'm saying is that the rules very much create implied things about the world by how they interact.




First off: apologies for getting back to you three pages later, but living in Ireland most posting in ENWorld seems to occur when I am in bed.

With regard to your specific example I agree with you, so on that level yeah the rules imply stuff in the imagined world. 

My point is, that the narrative sleeve you hang in the skeleton of round by round dice rolls in D&D combat is mutable and subject to player interpetation. Others have made a similar point in this thread and I though your post was about that aspect. So I jumped in with both feet. Sorry about that, it was late and I just had my ass handed to me by the AI in Civ4 before catching up on the thread,


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Personally, I still use the 1-2-1 movement rules in 4E for character movement, but not for bursts and blasts. It's easier for me to hand wave the shape of an explosion than to hand wave that a character moves faster diagonally.


----------



## Piratecat

ardoughter said:


> First off: apologies for getting back to you three pages later, but living in Ireland most posting in ENWorld seems to occur when I am in bed.



This is a huge problem, especially with you living somewhere so desirable, and you can make up for it by allowing us to all come visit you in Ireland.  

All of us. 

At once.


----------



## Kask

darjr said:


> A human getting a second class of fighter with an 18 STR earned a roll of the percentage dice. I don't think I missed somthing, I think that's how it works. The fighter gets an almost magical boost to STR. The only other way to get such a boost is via magic. So is it magic?




To answer you Q, no.

It was deemed that only the fighter, because he didn't spend time on class abilities like spells, thieving skills, etc., had the time to build his strength to those high levels.  In other words, fighters had time to physically work out where other classes spent time on their class skills...


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> I think you're missing my point, and it's probably my fault that I didn't go into depth with any one example (as I didn't want a singular example to become the focus of what I was stating) but let me go further...
> 
> Using armor raises AC... yet it doesn't raise Ref, Fort or Will defenses... thus we can surmise that in this hypothetical D&D world that attacks which target Ref, Will or Fort are not affected by armor, but those that target AC are... right? Now going a little further... a basic melee and ranged attack (barring magic) always target AC... thus it is implied, because of these rules, that Armor makes you harder to hit when someone wields a weapon against you...right? The fact that all basic melee and ranged attacks use Str and Dex respectively also implies that these weapons are used (again barring magic or some other extraordinary exception) better by someone with greater physical prowess...right?
> 
> And so on, what I'm saying is that the rules very much create implied things about the world by how they interact.




The problem comes in though, where do you stop?  If you actually decide that rules=physics, your world becomes so completely bizarre that it's very hard to relate to.  Take even the simple example of armor making you harder to hit.  

Huh?  How does putting on a suit of armor make it more difficult to hit me?  It makes it harder to hurt me, that's true, but touch me?  Sorry, don't believe it.  But, somehow, putting on full plate makes me so much faster that claws that would catch me when I was naked, suddenly miss by a mile.

Or, really, how does being stronger make you more accurate?  Accuracy has very little to do with strength, but, in D&D land, Arnold Swartzenegger is going to hit you far more often than Bruce Lee.  Harder I could understand, but more often?

Going back to my question about hippogriffs.  If the physics of the world allow a hippogriff to fly without magic, why can't my character pick up two pieces of paper, flap his arms and fly away?  It's about as aerodynmically likely as getting half a ton of critter off the ground under its own power.  

So, where do you stop?  At what point do you say that Rules=physics except in these cases?  To me, I look at the rules as abstract constructs that allow me to adjudicate events which occur in the game and nothing more.  They do not speak at all to "real" events in the world.  That's what the DM is for.



Kask said:


> Okay...  I've taught 8 year olds to play and there wasn't a problem with figuring movement. So, I guess it could be a playability issue with someone who has less math skills than that...  I've just never encountered it before.




Could that same 8 year old draw a 40 foot cone cast on a diagonal?  How about a 30 foot spread?  You can be as dismissive of people having issues with this all you like, but, I'll guarantee that in every session you play, someone miscounts a move or an area of effect or a reach situation.  Watch your next session, I'll bet dollars to donuts that someone during the session makes a mistake.


----------



## Kask

Hussar said:


> Huh?  How does putting on a suit of armor make it more difficult to hit me?  It makes it harder to hurt me, that's true, but touch me?  Sorry, don't believe it.




If you were to actually read the games rules as 1st written it was damage not touching that was being determined in the "to hit" roll



Hussar said:


> Could that same 8 year old draw a 40 foot cone cast on a diagonal?  How about a 30 foot spread?




Yes, when I taught them the rules of it they had no problem.  At that age you are doing multiplication & division so figuring out something like this is well, child's play.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Piratecat said:


> This is a huge problem, especially with you living somewhere so desirable, and you can make up for it by allowing us to all come visit you in Ireland.
> 
> All of us.
> 
> At once.



All 80,000 odd ENworld subscribers?
 Well with a bit of organising I suppose It could be done. I'd need some warning to boot the people renting my land off and youd all have to bring your own tents. I have a big barn out the back, needs a bit of fixing up, though even so people would have to game in shifts.

On the other hand I probably could swing a government grant for it
After all i would be saving the Irish tourist industry single handlly.
Probably saving Aer Lingus and who ever flys into Shannon from bankruptsy at the same time. 
So who is coming?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> The problem comes in though, where do you stop? If you actually decide that rules=physics, your world becomes so completely bizarre that it's very hard to relate to. Take even the simple example of armor making you harder to hit.




See this is where the problem comes in... not once did I speak on rules equaling physics. When I talk of "realism" or versmilitude in an rpg I am speaking of logical consistency and expectations in the gameworld that are supported by the rules... not a physics engine. If I sit down to play D&D and a basic attack is always against AC then suddenly it's not, what I want is not only a rule to emulate this but a reason in the world for why this has happened. Otherwise I might as well be in a world of total chaos.



Hussar said:


> Huh? How does putting on a suit of armor make it more difficult to hit me? It makes it harder to hurt me, that's true, but touch me? Sorry, don't believe it. But, somehow, putting on full plate makes me so much faster that claws that would catch me when I was naked, suddenly miss by a mile.




If you want to get technical... armor does in fact make it harder to actually hit you as opposed to the suit of armor. Putting on a suit of plate makes it harder for the blade to actually hit you as opposed to the armor, it has nothing to do with speed, that is factored in through your Dex bonus.



Hussar said:


> Or, really, how does being stronger make you more accurate? Accuracy has very little to do with strength, but, in D&D land, Arnold Swartzenegger is going to hit you far more often than Bruce Lee. Harder I could understand




First do you realize how strong Bruce Lee actually was? The strongest person isn't necessarily the bulkiest or the biggest, you're assuming something that isn't a universal truth... secondly, being stronger allows one to wield a weapon more easily, quickly and with greater accuracy since you have better control over it. Give a 3 year old a longsword and a well muscled grown man one and see whose more accurate. Now there are weapons one can train to use with speed or agility... but this was represented in 3.5 as a feat that translated to that type of training with a weapon.



Hussar said:


> Going back to my question about hippogriffs. If the physics of the world allow a hippogriff to fly without magic, why can't my character pick up two pieces of paper, flap his arms and fly away? It's about as aerodynmically likely as getting half a ton of critter off the ground under its own power.




It flies because, at least in 3.5.. it is a Large Magical Beast... see consistency through rules, no modeling of physics just the fact that just like any monster classified as a "Large Magical Beast" it is able to do things that a normal animal cannot.



Hussar said:


> So, where do you stop? At what point do you say that Rules=physics except in these cases? To me, I look at the rules as abstract constructs that allow me to adjudicate events which occur in the game and nothing more. They do not speak at all to "real" events in the world. That's what the DM is for.




Why do you keep harping on rules equaling physics, this isn't something I'm arguing for. Even abstract constructs should have a consistency and logic in how they relate to the play space (especially in a game) if players are expected to interact and express their charactersinteraction with the shared world through them.





Hussar said:


> Could that same 8 year old draw a 40 foot cone cast on a diagonal? How about a 30 foot spread? You can be as dismissive of people having issues with this all you like, but, I'll guarantee that in every session you play, someone miscounts a move or an area of effect or a reach situation. Watch your next session, I'll bet dollars to donuts that someone during the session makes a mistake.




So is your point since people make mistakes why even try for a sembelance of logic or consistency... if so this is a really weak argument.


----------



## Jack99

Kask said:


> Yes, when I taught them the rules of it they had no problem.  At that age you are doing multiplication & division so figuring out something like this is well, child's play.




Actually, multiplication and division aren't until the 3rd grade curriculuum. I am not sure what ages American kids are in those grades, but I am pretty sure they aren't 8.

And if you think keeping track of all modifiers (not to mention drawing cones etc) in D&D is child's play at 8, you have very little understanding of the *average* child's capabilities.


----------



## Imaro

Jack99 said:


> Actually, multiplication and division aren't until the 3rd grade curriculuum. I am not sure what ages American kids are in those grades, but I am pretty sure they aren't 8.
> 
> And if you think keeping track of all modifiers (not to mention drawing cones etc) in D&D is child's play at 8, you have very little understanding of the *average* child's capabilities.




Uhm...I'm an American and my son is 8 now (he'll be 9 on the 16th) and he's in 3rd grade...and does multiplication and division.  Just saying.


----------



## Kask

Jack99 said:


> Actually, multiplication and division until  the 3rd grade curriculuum. I am not sure what ages American kids are in those grades, but I am pretty sure they aren't 8.
> 
> And if you think keeping track of all modifiers (not to mention drawing cones etc) in D&D is child's play at 8, you have very little understanding of the *average* child's capabilities.




Most children in the US start 3rd grade at 8 years old.  I taught 9 of my child's friends (none of them anything but average) and they all learned it.  I've taught many kids to play.  No problemo.

Now, at 8 I was doing algebra, but I went to private schools.


----------



## fanboy2000

Jack99 said:


> Actually, multiplication and division aren't until the 3rd grade curriculuum. I am not sure what ages American kids are in those grades, but I am pretty sure they aren't 8.



8's about right. I was 7 when I started 3rd grade, and 8 when I finished. Most of the kids there were a few months to a year older than me.


----------



## Ariosto

Yeah, armor in real life works by having a blow hit "it" instead of "you" directly. The effect of strength seems pretty clear to me, from Society of Creative Anachronism examples. Still, there is some abstraction going on in terms of what a successful attack roll that reduces hit points means. High-level characters' hit points represent more than just literal ability to take a beating, including (per the AD&D DMG) magical protection.

The traditional D&D philosophy is that if the abstraction is too poor a model for a given case, then you substitute another model. Poison can kill regardless of hit points, and failing your saving throw means you looked at the gorgon ("medusa") and got petrified. You can't look at it if you're blind, but that might make fighting difficult.

The concept that the player, as a sort of author reaching down into the world, is using a power -- rather than a particular character in the world using it -- can go far to make something seem less magical. An author might still be concerned with the world's internal consistency, though.

The interaction in 4E of the storytelling game, the boardgame and the roleplaying game may seem awkward to some people, I think especially to those (such as me) accustomed to give the roleplaying aspect priority in D&D.

How many times do we have to point that, yes, _Hippogriffs are magical beasts_?

The trouble here with the "slippery slope" argument is that it's being used in defense of an avalanche!

It seems also to be a defense of rules-lawyering, which under the circumstances seems to me sensible. The 4E design would probably collapse if subjected to the "fluff-lawyering" that almost everywhere else is called "role-playing".

"Diagonal" measurements are no problem if one is not using a grid in the first place! (A hexagonal grid gives six directions, but also an artifact of staggering against the grain). Templates are nifty for cones, spheres, and so on. Dealing with a cross-section bisected by a floor takes a bit more, but that comes up very rarely in my experience.


----------



## Piratecat

Ariosto said:


> The 4E design would probably collapse if subjected to the "fluff-lawyering" that almost everywhere else is called "role-playing".



Could you expand on this, please? I don't think I agree with you, but i'm also not sure I understand you. I'm curious what you mean.


----------



## Ariosto

I mean that the approach of taking for granted that Power X creates Effect(s) Y no matter what seems a pretty integral part of the whole "game balance" that justifies the complexity of the design. If we start considering reasonableness first, rather than rationalizing the "story" after the fact by whatever means necessary, then we're introducing just the kind of variable the designers have at every turn gone to great lengths to cut out of the equation.

Besides respecting the time and energy they invested, I have invested a significant (for me, anyway) bit of cash in "buying into" the game. Dumping the skill challenge formalism has turned out to work splendidly, but I am pretty wary of messing so radically with the combat game (which is even more intimately tied to the "character build" game, magic items, and so on).


----------



## Bumbles

Hmm, some of this discussion is beginning to remind me of arguments over spell memorization and casting, with people bringing up Gandalf and saying "But Gandalf didn't forget his spells!  That way is dumb!"


----------



## Ariosto

Bumbles: Yes, there is the factor of taking a game for what it is. OD&D was not designed to be a "Tolkien game" (or precisely to model any other particular work of fiction). On the other hand, the concluding advice that "the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way" was pretty darned easy to follow. With the games from Wizards, that becomes problematic both because of the burden of rules and because of the philosophy that makes such a burden an asset in the first place. Had I bought the line that "it's just the same", I would have had no incentive to buy the 4E books; I already have books for "the old thing". However, as for instance in critiquing Peter Jackson's cinematic trilogy, the invocation of "a name to conjure with" necessarily brings along some baggage of expectations.


----------



## Kask

Bumbles said:


> Hmm, some of this discussion is beginning to remind me of arguments over spell memorization and casting, with people bringing up Gandalf and saying "But Gandalf didn't forget his spells!  That way is dumb!"





Why would someone do that when the casting system was based on a different fantasy world, not Tolkien's?  Why wouldn't they also say that is not how Yoda does it?


----------



## Mad Mac

> Why would someone do that when the casting system was based on a different fantasy world, not Tolkien's? Why wouldn't they also say that is not how Yoda does it?




  Because people would rather play Gandalf than a character I can't name from an obscure series of novels few people have actually read?

  It was just an example of people not liking the fluff implied by the mechanics of older editions. It is a _very very_ *Very* old debate. The very first fan letter published in the original Dragon magazine was probably griping about Vancian Magic, with the editor saying "Please, for the love of Pelor who hasn't been created yet, please stop complaining about this."


----------



## Imaro

Mad Mac said:


> Because people would rather play Gandalf than a character I can't name from an obscure series of novels few people have actually read?
> 
> *It was just an example of people not liking the fluff implied by the mechanics of older editions. *It is a _very very_ *Very* old debate. The very first fan letter published in the original Dragon magazine was probably griping about Vancian Magic, with the editor saying "Please, for the love of Pelor who hasn't been created yet, please stop complaining about this."




But I thought the mechanics didn't imply fluff in 4e... so how is this the same argument?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Imaro said:


> But I thought the mechanics didn't imply fluff in 4e... so how is this the same argument?



Its not, it is a comment on a random observation that some one  just jumped in with.

Your regularly scheduled arguments will resume shortly.

Although the way this thread has been wandering about amybe this is the next scheduled argument.


----------



## Mad Mac

> But I thought the mechanics didn't imply fluff in 4e... so how is this the same argument?




  You'd have to be more specific. As awesome as I am, I'm not actually argueing every point in existance personally. 

  I any case, implied was the wrong word. The official fluff for prior editions is that wizards would forget spells after they cast them, and then they had to re-memorize them. Legions of players felt this was stupid, and lots of other people just didn't like the "fire and forget" mechanics. 3rd edition kept the mechanics, but tweaked the official fluff to say that wizards instead "prepared" spells beforehand, and then finished casting them in combat situations. 

  You could have described spell-casting the same way in 2nd edition, or you could have come up with your own explanation. Fluff is malleable. 

  There has always been a divide between players who believe every little bit of mechanical gear turning has to track precisely to in-game events, and those who keep some distance between the two. 

Edit:



> Its not, it is a comment on a random observation that some one just jumped in with.




  I bow to your superior question answering skills, kind sir.

  I'm sadly easy to divert into rambling about 2nd edition splatbooks. Anyone want to talk about the Complete Ninja's Handbook?


----------



## Emirikol

After running a campaign using 3.5 to do a CONAN lower-magic campaign, I realized that you used to be able to do a lower-magic game.  Now, I'm not so sure.  The game has turned into...uh...something else.   Does "magic" even exist now?

[grumble on]Our 4e games have pretty much just turned into dice-rolling math-practice now and it seems irrelevant even whatever the original themes of the game even were.  My players seem to be having fun trying out new stuff, but as the DM, I'm tired of being a human abacus..again..it doesnt' even feel like magic has any purpose because afaiac, everything feels like a 1.0/2.0/3.0 spellcaster now (and takes just as long..if not longer because of all the petty modifiers, adding, and extraneous post-digested foodstuffs).

I think magic isn't important to the game as much is it is important for players to feel like anything's possible (i.e. without limits to their choices) in some campaigns/groups/opinions..hence now we have 'martial magic.'



jh
www.hafnerchiropractic.com






..


----------



## Kask

Mad Mac said:


> 3rd edition kept the mechanics, but tweaked the official fluff to say that wizards instead "prepared" spells beforehand, and then finished casting them in combat situation




This wasn't just 3rd Ed.

1st Ed DMG: "All magic and cleric spells are similar in that the word sounds, when combined into whatever patterns are applicable, are charged with
energy from the Positive or Negative Material Plane. When uttered, these
sounds cause the release of this energy, which in turn triggers a set
reaction. The release of the energy contained in these words is what
causes the spell to be forgotten or the writing to disappear from the surface upon which it is written."

You used energy when you cast a spell.  The spell was stored as energy and then used.


----------



## Mad Mac

> This wasn't just 3rd Ed.




  The 3rd edition fluff was a bit different than that, but It's offtopic for this thread, so I'm not going to go into it.


----------



## Bumbles

Kask said:


> Why would someone do that when the casting system was based on a different fantasy world, not Tolkien's?




Because they were trying to make some argument criticizing D&D, and hyper-focusing on the terminology used in order to invalidate D&D as an RPG, if I recall the discussion correctly.  Which I may not, it has been quite a few years.



> Why wouldn't they also say that is not how Yoda does it?




Well, at the time, Yoda wasn't very cool, it being before any movies but the original three came out.  So I doubt he had any folks thinking he was all that awesome.


----------



## Kask

Mad Mac said:


> The 3rd edition fluff was a bit different than that, but It's offtopic for this thread, so I'm not going to go into it.





Then why did you bring it up?


----------



## darjr

Kask said:


> It was deemed that only the fighter, because he didn't spend time on class abilities like spells, thieving skills, etc., had the time to build his strength to those high levels.  In other words, fighters had time to physically work out where other classes spent time on their class skills...




Exactly. An otherwise magical result is not because the rules say so. Simple as that.


----------



## Ariosto

This post by Alex319, in the "How much do characters know about game mechanics?" thread, may be illuminating.

Darjr, I think you overstate the matter in the first place with the assertion that the rules somehow make the attainment magical by default.

Is it possible to become a world champion weight lifter while holding down a job as a computer programmer? Perhaps in theory, but I doubt that it has been accomplished. Common sense and life experience suggest at least that it is highly unlikely; such a physique requires dedicated effort to develop and maintain. So does the expertise of a top-notch programmer ... or that of a D&D cleric, magic user or thief.

That -- not magic! -- is the underlying rationale.

In strict realism, perhaps even the fighter should be too preoccupied with other matters and only NPCs whose sole occupation is weight lifting should possess such scores. However, this is a game inspired by a fictional genre in which warriors of legendary strength figure prominently.

Perhaps the most renowned of all had a career that might best be translated into game terms as "dual class" from thief to fighter. Such a worthy is even more extraordinary than a single-classed fighter with 18/xx strength, as reflected in the requirements for the attainment.

Does that suggest that an extraordinary non-fighter should also be able to develop such strength? Should one decide that it does, then one might also bear in mind that by the rules as written there is a cost associated in the dual-class (for humans) or multi-class (for fey folk) structure.

Offhand, I can think of no example from classic sword-and-sorcery fiction of a musclebound mage, and doubt very much that such a figure would not also be a puissant warrior -- but it is your prerogative as Dungeon Master to make such allowances!

One might also note the statement in the PHB that "strength is a measure of muscle, endurance and stamina combined." The implication is that a character might be more gifted in one of those aspects, and less in another, than the composite score suggests. Although employed so rarely as generally to be forgotten, that option is present for any DM who finds it worthwhile.


----------



## darjr

I don't think exceptional str is magical by default, and I don't think I've said so. Neither do I think that the fighters power exploits in 4e are.

I'm simply trying to apply what I think is the reasoning of some who have said that fighter exploits are all magic. Someone, and I think it was echoed, said that power exploits are magic because they recognize it as so in every other way except that the rules state that they are not.

My point, I guess, is I think it is a willful disregard for what the rules state, and yes, even common sense about fighter exploits and a similar disregard leads to the 'exceptional str' being a magical effect.

Please note, I'm not dogmatic about rules. And I do not have a fundamental problem with reflavoring of either AD&D exceptional strength or 4e powers.


----------



## Ariosto

It is rather the flagrant disregard of the rules for common sense -- at least *from a role-playing perspective*.

If one approaches it instead as a game of "narrative control", from a perspective at such a remove from any character role, then of course the matter may look quite different.


----------



## fanboy2000

darjr said:


> I don't think exceptional str is magical by default, and I don't think I've said so. Neither do I think that the fighters power exploits in 4e are.
> 
> I'm simply trying to apply what I think is the reasoning of some who have said that fighter exploits are all magic. Someone, and I think it was echoed, said that power exploits are magic because they recognize it as so in every other way except that the rules state that they are not.



Actually, the claim is more like *some* of the fighter's powers are magic, and all classes have some powers that are magical in nature.



Ariosto said:


> It is rather the flagrant disregard of the rules for common sense -- at least *from a role-playing perspective*.
> 
> If one approaches it instead as a game of "narrative control", from a perspective at such a remove from any character role, then of course the matter may look quite different.



You don't think a player exercising narrative control is a form of roleplaying?


----------



## Hexmage-EN

fanboy2000 said:


> You don't think a player exercising narrative control is a form of roleplaying?




The point is that there are so few examples of this in the game that when it does come up it seems to be more of an excuse than a feature. If there were larger sections in the PHB and DMG with guidelines and mechanics for shared narrative control then I would be more inclined to accept this view. As it stands the "shared narrative control" argument seems more like an excuse.

I was looking in "Dungeons and Dragons 4E for Dummies" yesterday at the bookstore and saw a section dealing with suspension of disbelief. Basically, it said that the DM should make rulings that don't challenge their basic assumptions of the game world. The example presented was a scenario in which a player asks if he could cast Fly on himself and carry someone else across a pit.

IMO they should have used an example that involved using a Martial power to slow or knock prone an ooze, or to slide a Huge dragon and control how it moves, or to force someone to move wherever you want by glowering at them.


----------



## darjr

fanboy2000 said:


> Actually, the claim is more like *some* of the fighter's powers are magic, and all classes have some powers that are magical in nature.




Yes, I should have said that some make the argument that some of the fighters powers are magic.

I thought there were some statements that the powers are just magic spells in disguise?


----------



## fanboy2000

Hexmage-EN said:


> The point is that there are so few examples of this in the game that when it does come up it seems to be more of an excuse than a feature. If there were larger sections in the PHB and DMG with guidelines and mechanics for shared narrative control then I would be more inclined to accept this view. As it stands the "shared narrative control" argument seems more like an excuse.



This certainly goes to the idea that all PC's have magic in 4e, and that because this is so different from previous editions of D&D some people have a hard time accepting it.

If I plug the narrative idea and put it into RC's phraseology I have: "All players have narrative control and narrative control is available to all" is so far from the implied play style of pre-4e D&D that some people who don't play 4e have a hard time accepting that this is the implied play style 4e is using.​Again, it's an interesting idea, but I still think it's a matter of personal taste.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> This statement amounts to "if you don't like it, then you aren't doing it right."
> 
> In the past, such assertions have been found to be condescending, mildly insulting, and just plain incorrect.
> 
> I'm sorry, RC, but people can find it boring even with good presentation.  Not everyone finds everything interesting - including reality applied to their RPGs.




Sure, but what I was quoting didn't say "I find realism boring".  The exact words were "can be".  This indicates that the problem is not whether or not realism is interesting, but rather whether this particular example is interesting.  That is an issue of presentation.


RC


----------



## Imaro

Hexmage-EN said:


> The point is that there are so few examples of this in the game that when it does come up it seems to be more of an excuse than a feature. If there were larger sections in the PHB and DMG with guidelines and mechanics for shared narrative control then I would be more inclined to accept this view. As it stands the "shared narrative control" argument seems more like an excuse.
> 
> I was looking in "Dungeons and Dragons 4E for Dummies" yesterday at the bookstore and saw a section dealing with suspension of disbelief. Basically, it said that the DM should make rulings that don't challenge their basic assumptions of the game world. The example presented was a scenario in which a player asks if he could cast Fly on himself and carry someone else across a pit.
> 
> IMO they should have used an example that involved using a Martial power to slow or knock prone an ooze, or to slide a Huge dragon and control how it moves, or to force someone to move wherever you want by glowering at them.





QFT, This is also my biggest problem with the "narrative control" excuse, it's being used in a sense that it can virtually encompass and serve as the reasoning for anything... yet, unlike magic, is never actually referenced in any of the corebooks only by fans who are trying to defend some of 4e's wonkier aspects.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

The power system is an interesting experiment and works reasonably well for magic, but I feel like the mechanics don't fit non-magical abilities. I also think there's too much of an emphasis on making new powers. Abilities and spells in Third Edition were designed to create mechanical models of 

Really, I feel like 4E is an experiment, an experiment that introduced lots of new concepts. I think several elements of 4E should be retained in the next edition, but the power system as is isn't one of those things. The next edition should be a game that combines the best elements of both 3E and 4E.


----------



## ExploderWizard

If we are to accept the assertion that the game rules in no way represent the way the game world works and that the "narrative control" reason is sufficient as an explanation of why things work the way they do, then perhaps we have overlooked a possibilty of game world reality: That the inhabitants of the game world *know* that they are part of a story and act accordingly. If the world around you does not seem to operate in any sort of logical fashion then you may come to realize that you, and the entire world are fictional. Its a fantastic world where no one questions the absurd, minions know their role, and everyone works together in harmony for the greater good of the plot. It works.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> This is also my biggest problem with the "narrative control" excuse...



It's not an 'excuse', Imaro, just an explanation offered that's consistent with the rules text. And there's nothing to excuse, the system works fine, though _how_ it works in clearly not to everyone's taste. 



> ... only by fans who are trying to defend some of 4e's wonkier aspects.



I think what's wonky is that some people aren't satisfied in simply not _liking_ 4e (which, obviously, is a perfectly valid response to it). They feel the need to create nonsensical explanations/interpretations for certain rules, ones that are clearly contradicted by the text (ie, 'even Martial powers are magic'), and then use them as 'proof' that the new design is bad.


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> If we are to accept the assertion that the game rules in no way represent the way the game world works...



No set of game rules are a sufficient physics. Just sayin'...



> That the inhabitants of the game world *know* that they are part of a story and act accordingly.



You know, that's kinda brilliant. It's Six Characters in Search of the Dungeon. I may have to use that someday. 



> If the world around you does not seem to operate in any sort of logical fashion...



The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at _best_, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill their function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at _best_, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill there function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.



Thats too bad.  Maybe one day you'll stumble into what else there can be.


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> Maybe one day you'll stumble into what else there can be.



You mean like self-deception?


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Let me see if I've got this straight:

Pre-3E: Rounds took up a minute of in-game time. The options selected by the players were assumed to have occurred within that timeframe in some way. Combat mechanics were geared towards abstraction.

3E: Rounds took up six seconds. Combat mechanics were geared towards simulation, and as such non-magical abilities were either always usable whenever certain conditions were met or caused the character using them to become fatigued.

4E: Rounds take up six seconds. An opportunity to use a limited-use mundane power is assumed to only occur either once an encounter or once a day. The optimal opportunity to use that power is assumed to have occurred whenever the player chooses to use that power. Combat mechanics are more abstract than 3E and more simulationist than pre-3E.

I hate to keep using this as an example for fear of offending you, Raven, but your Rogue's Living Shadows ability could be explained that last way. Instead of your Rogue saying "Okay, time to turn on my super sneak ability", the player is deciding that he's going to use a once daily allowance to assume that conditions are optimal for his Rogue to go unnoticed. 

I can't say I'm particularly a fan of this approach, but on further inspection I think I agree that the 4E designers intended for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control. I wish they would have been more forthright with this concept if this is indeed the case. Perhaps they could have made mention that "Magic powers allow a character to influence the world; Martial powers allow a player to determine when unique opportunities for action occur for his character."

I guess all Martial powers are intended to be like this. Encounter powers aren't usable only once because they're too tiring, but because they are allowances for a player to assume that the optimal chance to attack has arrived. Another example: the Ranger has a power that grants bonuses to skill checks that is described as a flash of insight. This implies that the Ranger doesn't actively try to think of something but that the player has a limited capacity for choosing when an idea pops into his character's head.

I think another problem with this approach is that it leads to the false conclusion that characters can only do something if they have the power for it. The Rogue doesn't have to have the  "Sand in the Eyes" power to throw sand at an enemy's eyes. Any character can do that whenever they want; that power just grants the player the optimal opportunity for that course of action to succeed.


----------



## Mallus

Hexmage-EN said:


> Let me see if I've got this straight:



Yes. Clearly and concisely stated.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> It's not an 'excuse', Imaro, just an explanation offered that's consistent with the rules text. And there's nothing to excuse, the system works fine, though _how_ it works in clearly not to everyone's taste.




It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks. I've played rpg's based around narrative control... and the fact of the matter is they go through great lengths to explain this as the basis of the game because without such explanations the game can be approached from and interpreted in a way that makes it seem absurd or non-sensical. Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode? I would classify that as bad design. Good design should be based around a totally uninformed person playing the game for the first time.

The only way I can see 4e being based on narrative control (and let me not forget, it's only certain-particular-specific-individual-powers that do this) is that the designers made a big mistake and didn't think it mattered if the lens through which certain, but not all, powers were suppose to be interpreted through was narrative...even though D&D has never been based around giving narrative power to characters in very specific instances before (this was the realm of magic in previous editions). If so that's a pretty big mistake for professional game designers to make, and again bad design.

That is why I feel the whole "narrative control" is an excuse made up by fans of the way 4e chooses to implement it's mechanics and not something with any real merit to it as far as the actual design of the game is concerned.



Mallus said:


> I think what's wonky is that some people aren't satisfied in simply not _liking_ 4e (which, obviously, is a perfectly valid response to it). They feel the need to create nonsensical explanations/interpretations for certain rules, ones that are clearly contradicted by the text (ie, 'even Martial powers are magic'), and then use them as 'proof' that the new design is bad.




You know what Mallus, the funny thing is to me this isn't about just admiting you do or don't like 4e, since there are people of both opinions on both sides. Though I guess it's easier to try and paint in broad strokes so that now if you like 4e you must say these particular powers make sense and if you don't then you must believe they don't within the context we are discussing. 

Concerning explanations/interpretations... let's just say I find the arguments and lengths that the side arguing that these powers are easily explainable as mundane abilities is just as nonsensical, perhaps moreso than you find mine and others who believe this is not the case. 

As far as the text, which one is it, is the fluff text relevant or not... it seems the answer often changes depending on whether the fluff supports a proponents view or not. If it's not and malleable as you and many others have claimed it is irrelevant to the discussion of how something works (putting aside the fact that most, if not all the text deals what happens in the moment of the effect... not what caused it) and the only thing we have to go buy are the mechanics in determining the why's of a power...right? thus if the mechanics of a power work in a way more similar to magic than not... the easiest and simplest conclusion to draw is that it is magic (though perhaps called something else).


----------



## Kask

Imaro said:


> That is why I feel the whole "narrative control" is an excuse made up by fans of the way 4e chooses to implement it's mechanics and not something with any real merit to it as far as the actual design of the game is concerned.





Of course it is.  It isn't mentioned nor explained in the rule books, NO designer has said that this is the way the game was designed.  It is just a way to try and explain an area of poor design.  I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were) as it is human nature to try and make sens of nonsensical things in life.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Kask said:


> Of course it is.  It isn't mentioned nor explained in the rule books, NO designer has said that this is the way the game was designed.  It is just a way to try and explain an area of poor design.  I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were) as it is human nature to try and make sens of nonsensical things in life.




Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it? I was skeptical at first, but now I'm pretty sure that the designers did intend for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control; not just the ones that strain credibility, but every single one that isn't At-Will.

I have no idea why the designers wouldn't state that this is the case, though.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.



That's true. But it's also an explanation that isn't contradicted by the rulebooks, unlike the "everything is magic" position, which is. 



> Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode?



I don't know. All I'm providing is what seemed like the obvious answer to me. 



> I would classify that as bad design.



I think it's good design, but I'm using different criteria. The 4e combat engine is a lot of fun, ergo, it's good. The fact it requires narration provided by the DM and players to make it make sense isn't a problem.



> If so that's a pretty big mistake for professional game designers to make, and again bad design.



Again, the fights are fun (for us). 



> Concerning explanations/interpretations... let's just say I find the arguments and lengths that the side arguing that these powers are easily explainable as mundane abilities is just as nonsensical, perhaps moreso than you find mine and others who believe this is not the case.



You can either believe the designers where crazy, liars, or that they have some inkling of what they were doing (this is a classic C.S. Lewis argument, BTW). I choose to believe the latter. 



> ... the easiest and simplest conclusion to draw is that it is magic (though perhaps called something else).



So you believe the 4e designers are liars (because they explicitly label all Martial powers are something other than magic)?


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were).



I can understand not liking the approach the 4e design team took to abstracting combat --it does diverge radically from the previous editions-- but to suggest no thought went into their design process is ludicrous.


----------



## Kask

Hexmage-EN said:


> Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it?




I read it.  Interesting, however it is not likely.  Purposely redesigning the flagship RPG product on the planet to operate off of an almost unheard RPG concept and then, neither mention it in the rules nor in a designer interview after almost a year of withering criticism, is incredibly unlikey.


----------



## Mallus

Kask said:


> I read it.  Interesting, however it is not likely.



Is it any more likely that the team of veteran RPG designers who created a playable and robust game engine had no idea what they were doing?

4e provides effects, not explanations. That's a choice made consistently throughout the rule set.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> So you believe the 4e designers are liars (because they explicitly label all Martial powers are something other than magic)?





Go...go... super hyperbole. No actually I believe the designers knew what they were doing (as oposed to some of the fans who have constantly pushed the "narrative control" excuse)... and what I believe is that the designers gave themselves a mighty big out, concerning the "magicalness" of Martial powers, when they stated this in the PHB...



PHB pg.54 "Power Sources" said:


> Martial powers are *not magic in the traditional sense*, although *some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordianry mortals.* Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues and warlords among others their power. Martial powers are called exploits.




So. looking at this we see *some* martial exploits allow one to do things beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals...

We also see that they are only called out as "not magic" when dealing with magic in the traditional sense... however this means they could be and probably are magical in the non-traditional (which seems to be the same boat Primal is in since it is neither arcane or divine) sense.

They use strength and *willpower* through training (doesn't say what type perhaps focusing magic through willpower into their bodies) and dedication to vanquish enemies... their willpower could easily be a channel for non-traditional magic...and their training a way to draw on it along with their mundane strength in order to achieve exploits.

Now you could argue I'm making all this up, just like the "narrative control" excuse... the difference is that I'm citing actual text from the book that supports my reasoning of certain exploits as magic, I've yet to see someone do the same for the "narrative control" explanation.


----------



## Ariosto

> You don't think a player exercising narrative control is a form of roleplaying?



I do not consider exercising narrative control a form of roleplaying, unless it is in fact an aspect of a role. That might indeed be the case with a magician, superhero, deity or functional equivalent -- with predicate assumptions as to the nature of the underlying "reality".


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> Now you could argue I'm making all this up, just like the "narrative control" excuse...



Yes you are. Not that there's anything wrong with it. If your explanation works better for you, by all means use it. 



> ...the difference is that I'm citing actual text from the book that supports my reasoning of certain exploits as magic, I've yet to see someone do the same for the "narrative control" explanation.



True, but the 'narrative control' thing works better as an explanation for some powers. But, to each his own. Whatever way you find to translate the mechanics into satisfying narrative is cool.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> Yes you are. Not that there's anything wrong with it. If your explanation works better for you, by all means use it.
> 
> 
> True, but the 'narrative control' thing works better for some powers. But, to each his one. Whatever way you find to translate the mechanics into satisfying narrative is cool.




You know what Mallus I would go so far as to ask why a distinction was made in the description of Martial Power if it's suppose to be narrative control? Why didn't they just state outright that exploits were not magic period... why phrase it as not traditional magic if there wasn't a distinction to be drawn... more and more it seems the book does actually support that some exploits are magical (though not in the sense of traditional magic) in nature.


EDIT:  This also seems to vibe with the reasoning behind why melee and ranged basic attacks do not fall under any power source as opposed to martial.


----------



## Ariosto

If you're playing a comicbook character who *knows* she's a comicbook character, then her powers might include demanding re-writes, breaking through panel borders, manipulating speech balloons, and so on.


----------



## Ariosto

Hexmage, I think your summary is good except that I do not see more simulation in 4E.


----------



## Imaro

Hexmage-EN said:


> Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it? I was skeptical at first, but now I'm pretty sure that the designers did intend for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control; not just the ones that strain credibility, but every single one that isn't At-Will.
> 
> I have no idea why the designers wouldn't state that this is the case, though.




Hexmage,  As you can see from my previous post I disagree entirely that  "narrative control" is what the designers intended for martial power.  In fact I am more and more certain they intended some of the exploits to be magic just not in the same way as an arcane spell or divine prayer.  Again Occam's razor... there is way more evidence that this was their intention as opposed to narrative control and it really is the simplest answer.  

In fact I think the fact that many proponents of 4e have adopted and pushed the narrative control aspect (without a shred of evidence) as opposed to the non-traditional magic aspect has caused the designers to give pause and remain silent on the matter, since I honestly do not believe that was their intentions in the first place... Though perhaps now they are wishing it was.


----------



## Mad Mac

> You know what Mallus I would go so far as to ask why a distinction was made in the description of Martial Power if it's suppose to be narrative control? Why didn't they just state outright that exploits were not magic period... why phrase it as not traditional magic if there wasn't a distinction to be drawn... more and more it seems the book does actually support that some exploits are magical (though not in the sense of traditional magic) in nature.




  If you are going to quote from the PHB, you could at least quote all the relevant bits.

*At Will Powers* They represent easy weapon swings or simple magical effects that don't put any unusual strain on you or tax your resources in any other way. 

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

*Daily Powers* Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your 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. 

  Both encounter and daily powers use the phrase "Pull Off" for martial characters. 

  Google definition for "Pull Off"

_be successful; achieve a goal; "She succeeded in persuading us all"; "I managed to carry the box upstairs"; "She pulled it off, even though we never thought her capable of it"; "The pianist negociated the difficult runs"_

  This comes closer to implying a narrative control sort of explanation than it does anything else. 

  Also, 



> Why didn't they just state outright that exploits were not magic period...




  This phrase "Martial Powers are not magic in the traditional sense" is immediately followed by " although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals"

  The reason for the first half of the sentance is given in the 2nd. Martial Characters are not necessarily realistic or bound to what people in the real world can do. This is a far cry from saying they are "Magic"

  For further explanation, see T.V. Tropes 

Charles Atlas Superpower - Television Tropes & Idioms

Badass Normal - Television Tropes & Idioms


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> You mean like self-deception?



If it makes you feel better to think so, I'll pretend along with you.
(Hey, irony)


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> If it makes you feel better to think so, I'll pretend along with you.



No, no... people should _stop_ pretending that D&D settings/campaigns make more sense than they do. That way lies the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness.

edit: not to mention cities overrun with billions of chickens...


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> You know what Mallus I would go so far as to ask why a distinction was made in the description of Martial Power if it's suppose to be narrative control?



That's a good question. I don't know. My suspicion is that the decision was made that a explicit discussion of narrative control would have confused more people than it helped. 

Things like the Power Sources are meant to be narrative guides. For instance, because my paladin's powers are classified as Divine, I describe him uttering short prayers as he swings, his weapon briefly flashing with numinous light, etc. My buddy playing the fighter describes his attacks differently; they're all badass attitude, coincidence, skill and luck, with no flashy SFX accompanying them.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hexmage-EN said:


> Let me see if I've got this straight:
> 
> Pre-3E: Rounds took up a minute of in-game time. The options selected by the players were assumed to have occurred within that timeframe in some way. Combat mechanics were geared towards abstraction.




Mostly. 1E AD&D featured the 1 minute round. Basic D&D used the 6 second combat round also.


----------



## Imaro

Mad Mac said:


> If you are going to quote from the PHB, you could at least quote all the relevant bits.
> 
> *At Will Powers* They represent easy weapon swings or simple magical effects that don't put any unusual strain on you or tax your resources in any other way.
> 
> *Encounter Powers* Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you are a martial character, they are exploits you've practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.
> 
> *Daily Powers* Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your 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.
> 
> Both encounter and daily powers use the phrase "Pull Off" for martial characters.
> 
> Google definition for "Pull Off"
> 
> _be successful; achieve a goal; "She succeeded in persuading us all"; "I managed to carry the box upstairs"; "She pulled it off, even though we never thought her capable of it"; "The pianist negociated the difficult runs"_
> 
> This comes closer to implying a narrative control sort of explanation than it does anything else.




Uhm... this would be great evidence... if arcane spells, divine prayers, etc. didn't all work the same way. You can only pull off an encounter divine prayer... once per encounter. So how does this in anyway support the fact that they are not magical and based around narrative control...Nowhere in the descriptions do I see a reason why you can only pull off an exploit once per encounter or day. Again not seeing how this supports narrative control as opposed to non-traditional magic... what it is, is blatantly vague about reasons and thus we refer back to the definition of martial power...

unless you're arguing every spell, prayer, etc. is not magic (though the book states they are in the traditional sense) and instead are bits of narrative control since they all work, mechanically, on the same structure. 

Or are you arguing a power can be both magical and narrative control... which then does nothing to offset the argument of some martial exploits as non-traditional magic. And while martial encounter powers are vague as toi the reasons one cna pull it off only once per an encounter...martial dailies do talk about drawing on energy as a reason they can only be performed a limited number of times...which along with the definition of martial power supports a mystical or magical definition.



Mad Mac said:


> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> This phrase "Martial Powers are not magic in the traditional sense" is immediately followed by " although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals"
> 
> The reason for the first half of the sentance is given in the 2nd. Martial Characters are not necessarily realistic or bound to what people in the real world can do. This is a far cry from saying they are "Magic"
> 
> For further explanation, see T.V. Tropes
> 
> Charles Atlas Superpower - Television Tropes & Idioms
> 
> Badass Normal - Television Tropes & Idioms





First, I don't understand your first two paragraphs... are you really argument they have t say it's "non-traditional" magic as opposed to "not magic period" because it allows things that are beyond the realm of normal people... but it is not in any way magical?? Is that really what you're arguing? Because if so, I ask again... why not just say it is not magic period, but allows the player of a fighter to gain narrative control for a few moments?? I'm not buying it.

Also, if you're going to use this argument... you've got to stick with the established (up to the point of 4e) tropes of D&D (not those of superheroes which is arguably a different genre with different tropes) in order to have a baseline? I mean tropes are based on a specific genre and since D&D is it's own genre the only way to claim an action is a valid trope of it is to examine it's tropes up until the element under scrutiny was introduced. That's why this really is a bad argument to try and use... in fact IMO, worse than narrative control, but anyway... 

So tell me what edition of D&D allowed fighters to force numerous opponents to move adjacent to them and allow him to attack them with no chance to resist?... what edition did they get the ability to regenerate in? What edition was it that a Rogue was able to become invisible without the aid of magic? basically I'm asking when were these supposed tropes of D&D introduced over it's 30yrs+ lifespan. 

I guess more importantly for you to push this argument, what I'm asking is what is the basis for the tropes of D&D and what criteria are you using to determine them... since as far as I know there is no official tropes of D&D list? Again why this is, IMO, a weak argument to try and prove or disprove.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hexmage-EN said:


> I hate to keep using this as an example for fear of offending you, Raven,




You are far, far from offending me, Hexmage.  I greatly appreciate the feedback, as well as the rational tone of the conversation!  



> but your Rogue's Living Shadows ability could be explained that last way. Instead of your Rogue saying "Okay, time to turn on my super sneak ability", the player is deciding that he's going to use a once daily allowance to assume that conditions are optimal for his Rogue to go unnoticed.




I have said in the past, and I will probably say in the future, that there are some things that 4e does very well.  I am not "down" on all aspects of 4e, but there are aspects of 4e that I am very down on -- in terms of my personal preferences; I don't mind that others have different personal preferences.

RCFG is intended specifically as a fusion of what I like from 3e with what I like from "retro clones".  There is nothing in RCFG derived from 4e mechanics, although there is a considerable amount idea-wise derived from conversations here on EN World about the snippets we were getting, what they meant, and whether or not 3e failed where the 4e ads nudge/winked that they did, prior to the release of 4e.

I will, again, remind you that this is an Epic level ability,

Fifteenth level is called “Epic” level.  No character can progress beyond 15th level, although characters can continue to grow without further levelling.  At the moment of his death (and sometimes, if the character is willing, before actual physical death), the character ascends to the outer planes and becomes a minor figure in the local pantheon, such as a saint, an angel, or a demigod.​
and is something of an exception in the ruleset.  If, however, you believe that the ability as worded is too open to interpretation, I will also remind you that you are reading a rough draft.  As with some other things that have been pointed out to me, I will endevour to make the intent clearer in the final version.

I am in an extremely good position, though, to tell you that Living Shadow was intended as a character, not a player, ability.  

Perhaps if the designer(s) of 4e would be so good as to make their own intentions clearer, we would be in a better position to speak intelligently about whether character abilities in 4e are actually character abilities or are, in fact player abilities (as some contend).  


RC


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> No, no... people should _stop_ pretending that D&D settings/campaigns make more sense than they do. That way lies the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness.



People who don't know better should stop pretending they have a clue what level of sense other people's settings/campaigns do or don't make.

Sorry, but you are flat wrong.



> edit: not to mention cities overrun with billions of chickens...



Case in point.


----------



## fanboy2000

Imaro said:


> It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.



Sure it does. DMG, page 28, in the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar at the bottom left of the page.

I mentioned this a few pages ago. In the sidebar James Wyatt talks about playing D&D with his 9-year-old son. Apparently, his kid decided he was going to explore a statue, and then decided it was trapped, what the trap was, and that there was treasure there. Wyatt, a little peeved at first, decided to go along with it. (Though Wyatt still chose what treasure was going to be there.)

Wyatt stated the moral like this: "I learned that the players have the right to participate in telling [the] story--after all, they're playing the protagonists!"

So player control over the narrative is  mentioned and endorsed in the rulebooks. 



> I've played rpg's based around narrative control... and the fact of the matter is they go through great lengths to explain this as the basis of the game because without such explanations the game can be approached from and interpreted in a way that makes it seem absurd or non-sensical. Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode? I would classify that as bad design. Good design should be based around a totally uninformed person playing the game for the first time.



Well, the designers consider 4e an exception based rules system. This is stated in the first chapter of the 4e PHB as the first of three general rules: "Simple rules, many exceptions." Exception based rules design was also explicitly mentioned in one of the pre-4e preview books released the winter prior to the PHB's release.

From an exception based rules design perspective, _Come and Get It_ and all other powers is just another exception to the rules. How any given exception works, in world, is left to the DM/players. I would think that the designers don't care what explanation anyone uses, magic, narrative control, or (my personal favorite) the fighter runs around in a circle and literally pulls all the bad guys toward him.

So the answer to your question is that the player doesn't have to come to a narrative control conclusion, they can come to any conclusion about how the power works that they want.



> EDIT:  This also seems to vibe with the reasoning behind why melee and ranged basic attacks do not fall under any power source as opposed to martial.



Some basic attacks do have a power source.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Ariosto said:


> If you're playing a comicbook character who *knows* she's a comicbook character, then her powers might include demanding re-writes, breaking through panel borders, manipulating speech balloons, and so on.




Exactly. And why not? These are not unreasonable things to ask of a game that is supposed to be about collaborative storytelling. The rules make sense when that is the case. The disagreement arises out of the notion that the D&D rules have always been written from the approach of such storytelling which is certainly not the case.

I see simulationist rules as being written for a world where the characters believe,that events are real and act accordingly. I see this as being similar to pro wrestling in the olden days when feuds were "real" and the characters of that world had to behave accordingly to "protect the business" and sell the realism to the audience.

I see gamist rules as being written for a world where the characters are aware that they are involved in an entertainment action soap opera. The storylines are unchanged but the characters can "come out of the closet" and realize that thier lives are scripted and proceed to entertain the audience.


----------



## Ariosto

"Not magic in the traditional sense" is an interesting phrase. What is the "tradition" that is implied?

My best guess is that this reflects an intellectual recursion within WotC-D&D. "Magic" is a game-jargon term for what "arcane and divine spell casters" and "magic items" do. Similar technical usage was in old D&D context sensitive, but the wider context has increasingly been disdained. Even the "traditional" referents of D&D  "fluff" terminology are disposable.

*“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”*


If in 5E it is stated that Magic Users "don't use magic", then so it officially shall be.

Nonetheless, there remains a tradition older than WotC, older even than D&D, as to what "magical" means. In some quarters, it might be distinguished from the "miraculous" associated with a divinity, but both are distinctly "supernatural".

Likewise, there is a technical distinction in the comicbooks between "magic" and the "super powers" of Superman and his ilk -- but it is trivial next to the distinction of superheroes/villains from the truly "natural" even within the confines of the four-color world. Were any of them to appear in our world, application to them of the term "magical" would hardly be obscure!

Moreover, to say that something is "not magic in the traditional sense" is not necessarily to say that it is "not magic in _any_ sense".


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> People who don't know better should stop pretending they have a clue what level of sense other people's settings/campaigns do or don't make.



Wait... let me explain my reasoning.

The settings found in the majority of fantasy literature don't hold up to much scrutiny. Which is understandable, they are meant to do things like act as a backdrop for adventure stories, invoke mythology, and serve as metaphors. Blueprints for working counter-factual worlds, they are not. They are best seen as incubators for unlikely protagonists. They are _fictions_, not think tank-class simulations. 

The majority of D&D settings are patterned after the kinds of worlds found in fantasy literature. Ergo, they don't hold up to much scrutiny, either. 

Which doesn't make most folks fantasy settings any less enjoyable, but let's call a spade a spade, or, in this case, a cheap knock-off of Middle Earth.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Uhm... this would be great evidence... if arcane spells, divine prayers, etc. didn't all work the same way. You can only pull off an encounter divine prayer... once per encounter. So how does this in anyway support the fact that they are not magical and based around narrative control...Nowhere in the descriptions do I see a reason why you can only pull off an exploit once per encounter or day. Again not seeing how this supports narrative control as opposed to non-traditional magic... what it is, is blatantly vague about reasons and thus we refer back to the definition of martial power...
> 
> unless you're arguing every spell, prayer, etc. is not magic (though the book states they are in the traditional sense) and instead are bits of narrative control since they all work, mechanically, on the same structure.




  I thought what I wrote was quite clear, but let me try to elaborate. The PHB gives a different description for Martial Encounter and Daily Powers vs all other power sources. 

  For Arcane and Divine Encounter Powers, it says this:

_These are spells or prayers of such power that they take time to re-form in your mind after you unleash their magical energy. _

  For Martial Encounter Powers is says this:

_They are exploits you've practiced extensively but can only pull off once in a while. _

  The implication is that is normally impossible for Arcane characters to cast an encounter spell for than once every few minutes or so. 

By contrast, the martial encounter power is something the character can attempt as often as he wants (He's practiced it extensively, after all) but can only _pull off_ or _use successfully_ every "once in a while" which in game terms amounts to once per fight. This is a very narrative explanation any way you look at it. 



> I guess more importantly for you to push this argument, what I'm asking is what is the basis for the tropes of D&D and what criteria are you using to determine them... since as far as I know there is no official tropes of D&D list? Again why this is, IMO, a weak argument to try and prove or disprove.




  I linked to T.V. tropes because this is a very common archtype across genres. I'm very suprised you are not conciously aware of it. To give some examples...

  Batman is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural. 

  Conan is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.

  Odysseus is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.

  Tarzan is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.

  D&D Fighters have never been realistic. You cannot realistically and consistantly kill enormous Dragons and Giants with a 3' length of steel. This does not mean D&D fighters have ever been magical, because they aren't, outside of whatever magical gear they have been equipped. They are assumed to overcome unrealistic and impossible odds through strength, cunning, and skill at arms.


----------



## Imaro

fanboy2000 said:


> Sure it does. DMG, page 28, in the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar at the bottom left of the page.
> 
> I mentioned this a few pages ago. In the sidebar James Wyatt talks about playing D&D with his 9-year-old son. Apparently, his kid decided he was going to explore a statue, and then decided it was trapped, what the trap was, and that there was treasure there. Wyatt, a little peeved at first, decided to go along with it. (Though Wyatt still chose what treasure was going to be there.)
> 
> Wyatt stated the moral like this: "I learned that the players have the right to participate in telling [the] story--after all, they're playing the protagonists!"
> 
> So player control over the narrative is mentioned and endorsed in the rulebooks. .




First this is stretching so far I'm tempted to not even comment... a sidebar in one core rulebook (not books) that is only read by the DM... that's a story about an impromptu decision a designer made while playing with his son... is control over the narrative being mentioned and endorsed in the rulebooks. Uhm, ok...whatever man.




fanboy2000 said:


> Well, the designers consider 4e an exception based rules system. This is stated in the first chapter of the 4e PHB as the first of three general rules: "Simple rules, many exceptions." Exception based rules design was also explicitly mentioned in one of the pre-4e preview books released the winter prior to the PHB's release.
> 
> From an exception based rules design perspective, _Come and Get It_ and all other powers is just another exception to the rules. How any given exception works, in world, is left to the DM/players. I would think that the designers don't care what explanation anyone uses, magic, narrative control, or (my personal favorite) the fighter runs around in a circle and literally pulls all the bad guys toward him.
> 
> So the answer to your question is that the player doesn't have to come to a narrative control conclusion, they can come to any conclusion about how the power works that they want.




I never argued that a lplayer has to come up with a narrative control conclusion... oh yeah and exception based design in no way precludes a game from establishing reasons for those exceptions... you know like arcane magic, divine prayers, etc. I'm a little lost on what exactly your point is. You're using exception based rule design to argue against narrative control... I think. But exception based design has nothing to do with it.



fanboy2000 said:


> Some basic attacks do have a power source.




No they don't. Some powers can be used as a basic attack... it's not the same thing as basic attacks being under a power source.


----------



## Mallus

Mad Mac said:


> They are assumed to overcome unrealistic and impossible odds through strength, cunning, and skill at arms.



Right. 

Which is to say they overcome unrealistic and impossible odds/situations because those are the genre conventions they're following. Those canny fighters beat dragons with (relatively) short lengths of steel because that's what their fictional antecedents do. One might even go so far as to say the thing being simulated in these games is, ultimately, fiction (and not the worlds presented in fictions).


----------



## Mad Mac

> "Not magic in the traditional sense" is an interesting phrase. What is the "tradition" that is implied?




  They're just stating up front that they aren't trying to make martial characters "realistic" so that people set their expectations accordingly. Thus, it's no use reading "Catapult Crush" (I don't think it's called that exactly) and complaining that it's not "realistic" for a Fighter to hit an Orc with his hammer so hard that it goes flying into another group of Orcs and knocks them all down. 

  That doesn't mean the Fighter is using telekinesis to send the Orc flying, just that he is so awesome at swordmanship that real life limitations don't apply. And as noted above, that's perfectly in tune with the genre of fiction Wizards is trying to emulate with martial characters.


----------



## Imaro

Mad Mac said:


> I thought what I wrote was quite clear, but let me try to elaborate. The PHB gives a different description for Martial Encounter and Daily Powers vs all other power sources.
> 
> For Arcane and Divine Encounter Powers, it says this:
> 
> _These are spells or prayers of such power that they take time to re-form in your mind after you unleash their magical energy. _
> 
> For Martial Encounter Powers is says this:
> 
> _They are exploits you've practiced extensively but can only pull off once in a while. _
> 
> The implication is that is normally impossible for Arcane characters to cast an encounter spell for than once every few minutes or so.
> 
> By contrast, the martial encounter power is something the character can attempt as often as he wants (He's practiced it extensively, after all) but can only _pull off_ or _use successfully_ every "once in a while" which in game terms amounts to once per fight. This is a very narrative explanation any way you look at it.




You're adding your own interpretation to it... what if the non-traditional magical energy used in the martial exploit is so strenuous on his body... he literally cannot attempt it again... how is this any less implied than what you are claiming? I think you're reading what you want into it but without any explicit evidence to support your assumptions. Again no reason is given, it's just vaguely stated that one can only pull of an exploit once an encounter/daily... And for the record I'm sure Wizards and warlocks practice with their spells as much as a fighter does with his exploits.




Mad Mac said:


> I linked to T.V. tropes because this is a very common archtype across genres. I'm very suprised you are not conciously aware of it. To give some examples...
> 
> Batman is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.
> 
> Conan is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.
> 
> Odysseus is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.
> 
> Tarzan is not a magical character, but he can accomplish things that are not realistic. He is unrealistcally awesome, but not supernatural.





Yet there is still scale, and that is what this argument boils down to. According to those tropes there are things Superman can do that Batman never will be able to... no matter how awesome he is. the question is where is that line for D&D? What is the point where the fighter has overstepped his D&D "tropes" and gained those of a wizard, or cleric. The problem is... without actually defining the tropes... this becomes an utterly pointless argument.



Mad Mac said:


> D&D Fighters have never been realistic. You cannot realistically and consistantly kill enormous Dragons and Giants with a 3' length of steel. This does not mean D&D fighters have ever been magical, because they aren't, outside of whatever magical gear they have been equipped. They are assumed to overcome unrealistic and impossible odds through strength, cunning, and skill at arms.




Again with "realism"... I'm not arguing about realism. What I'm arguing about is logical consistency. If the realm of controlling things outside of oneself in an indirect manner is considered "magic" (whether traditional or non-traditional... then when someone does this they are performing magic, plain and simple. It's never been about "realism".


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> Wait... let me explain my reasoning.
> 
> ...




Here is my claim:

I can, have, and will continue to use the 3E ruleset to maintain settings and campaigns that provide a highly satisfactory high level of simulation. 

Do you accept that or do you deny it as "the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness"?

You said:


			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at best, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill there function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.



I stated that I was sorry you have not experienced better.
You accused me of self-deception.  Do you retract that accusation?


----------



## Imaro

Mad Mac said:


> They're just stating up front that they aren't trying to make martial characters "realistic" so that people set their expectations accordingly. Thus, it's no use reading "Catapult Crush" (I don't think it's called that exactly) and complaining that it's not "realistic" for a Fighter to hit an Orc with his hammer so hard that it goes flying into another group of Orcs and knocks them all down.
> 
> That doesn't mean the Fighter is using telekinesis to send the Orc flying, just that he is so awesome at swordmanship that real life limitations don't apply. And as noted above, that's perfectly in tune with the genre of fiction Wizards is trying to emulate with martial characters.




Dude, they're using magic... regeneration, invisibility, unerringly controlling the movements of opponents, etc.  It may not be a spell or a prayer (the traditional magic) but it's still magic.  In fact it seems like you're agreeing but trying to word it so it sounds different.


----------



## Ariosto

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. And why not? These are not unreasonable things to ask of a game that is supposed to be about collaborative storytelling. The rules make sense when that is the case. The disagreement arises out of the notion that the D&D rules have always been written from the approach of such storytelling which is certainly not the case.
> 
> I see simulationist rules as being written for a world where the characters believe,that events are real and act accordingly. I see this as being similar to pro wrestling in the olden days when feuds were "real" and the characters of that world had to behave accordingly to "protect the business" and sell the realism to the audience.
> 
> I see gamist rules as being written for a world where the characters are aware that they are involved in an entertainment action soap opera. The storylines are unchanged but the characters can "come out of the closet" and realize that thier lives are scripted and proceed to entertain the audience.




I would regard my example of a comicbook character "breaking the third wall" as a direct application of simulation and roleplaying.

I have no difficulty accepting (in the intellectual sense) that 4E is designed instead as a sort of story-telling game. I think it is by that standard a pretty clumsy design, a Rube Goldberg contraption.

My difficulty, I suspect a common one, is in accepting (in the emotional sense) that this is what has become of _Dungeons & Dragons_. That is not necessarily (for I at least am an exception to the hypothetical rule) synonymous with disliking 4E as a game, or story-telling games as a genre.

My impression is that this is not quite symmetric. Common sense suggests that it should be unbalanced. If one happens to like both apples and oranges, then where is the incentive to change one into the other?


----------



## fanboy2000

Imaro said:


> First this is stretching so far I'm tempted to not even comment... a sidebar in one core rulebook (not books) that is only read by the DM... that's a story about an impromptu decision a designer made while playing with his son... is control over the narrative being mentioned and endorsed in the rulebooks. Uhm, ok...whatever man.



You said it wasn't in the rulebooks. It's in the rulebooks. 



> I never argued that a lplayer has to come up with a narrative control conclusion... oh yeah and exception based design in no way precludes a game from establishing reasons for those exceptions... you know like arcane magic, divine prayers, etc. I'm a little lost on what exactly your point is. You're using exception based rule design to argue against narrative control... I think. But exception based design has nothing to do with it.



You asked how a player is supposed to come to a narrative control conclusion based on the rules in the rulebooks. My response is that they don't have to, it's not necessary to play the game. The designers didn't set out to design a narrative control game, they set out to design an exceptions based game. If a player wants to use narrative control to explain an exception, go a head. One of the designers even used narrative control in an exploration context.



> No they don't. Some powers can be used as a basic attack... it's not the same thing as basic attacks being under a power source.






			
				PHB 159 Magic Missile said:
			
		

> This power counts as a ranged basic attack.



If someone listed all the basic attacks in the game, this would one of them. It has the arcane power source.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Dude, they're using magic... regeneration, invisibility, unerringly controlling the movements of opponents, etc. It may not be a spell or a prayer (the traditional magic) but it's still magic. In fact it seems like you're agreeing but trying to word it so it sounds different.




  No, I'm trying to word things differently so that you can understand my point of view, but it's obviously not working. 

  If, at this point, you are unable to even acknowledge the 8,586,242 explanations given for CAGI in this exact thread, I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you is.


----------



## Mournblade94

BryonD said:


> People who don't know better should stop pretending they have a clue what level of sense other people's settings/campaigns do or don't make.
> 
> Sorry, but you are flat wrong.
> 
> 
> .




I have to agree.  I never designed a world, or played in a published world (greyhawk, faerun, golarion, etc) just to have a metaspace to play a game.  Quite the opposite.  I have always played the game to tell the story in that world.

All my players would agree, my worlds are logical even in a high magic setting.


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> I can, have, and will continue to use the 3E ruleset to maintain settings and campaigns that provide a highly satisfactory high level of simulation.



What are your settings simulating? 



> Do you accept that or do you deny it as "the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness"?



It's my experience that those particular devils are hard to avoid when dealing with fantasy (though as writers like Pratchett demonstrate, humor is a wonderful antidote to pretentiousness. Also to the ponderousness that accompanies deliberately trying for grandeur). 



> I stated that I was sorry you have not experienced better.



It's not a question of what I've experienced, it's a question of the criteria I've used to evaluate what I experienced. 



> You accused me of self-deception.  Do you retract that accusation?



Sure. It _was_ a jokey quip, but still... I take it back. Do you retract your insinuation that I don't recognize, or haven't experienced, quality? I don't mind if you don't, but so long as we're retracting things...


----------



## Ariosto

Some children are girls, and some are boys, some tall or slender while others are short or stout. One may be an artist, another a scientist, a third an athlete. There are introverts and extroverts, conformists and nonconformists ... a myriad of temperaments and talents and vocations.

There is a significant difference between appreciating each as a unique individual and trying to reshape one into the supposedly "better" nature of another.


----------



## Mallus

Mournblade94 said:


> I have always played the game to tell the story in that world.



Me too. I'm an inveterate world-builder. But I'm also up front about the function of those worlds. They aren't simulations of anything remotely real, they're meant to facilitate the telling of certain kinds of --highly contrived, though vastly entertaining-- adventure stories. 



> All my players would agree, my worlds are logical even in a high magic setting.



I think it's easy to overestimate how logical our imagined worlds are. I'm sure your players agree with you, as mine do with me, but if we were to switch...

My worlds are 'logical enough' (a description that fits most others that I've seen in successful campaigns). Who could ask for more?


----------



## Imaro

fanboy2000 said:


> You said it wasn't in the rulebooks. It's in the rulebooks.




If you count that as proof that a naarative based explanation for powers ios supported and explained in the game... ok, let's just say we see things totally differently then, as shown by some of your comments below.



fanboy2000 said:


> You asked how a player is supposed to come to a narrative control conclusion based on the rules in the rulebooks. My response is that they don't have to, it's not necessary to play the game. The designers didn't set out to design a narrative control game, they set out to design an exceptions based game. If a player wants to use narrative control to explain an exception, go a head. One of the designers even used narrative control in an exploration context.




All I'll say on this is that if you're going to comment on a post... it's best to understand the context in which the thought/idea/etc. was posted in. There was a situation where someone posited that narrative control was the explanation for certain powers (this wasn't me)... I in turn asked for proof of this assertion which I claimed there was none. Since you agree I really don't understand your point in bringing this up.  Are you expecting me to argue a viewpoint I never believed in the first place?  What I'm saying is that nowhere is narrative control stated as the reason powers work... and again it has nothing to do with exception based design... I thnk you're trying to talk about effect-based design...where the effect is the only thing that mechanics represent but you keep using exception-based and they mean totally different things.





fanboy2000 said:


> If someone listed all the basic attacks in the game, this would one of them. It has the arcane power source.





Hey look, it's Trickery of Words. I'm going to post exactly what Imaro said (there are powers that can be used as basic attacks... though they are still classified as powers instead of actual basic attacks) but use different words instead of just saying I was wrong... uhm, ok.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> I have no difficulty accepting (in the intellectual sense) that 4E is designed instead as a sort of story-telling game. I think it is by that standard a pretty clumsy design, a Rube Goldberg contraption.



Hasn't D&D been a Rube Goldberg contraption all along? An awkward-but-lovely amalgamation of small-unit tactics wargame, puzzle-solving exercises and a third-rate dinner theater troupe putting on a play about elves? 



> My difficulty, I suspect a common one, is in accepting (in the emotional sense) that this is what has become of _Dungeons & Dragons_.



Don't let it get you emotional... there's no crying in D&D!


----------



## Ariosto

> This does not mean D&D fighters have ever been magical, because they aren't, outside of whatever magical gear they have been equipped.



FALSE! A fundamental problem here is that, more often than not, those arguing that 4E is "the same as D&D has ever been" are not versed in what in fact D&D formerly was.


----------



## Mad Mac

> FALSE! A fundamental problem here is that, more often than not, those arguing that 4E is "the same as D&D has ever been" are not versed in what in fact D&D formerly was.




  Considering I've played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition, you may need to compose an alternate theory. 

  I'm always up for discussing the Complete Ninja's Handbook though. I just can't ever find any takers on that one...


----------



## Imaro

Mad Mac said:


> No, I'm trying to word things differently so that you can understand my point of view, but it's obviously not working.
> 
> If, at this point, you are unable to even acknowledge the 8,586,242 explanations given for CAGI in this exact thread, I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you is.




Show me one of those 8,586,242 reasons that is more logically consistent for CAGI in a wider array of situations than magic... and I can see your point. Otherwise what you're saying IMHO, is that it's magic but you want to use another name for it...like narrative control, yet in the end this is exactly what I've said from the beginning... no matter what you choose to call it


----------



## D'karr

Imaro said:


> Show me one of those 8,586,242 reasons that is more logically consistent for CAGI in a wider array of situations than magic... and I can see your point. Otherwise what you're saying IMHO, is that it's magic but you want to use another name for it...like narrative control, yet in the end this is exactly what I've said from the beginning... no matter what you choose to call it




I think that argument is rather flimsy when taken at face value.

The power is martial,  the power keyword says it is so.  Many of the explanations that have been provided here fit that mold perfectly.  So the power is martial, but you want to use another name for it.. like magic, yet in the end this is exactly what the book had said from the beginning...  no matter what you choose to call it.


----------



## Imaro

D'karr said:


> I think that argument is rather flimsy when taken at face value.
> 
> The power is martial, the power keyword says it is so. Many of the explanations that have been provided here fit that mold perfectly. So the power is martial, but you want to use another name for it.. like magic, yet in the end this is exactly what the book had said from the beginning... no matter what you choose to call it.




And yet in reading the definition of Martial Power Source in the PHB, we are never told it is not magic... just not traditional magic...


----------



## Ariosto

Mad Mac said:


> Considering I've played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition, you may need to compose an alternate theory.
> 
> I'm always up for discussing the Complete Ninja's Handbook though. I just can't ever find any takers on that one...




I don't know about you, Mac. However, I _do_ know that the claim I quoted is definitely false.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mad Mac said:


> Considering I've played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition, you may need to compose an alternate theory.




Take a look at the Basic & 1E rulebooks again. See what references you can find there about collaborative storytelling. 4E makes such claims about the rules, the older editions did not. The old school DM (per the rules) was not writing a story. He/she was the moderator of the fantasy world and took on the roles of everything that was not a PC. The "story" ended up being whatever happened in that world after the PC's made thier choices.

There was nothing stopping a DM from running these games as storytelling sessions, but that was not the default playstyle presented by the rules. The game could be played in storytelling style if the players preferred that.
 In the 4E rules the storytelling style is in fact the default playstyle. With game rules that require "narrative control" to explain how they operate in the world I don't see how the older playstyle works. When the designers decided to make 4E non backwards compatible it was more than just mathematical crunch.


----------



## Mad Mac

> I don't know about you, Mac. However, I do know that the claim I quoted is definitely false.




  That Fighters in D&D have always been non-magical but unrealistic? I don't see what is false about that.



> Take a look at the Basic & 1E rulebooks again. See what references you can find there about collaborative storytelling. 4E makes such claims about the rules, the older editions did not. The old school DM (per the rules) was not writing a story. He/she was the moderator of the fantasy world and took on the roles of everything that was not a PC. The "story" ended up being whatever happened in that world after the PC's made thier choices.




  Obviously 4th edition is different from 3rd which is different than 2nd and so forth. All I can attest is my overall playing style hasn't shifted much over the years, no matter which version of the game I'm playing. 

  I've never been, as I explained earlier in this thread a "RAW is LAW" sort of DM. I was making up my own rules from the first time I ever played and that definately effected how I viewed the game. 

  I don't especially care, in an abstract sort of way about Storytelling vs Sandbox play vs gamism or whatever. All I know is that 4th edition lets me play the same sort of game I played when I was younger, and that's enough for me.


----------



## D'karr

Imaro said:


> And yet in reading the definition of Martial Power Source in the PHB, we are never told it is not magic... just not traditional magic...




And if that is the definition that brings YOU the most pleasure, knock yourself out.  That is completely acceptable.  My game won't suffer any ill effect for whatever you want to call a particular power in your game.  As long as it does not affect your game, you can call it marshmallow.

For me there is nothing magical about a fighter calling out the enemies and then beating the crap out of them.  So it works just fine.  I don't look for mental blocks where there are none.

I'm sorry that it causes you such pain, but in the end it only seems to matter in your game.  So if it doesn't work, change it.  

Me, I'm going to continue having fun when the party's fighter brings those creatures around him and smacks the living daylights out of them.


----------



## Ariosto

Mac, you are invited to crack open, read and digest those 1st edition Advanced D&D books. Maybe someone else will stoop to "giving the answer", but I will leave it as an exercise for the earnest scholar.


----------



## Imaro

D'karr said:


> And if that is the definition that brings YOU the most pleasure, knock yourself out. That is completely acceptable. My game won't suffer any ill effect for whatever you want to call a particular power in your game. As long as it does not affect your game, you can call it marshmallow.
> 
> For me there is nothing magical about a fighter calling out the enemies and then beating the crap out of them. So it works just fine. I don't look for mental blocks where there are none.
> 
> I'm sorry that it causes you such pain, but in the end it only seems to matter in your game. So if it doesn't work, change it.
> 
> Me, I'm going to continue having fun when the party's fighter brings those creatures around him and smacks the living daylights out of them.




Uhm...ok, it's a discussion (though apparently I must've hit a nerve).  Nowhere did I say I was going to ruin your fun, or make you call it magic or anything else.  Also I never said people calling it not magic would ruin my fun.  

So you keep having fun... really I mean it... and try not to tae these discussions so seriously man, in the end it's just a game...


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mad Mac said:


> If, at this point, you are unable to even acknowledge the 8,586,242 explanations given for CAGI in this exact thread, I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you is.




As has been pointed out, there is a real difference between acknowledging the (vastly overstated) number of explanations, and agreeing that even one of those explanations is satisfactory.  Especially given that most of those explanations are restatements of a few very basic explanations, for which the reasons that they are not satisfactory (to those who do not find them so) have been given repeatedly.

If you do not care that some folks don't find those explanations satisfactory, then no problem.  Otherwise, simply repeating the same is unlikely to gain converts....a truism on both sides of the argument!  One can try to understand the opposition's point, then either answer the argument or accept it at face value. 

There have been some nice answers to the argument of both sides in this thread, IMHO.  While I haven't found the answers even remotely satisfactory, I do feel like I better understand why others view 4e's martial powers as "non-magical".  And, sometimes, that is the best one can hope for.  



Ariosto said:


> A fundamental problem here is that, more often than not, those arguing that 4E is "the same as D&D has ever been" are not versed in what in fact D&D formerly was.




I would tend to agree for a whole host of arguments along this line in various threads, but I think that the topic is a little more complex in this case.



Mad Mac said:


> I'm always up for discussing the Complete Ninja's Handbook though. I just can't ever find any takers on that one...




One of the few 2e books I didn't manage to own!  



D'karr said:


> The power is martial,  the power keyword says it is so.




I think that argument is rather flimsy when taken at face value.  It assumes that the word "martial" means, in 4e, what it means in common parlance.  In fact, upthread, one of the big arguments against calling martial powers magical is that magical in 4e doesn't mean the same thing as it does in common parlance.  

If that is so, then there is no reason to assume that martial means the same in 4e as in common parlance.

If that is not so, then through the common parlance definitions, several of these powers are magical.

Either way, this argument fails.


RC


----------



## fanboy2000

Imaro said:


> If you count that as proof that a naarative based explanation for powers ios supported and explained in the game... ok, let's just say we see things totally differently then, as shown by some of your comments below.








> All I'll say on this is that if you're going to comment on a post... it's best to understand the context in which the thought/idea/etc. was posted in. There was a situation where someone posited that narrative control was the explanation for certain powers (this wasn't me)... I in turn asked for proof of this assertion which I claimed there was none.



Mallus said that the 'excuse' of narritive control is "consistent with the rules text." Your counter was that "_t's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.__" Well there is a basis in the rulebooks. If you think that narrative control should be given a more prominent place in the PHB with explicit references, I agree with you. 




			Since you agree I really don't understand your point in bringing this up.
		
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you think I agree with. My point was simply that there is passage in the rulebooks where narrative control is brought up in a positive manner. Based on that one passage, I doubt Wyatt expects people to start playing the way he described. What I do think, however, is that the rules were designed to allow that play style without any tweaking to the rules themselves.

In other words, Mallus is right, narrative control is not only consistent with the rules, but has support from the guy who wrote the book for the ones who would have to give-up some control.




			Are you expecting me to argue a viewpoint I never believed in the first place?
		
Click to expand...


No, you don't have to argue with me at all. You can just do what you've been doing, stating why you dissagee with me.




			What I'm saying is that nowhere is narrative control stated as the reason powers work
		
Click to expand...


True, but magic isn't stated as the reason martial powers work either, other reasons are given.

In order to make a martial power magic, a person has to either define magic differently than the game does, or a person has to believe that the designers consistently left off magical descriptions from the text of the rules. These are reasonable things to do, because magic isn't real, what is magic is left up a given fictional world. Since players and DMs make their own fictional worlds when they play, they are free to use whatever definition of magic they feel is appropriate. 




			... and again it has nothing to do with exception based design... I thnk you're trying to talk about effect-based design...where the effect is the only thing that mechanics represent but you keep using exception-based and they mean totally different things.
		
Click to expand...


I think exception based design is at the heart of the disagreement because the powers are the exception to the rules. 

I brought it up because you said you had played games designed around narrative control. My point is that 4e wasn't designed around narrative control, but narrative control is a possible way to use the powers (the exceptions to the general rules).




			Hey look, it's Trickery of Words. I'm going to post exactly what Imaro said (there are powers that can be used as basic attacks... though they are still classified as powers instead of actual basic attacks) but use different words instead of just saying I was wrong... uhm, ok.
		
Click to expand...


First, the Melee Basic Attack and the Ranged Basic Attack are powers. (PHB 287) Their defined as "a basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class." The basic attacks you're talking about are powers.

Second, there are tons of basic attacks in 4e besides the ones on PHB pg. 287. Monsters, in particular, typically have basic attacks that do a lot more than the ones in the PHB. The monster manual defines these powers as basic attacks and they can be used to make opportunity attacks (man, I hate that they turned that phrase around) which makes opportunity attacks much more dangerous._


----------



## Imaro

fanboy2000 said:


> Mallus said that the 'excuse' of narritive control is "consistent with the rules text." Your counter was that "_t's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.__" Well there is a basis in the rulebooks. If you think that narrative control should be given a more prominent place in the PHB with explicit references, I agree with you.
> 
> there is passage in the rulebooks where narrative control is brought up in a positive manner. Based on that one passage, I doubt Wyatt expects people to start playing the way he described. What I do think, however, is that the rules were designed to allow that play style without any tweaking to the rules themselves.
> 
> 
> In other words, Mallus is right, narrative control is not only consistent with the rules, but has support from the guy who wrote the book for the ones who would have to give-up some control._



_

Again, all I can say is, IMO, you are stretching in claiming a sidebar story less than a few paragraphs long in the DMG is a basis in the rulebooks for narrative control explaining the use of certain powers. iIs his son even using a power in the example? I mean in all honesty you can claim whatever you want is the reason something happens, what you can't say is that something is logically explained away by anything you claim is the reason for it (which is what many proponents of the narrative control excuse are saying)... there have already been a few of these instances brought up (the archers who come running out of cover to get slaughtered in melee... everytime the power is used on them).



fanboy2000 said:



			No, you don't have to argue with me at all. You can just do what you've been doing, stating why you dissagee with me.
		
Click to expand...



That is what constructing an argument is... isn't it? 



fanboy2000 said:



			True, but magic isn't stated as the reason martial powers work either, other reasons are given.
		
Click to expand...



What other reasons are given in the rules?



fanboy2000 said:



			In order to make a martial power magic, a person has to either define magic differently than the game does, or a person has to believe that the designers consistently left off magical descriptions from the text of the rules. These are reasonable things to do, because magic isn't real, what is magic is left up a given fictional world. Since players and DMs make their own fictional worlds when they play, they are free to use whatever definition of magic they feel is appropriate.
		
Click to expand...



Or you could just accept that, as stated in the corebook martial exploits aren't traditional magic... which implies they are non-traditional magic. I mean why else would they state it in such a way.



fanboy2000 said:



			I think exception based design is at the heart of the disagreement because the powers are the exception to the rules.
		
Click to expand...



I disagree, even heavy simulationist game systems can have exception based rules... it's that they try to base their exceptions on simulating something... thus again I believe the problem is more about effect-based game systems.



fanboy2000 said:



			I brought it up because you said you had played games designed around narrative control. My point is that 4e wasn't designed around narrative control, but narrative control is a possible way to use the powers (the exceptions to the general rules).
		
Click to expand...



Totally agree it wassn't designed around narrative control... thus the part where I said you agreed with me. And claiming the powers are a non-traditional form of magic is also a possible way to use the powers (honestly it's a game you can use them any way you want). What the argument is about, from my perspective, is which definition provides the most logical, comprehensive and cohesive way of approaching the powers.


And for the record it isn't powers being exception-based that in
and of itself creates a dissonance problem for many... it's the fact that they are effect-based.



fanboy2000 said:



			First, the Melee Basic Attack and the Ranged Basic Attack are powers. (PHB 287) Their defined as "a basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class." The basic attacks you're talking about are powers.

Second, there are tons of basic attacks in 4e besides the ones on PHB pg. 287. Monsters, in particular, typically have basic attacks that do a lot more than the ones in the PHB. The monster manual defines these powers as basic attacks and they can be used to make opportunity attacks (man, I hate that they turned that phrase around) which makes opportunity attacks much more dangerous.
		
Click to expand...



PHB 1 pg.55... Basic attacks, racial powers, and epic destiny powers have no power source. This was my original argument, how it got twisted into whether they were powers or not was probably my fault but the fact remains that they have no power source. You can use a power with a power source as a basic attack but a basic attack does not have a power source._


----------



## D'karr

Imaro said:


> Uhm...ok, it's a discussion (though apparently I must've hit a nerve).  Nowhere did I say I was going to ruin your fun, or make you call it magic or anything else.  Also I never said people calling it not magic would ruin my fun.
> 
> So you keep having fun... really I mean it... and try not to tae these discussions so seriously man, in the end it's just a game...




Nope, no nerve.  Thanks, I will keep having fun.   I don't take anything on the internet personal.  And I have no vested interest in one interpretation of the powers over another.  After all I might have posted in this thread a total of 3-4 times.  Like you said, it is a game, so not worrying about how other people choose to interpret things is recommended.  

Unlike some of the arguments around here, if it doesn't affect my game, I'm not overly concerned.  And I don't feel a compelling reason to "prove" anyone wrong.  If the power says it's martial then I attempt to mold that power on a martial technique.  If the power says its divine, then prayer might be a component, and if arcane, then the magic is flowing.  I don't spend time arguing why it looks like X when it says it is Y.  I describe it as Y and move on.

I never said that you were ruining MY fun.  Or that your explanations or arguments were doing so.  However, since you've been arguing against pretty reasonable explanations for several pages it did seem as if the descriptions were ruining your fun.  So if that is not the case, no harm.  Have fun with whatever you decide to do.  Like you said it's a game, no need to be so serious.


----------



## D'karr

Raven Crowking said:


> If that is not so, then through the common parlance definitions, several of these powers are magical.
> 
> Either way, this argument fails.
> 
> 
> RC




Sorry, there is no argument.  The power says its martial, so I describe the effect as martial.  If the power says its arcane, I describe the effect as arcane.  If the power says its divine, the same applies.

If you prefer your game to say it is magical, that is fine too.  However, it does not change the fact that the power is described as martial.


----------



## fanboy2000

Imaro said:


> Again, all I can say is, IMO, you are stretching in claiming a sidebar story less than a few paragraphs long in the DMG is a basis in the rulebooks for narrative control explaining the use of certain powers. iIs his son even using a power in the example? I mean in all honesty you can claim whatever you want is the reason something happens, what you can't say is that something is logically explained away by anything you claim is the reason for it (which is what many proponents of the narrative control excuse are saying)... there have already been a few of these instances brought up (the archers who come running out of cover to get slaughtered in melee... everytime the power is used on them).



No, his son isn't using a power in that example. (They may not even be playing 4e.)

Of course I can say something is explained away by something I claim is the reason for it. That's how I run my D&D, I explain the effects of the game (going to your effects design argument) in fun and interesting details that fit the situation/rule/effect.



> That is what constructing an argument is... isn't it?



I think of an argument as having an element of persuasion to it. Do you think you're persuading me? Trust me, I have no delusions that I'm persuading you of anything. 



> What other reasons are given in the rules?



Specifically, they list training.



> Or you could just accept that, as stated in the corebook martial exploits aren't traditional magic... which implies they are non-traditional magic. I mean why else would they state it in such a way.



Because it's true. Martial powers aren't traditional magic. They could have just it's not magic, but they didn't. Maybe the game designers, who moonlight as fiction authors for WotC's novels, just like flowery prose.



> I disagree, even heavy simulationist game systems can have exception based rules... it's that they try to base their exceptions on simulating something... thus again I believe the problem is more about effect-based game systems.



O.k.



> Totally agree it wassn't designed around narrative control... thus the part where I said you agreed with me.



Ah, I see now.



> And claiming the powers are a non-traditional form of magic is also a possible way to use the powers (honestly it's a game you can use them any way you want).



Hey, we agree about something else!



> What the argument is about, from my perspective, is which definition provides the most logical, comprehensive and cohesive way of approaching the powers.



Dude, you're on a roll here.



> And for the record it isn't powers being exception-based that in and of itself creates a dissonance problem for many... it's the fact that they are effect-based.



The choice to go essentially entirely exception based (far more so than in 3.x) is what lead to the choice, consciously or unconsciously, to go effect-based.



> PHB 1 pg.55... Basic attacks, racial powers, and epic destiny powers have no power source. This was my original argument, how it got twisted into whether they were powers or not was probably my fault but the fact remains that they have no power source. You can use a power with a power source as a basic attack but a basic attack does not have a power source.



Neither do most NPC powers. I'm not sure this supports your contention that some martial powers are magic though. Which is why I pointed out that there are basic attacks with power sources.

Because the martial power source is acquired through training, it makes sense that the _Basic Melee Attack_ and _Basic Ranged Attack_ powers don't have power sources because no training is required to use them.

Your statement that narrative control isn't supported by the rules is, in my opinion, false because an example of narrative control is given in the rulebooks; a narrative control explanation is not contradicted by the rules; and your two examples don't demonstrate the alternative, magic, that you support is the intended and implied explanation.


----------



## Raven Crowking

D'karr said:


> Sorry, there is no argument.




"In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion."

Argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not saying that you are rabidly trying to change others' minds; I am talking about a proposition/conclusion ("X is true because of Y", "X is true, therefore Y"), and how that proposition/conclusion fares when examined logically.

Your position may be true; the reasoning that you use to support that position, however, fails the test.

RC


----------



## fanboy2000

*I forgot something*



Imaro said:


> What the argument is about, from my perspective, is which definition provides the most logical, comprehensive and cohesive way of approaching the powers.



The answer to that question is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## D'karr

Raven Crowking said:


> Your position may be true; the reasoning that you use to support that position, however, fails the test.
> 
> RC




Sorry, you have failed to prove that the reasoning behind the position does not support it.  Therefore, failing.

The power clearly states that it is martial.  The effect can be reasonably described as a martial maneuver.  The outcome can also be reasonably described as martial in nature.  Therefore for the purpose of my game the power functions as a martial power.  No magical component required.

I have not seen one good "argument", yet, to demonstrate that the reasoning behind it fails.

You might have a preference for seeing it as magical.  IMO if it says its arcane, then I describe the effect to have that magical element.  If it says it is martial then I look for a martial element.

I've seen some real life martial artists perform feats that might be described as magical.  Jumping several feet to kick the rim of a basketball hoop.  A 90 pound man tossing a 300+ pounds man as if he was a ragdoll.  Heck, I've seen some athletes perform feats that seem impossible, though they can perform them routinely.  Even though these "effects" seem magical, I'm bound to believe that since our own world does not have "magic" in effect then the description of their "powers" is not rooted in magic but in training, skill and expertise.

So if I can see that happening in the real world, I have no problem imagining a similar circumstance in a "fantasy" world.


----------



## Raven Crowking

fanboy2000 said:


> The answer to that question is a matter of personal taste.




There is a degree to which this is true.  There are an infinite number of potential logical systems, and no rational way to select between them.

However, within any given system of logic, it is possible to determine if a conclusion is logical or not.  Likewise, within any given system of comprehension, it is possible to determine what system is most comprehensive.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

D'karr said:


> Sorry, you have failed to prove that the reasoning behind the position does not support it.




To the standard of evidence that you, particularly, require, this would be true.  The obvious evidence of its truth is that you are not convinced.  That is exactly how this works.  

The difficulty in reaching consensus is, almost certainly, based upon reaching a consensus as to a reasonable standard by which to judge the relative merits of various arguements.

And, as I said earlier, sometimes just getting a better persepective on the other person's opinion is the best you can hope for from a discussion of this nature.  


RC


----------



## Imaro

fanboy2000 said:


> I think of an argument as having an element of persuasion to it. Do you think you're persuading me? Trust me, I have no delusions that I'm persuading you of anything.




Uhm, I didn't consider that a necessary component of an argument but ok, whatever.



fanboy2000 said:


> Specifically, they list training.




In what, non-traditional magic, maneuvers, footwork...exactly what is this training in?



fanboy2000 said:


> Because it's true. Martial powers aren't traditional magic. They could have just it's not magic, but they didn't. Maybe the game designers, who moonlight as fiction authors for WotC's novels, just like flowery prose.




Again...occam's razor.




fanboy2000 said:


> The choice to go essentially entirely exception based (far more so than in 3.x) is what lead to the choice, consciously or unconsciously, to go effect-based.




Yet in the end, it is the effect-based design (regardles of what led to effect-based design) that causes the problem.



fanboy2000 said:


> Neither do most NPC powers. I'm not sure this supports your contention that some martial powers are magic though. Which is why I pointed out that there are basic attacks with power sources.




No there are not... there are powers with power sources that can be substituted or used as a basic attack. 



fanboy2000 said:


> Because the martial power source is acquired through training, it makes sense that the _Basic Melee Attack_ and _Basic Ranged Attack_ powers don't have power sources because no training is required to use them.




So it doesn't take training to wield a weapon effectively? Again, what type of training are we speaking of here? I guess it also doesn't take training for the different monsters and NPC's in the MM to pull off their powers... because they don't have power sources either. IMO the more you examine this the more it seems pretty flimsy reasoning.



fanboy2000 said:


> Your statement that narrative control isn't supported by the rules is, in my opinion, false because an example of narrative control is given in the rulebooks; a narrative control explanation is not contradicted by the rules; and your two examples don't demonstrate the alternative, magic, that you support is the intended and implied explanation.




Hey I respect your opinion, though I don't believe you've argued the narrative control (a sidebar story, without a power and perhaps not even playing D&D 4e) as support for that style of play in anything close to a convincing manner... especially since while  it may not be contradicted by the rules (in the same manner using foam weapons for combat isn't) this isn't the same as supporting something. 

As far as alternate magic... It says it in the description it's not traditional magic...and that they allow people to do things ordinary beings can't...yet martial powers apparently work different from what we consider any other ability that would be classified as martial such as the basic attack, or a Human Bandit's Dazing Strike... or how about an Ogre Warhulk's Flail Hurricane. None of these are classified under the Martial power source. Though I would think an ability like Dazing Strike would take some training to do since I believe it's an encounter or recharge power.

So now my question is what seperates someone whose using a power that is based in martial abilities as opposed to someone who uses the martial power source?


----------



## Imaro

fanboy2000 said:


> The answer to that question is a matter of personal taste.




Actually which one you choose to use is personal preference... what reasoning is most cohesive, logical, etc. is objetcive.


----------



## Ariosto

> while  it may not be contradicted by the rules (in the same manner using foam weapons for combat isn't)



... which might explain the humongous hammer in the DMG on p. 5 and p. 197.

That's perfect for the cleric who takes really literally the Church's prohibition against shedding blood!


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> Actually which one you choose to use is personal preference... what reasoning is most cohesive, logical, etc. is objetcive.




Probably in that case the correct answer is they did away with the separation between mundane and extraordinary abilities, insofar as characters go, and just made them one category (Martial.)  

Some of them are possibly/probably a little more extraordinary then others.



			
				srd said:
			
		

> Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
> 
> These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.




Pretty much sums up martial power source abilities as well. They are not "magic" they aren't disrupted by magic, they are more then the "ordinary" guy can do, and they require extensive training.


----------



## fanboy2000

Imaro said:


> In what, non-traditional magic, maneuvers, footwork...exactly what is this training in?



In addition to the class traits listed in the PHB, exceptional martial prowess.



Imaro said:


> Again...occam's razor.



I'll get to this.



Imaro said:


> Yet in the end, it is the effect-based design (regardles of what led to effect-based design) that causes the problem.



Sure.



Imaro said:


> So it doesn't take training to wield a weapon effectively?



Of course it does. That's why 4e has weapon proficiency bonuses. If you've trained in that weapon, you wield it more effectivly. The _Basic Meelee Attack_ power allows anyone to pick-up something 4e defines as a weapon and use it. But it's almost always more effective to use something you have more training in. A fighter, for example, probably has trained with the weapon he or she is using but has trained to use that weapon in more effective maneuvers, like cleave.



Imaro said:


> Again, what type of training are we speaking of here? I guess it also doesn't take training for the different monsters and NPC's in the MM to pull off their powers... because they don't have power sources either.



NPC and monsters don't need power sources. Power source is really just a PC Class concept, so if you wanted all PC Classes to use it, not specifying the power source is a good idea.



Imaro said:


> IMO the more you examine this the more it seems pretty flimsy reasoning.



You used the lack of a power source with the Basic Melee Attack and Basic Ranged Attack as evidence that the martial power source is magic. The problem with that contention is that those powers are just there so characters can wield a weapon and attempt to hit something with it either with an opportunity attack (have I said I hate that phrasing yet?) or when you can't use some other power.



Imaro said:


> Hey I respect your opinion, though I don't believe you've argued the narrative control (a sidebar story, without a power and perhaps not even playing D&D 4e) as support for that style of play in anything close to a convincing manner... especially since while  it may not be contradicted by the rules (in the same manner using foam weapons for combat isn't) this isn't the same as supporting something.



Sure it supports it. Think about it, Mallus said that narrative control consistent with the rules. You said that had no basis in the rulebooks. Those were strong words. I pointed out a basis. Sure, it's not much but it's a positive statement by a designer in a core rulebook.



Imaro said:


> As far as alternate magic... It says it in the description it's not traditional magic...and that they allow people to do things ordinary beings can't...yet martial powers apparently work different from what we consider any other ability that would be classified as martial such as the basic attack, or a Human Bandit's Dazing Strike... or how about an Ogre Warhulk's Flail Hurricane. None of these are classified under the Martial power source. Though I would think an ability like Dazing Strike would take some training to do since I believe it's an encounter or recharge power.



The problem with the wording you're quoting is that it's a negative statement. You're inferring what the martial power source is (and what the game designers intent was) from a description of what it isn't. I provided an alternative explanation, flowery prose.

Now, what's the simplest explanation: that the designers consistently failed to explicitly name magic as the source of a fighter's, rogue's, and ranger's power or that they didn't say it because they didn't intend it? 

Edit: the first page of Martial Power says "All legendary warriors develop martial power to such an extent that their abilities are the equal of _magical_ abilities." Not traditional magic, just magic. Again, what explanation is simplest: the one that requires the designers to leave off an important description, or the one that takes it at face value.



Imaro said:


> So now my question is what seperates someone whose using a power that is based in martial abilities as opposed to someone who uses the martial power source?



The ability to do something extraordinary.


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> There is a degree to which this is true.  There are an infinite number of potential logical systems, and no rational way to select between them.
> 
> However, within any given system of logic, it is possible to determine if a conclusion is logical or not.  Likewise, within any given system of comprehension, it is possible to determine what system is most comprehensive.






Imaro said:


> Actually which one you choose to use is personal preference... what reasoning is most cohesive, logical, etc. is objetcive.



You guys really need to come over to the personal taste side of things. It's so much fun over here when you realize that "a great many of the truths we cling to depend on a certain point of view." 

I mean, think about it. What's the most logical thing to do with a game? Have fun. When a rule is ambiguous or has room for interpretation, what's the logical thing to do? Use the interpretation that is the most fun. This could be the interpretation that is the most fair, the most challenging, the most funny, or the one that solves the most irregularities. What an individual finds fun is subjective. For example, if someone has no problem with healing in 4e, they have no need to adopt an interpretation that resolves the problem.

If I can come-up with non-magical explainations for a martial power you think is magic, I have no _logical_ need adopt your point of view because I have my non-magical explanation. In fact, adopting your point of view may impair my ability to have fun, particularly if I try to argue it to may players. That would be illogical.

Those of us on the personal preference side of things have so much fun. It's great when you see how other people come to their version of fun.

Come, on. I know you two are wavering. Your thinking "you know, if it is all personal preference, then I can discuss things so much more easily with people." Gone are the bad feelings from mis-read posts. Gone is the weirdness from "well of course you can do it like that, if that's how you have fun, but...."

It smells like nirvana over on this side.


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> In the 4E rules the storytelling style is in fact the default playstyle.




I think the default playstyle is the "delve" - PCs go into a dungeon for pretty flimsy in-character reasons, they face encounters within a small level range, and they don't really care how or why their powers work, just that they do.

Which is not really a style I really care that much for.  I think the DM was intended to have more of a role in 4E, but with later-day 3E being all about "RAW", I think that's helped to define how 4E is played.

(I've made a lot of posts to things like "How do I trip someone" with the answer "It's a DM call".  The generally accepted answer is, I think, "You can't, it's not in the RAW.")


----------



## Ariosto

> Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.



 If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.


----------



## fanboy2000

Ariosto said:


> If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.




Well, the sentence you quoted is almost verbatim from the 3.5 Rules Compendium. On page 118, the compendium says "extraordinary abilities aren't magical, though they may break the laws of physics."

For whatever it's worth, that statement makes sense to me.

Aside: that page also describes a game called "Name that Special Ability Type" where people open-up a monster manual and try to guess what the special ability type a given special ability is. I'm not entirely sure what this means in terms of how difficult special ability types are to figure out in 3.5.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.



I imagine that statement makes sense to anyone familiar with action movies.


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> What are your settings simulating?



Settings that greatly exceed the limitations you described in the post I first replied to.


> It's my experience that those particular devils are hard to avoid when dealing with fantasy (though as writers like Pratchett demonstrate, humor is a wonderful antidote to pretentiousness. Also to the ponderousness that accompanies deliberately trying for grandeur).



Noted.  So what?
I repeat the question, do you accept that I achieve it?  Or even, do you accept that I just *might* be achieving it?

Your prior statements were rather definitive that any claim of success must be "the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness".  Now you have back down to "hard to avoid".  Fine, it is hard to avoid.  At least for some people.  Is it possible that your experience is inadequate to make this judgment for everyone everywhere?  Or do you claim absolute knowledge here?  (Please recall your recent accusation of self-delusion when answering)



> It's not a question of what I've experienced, it's a question of the criteria I've used to evaluate what I experienced.
> 
> Sure. It _was_ a jokey quip, but still... I take it back. Do you retract your insinuation that I don't recognize, or haven't experienced, quality? I don't mind if you don't, but so long as we're retracting things...



No, I don't.  I don' because I made no such accusation.  I simply pointed out that you yourself said so.  

And just to be clear, you have changed the phrasing here.  You said:


> The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at best, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill there function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.



I replied that I was sorry you had never experienced better.
I AM sorry that you have never experienced better.
You may very well have still experienced "quality".  
"Quality" is different than what I said.
But either you lied in the quote or there is better out there and you have had the misfortune of never experiencing it.  I'm not accusing you of lying.  I'm honestly sorry you have never experienced better than that what you describe.

I have experienced better.   Much better.

And no amount of accusation of self-deception or pretentiousness has any bearing on the truth of that.

And as long as your assessment is tied to the presumption that no one else has ever achieved or experienced anything that you yourself have not achieved or experienced, then your assessment will be fatally flawed.


----------



## BryonD

Ariosto said:


> If that makes sense to you, then probably so does 4E.



Just to throw in here....

I'm 100% on board with that statement.  I see no need at all for FRPG games to limit "the impossible" to just magic.  Granted, my personal preference is that there is a justification for why they can do what they do.  But a 20th level rogue climbing on the underside of smooth glass just because he is that cool works for me.  And lots of extrodinary abilities fall into this area.


Hell, actually spliting an arrow with another arrow under any remotely normal conditions is against physics.  But if my high level ranger can't show up at the local tournament and split the sheriff's arrow, then I probably don't want to spend time on that game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:


> There is a degree to which this is true.  There are an infinite number of potential logical systems, and no rational way to select between them.
> 
> However, within any given system of logic, it is possible to determine if a conclusion is logical or not.  Likewise, within any given system of comprehension, it is possible to determine what system is most comprehensive.



But beware that that a consistent formal logic is incomplete, that means there are true properties that you cannot prove via your logic.


----------



## ExploderWizard

LostSoul said:


> I think the default playstyle is the "delve" - PCs go into a dungeon for pretty flimsy in-character reasons, they face encounters within a small level range, and they don't really care how or why their powers work, just that they do.
> 
> Which is not really a style I really care that much for. I think the DM was intended to have more of a role in 4E, but with later-day 3E being all about "RAW", I think that's helped to define how 4E is played.
> 
> (I've made a lot of posts to things like "How do I trip someone" with the answer "It's a DM call". The generally accepted answer is, I think, "You can't, it's not in the RAW.")





I would say that a popular adventure format for 4E is the delve rather than playstyle. The collaborative storytelling playstyle can be a delve, or any other type of adventure. The game can operate with rules that have consistent explanations of abilities within the game world and still be played as collaborative fiction. Older edition systems can be played this way and not suffer from that style at all.

The older edition rules also worked (and were written) for a different style of play. In the default style for these rules the players roleplayed thier character's reactions to events within the game world with the DM acting as a judge and moderator of those interactions. The story came out of the results of those interactions. There is a subtle but important difference in these styles of play.

The largest change brought about by 4E is the default playing style is that of collaborative storytelling. When abilities simply function on the basis of importance to the story rather than any connection to how things are modeled in the game world, then storytelling is the only style of play where the actions in the game make sense. This is where the majority of dissapointment in the 4E system comes from (at least from me). If storytelling was your preferred style of play with earlier systems then 4E is like a dream come true. If exploration/roleplaying with the DM as a judge is your preferred playstyle then 4E just isn't going to work. 

As far as being bound to the almighty RAW is concerned its very easy to see only back as far as 3E with the massive rules bloat. There were times before the era of more rules just to sell more books that games didn't assume that players wouldn't think for themselves.


----------



## D'karr

ExploderWizard said:


> If exploration/roleplaying with the DM as a judge is your preferred playstyle then 4E just isn't going to work.




I wholeheartedly disagree.  I'm currently running a 4e campaign, and exploration/roleplaying are alive and well.  So I don't see how this could be justified, unless you are using a very narrow lens to look at the game.



> There were times before the era of more rules just to sell more books that games didn't assume that players wouldn't think for themselves.




I see no reason to assume that 4e, or 3e for that matter, restricts players to only concern themselves with rules.  That is a function of the gaming group, not of the rules themselves.  As far as simplicity and few rules go, I routinely run the game with just the information on the DM screen.  So you can virtually run the game with very few "rules."  In any case I fail to see how any of that prevents players from thinking for themselves.


----------



## BryonD

D'karr said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree.  I'm currently running a 4e campaign, and exploration/roleplaying are alive and well.  So I don't see how this could be justified, unless you are using a very narrow lens to look at the game.



I agree.
See my sig.


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> If exploration/roleplaying with the DM as a judge is your preferred playstyle then 4E just isn't going to work.




This points to a question I've asked a bunch of times in this thread: why not?  

I find this line interesting: 

Your DM might rule that you can't use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied.​


----------



## Ariosto

> I see no need at all for FRPG games to limit "the impossible" to just magic.



I, in contrast, see no need to deny the magical in my fantasy games.

If one accepts that breaking the laws of physics is not in itself magical, then I don't think one is likely to complain about 4E doing likewise.

To me, that is a blow against magic. Science has already "disenchanted" the world to a tremendous extent. Countless "magics" of former eras' tales of wonder have been reduced to commonplace gadgets.

Now, it is proposed that even the remaining, common-sense reserve for the endangered species should not be inviolate even in a genre founded on it. It is proposed indeed that mystery -- formerly magic's native habitat -- should be made the one place it _cannot_ reside.

Now, nothing is to be "magical" unless it has been systematically labeled and mechanized, transformed into another technology. To judge from one poster's argument, we should have no more magical flights of hippogriffs.


----------



## ExploderWizard

LostSoul said:


> This points to a question I've asked a bunch of times in this thread: why not?
> 
> I find this line interesting:
> Your DM might rule that you can't use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied.​




Do not confuse exploration/roleplaying *playstyle* with general exploration and roleplaying taking place in a game session. If the DM and the players are collaboratively creating a story together as the objective of the session, that does not preclude roleplaying and exploration  in that game session no matter what system is used to run it.

4E doesn't work for exploration/roleplaying as a *playstyle *because there are powers and abilities that work for no other reason than to support the *story. *You could always play earlier editions in the storytelling style if you wanted but *the rules functioning within the context of the setting did not depend on that.*

LS to answer your question directly, yes the DM can rule that certain powers cannot function under prescribed circumstances _if that better fits the story the DM and players are creating together. The DM can also just say that the power works just fine if it was dramatically appropriate. _Oh no! We're back to "mother may I!!"

In a game world not dependent on cooperative storytelling to determine what is or is not possible in a given circumstance the player knows that casting spells will not work while bound or gagged and the character will have to come up with another plan. This doesn't mean that the game needs a codified rule for everything.


----------



## BryonD

Ariosto said:


> I, in contrast, see no need to deny the magical in my fantasy games.



I'm gonna leave 4E completely out, because it has nothing to do with my point on it.

But I completely reject that this denies magic in any way.

To stay with my climbing under glass example, improving skill at climbing involves getting better and better at finding holds and establishing / maintaining grip.  (I am not a climber, I'm certain it is far more complex, knowledge of equipment, etc... but not really relevant to this fantasy RPG comversation)

At some point physics and the human body reach a point where any further improvement is impossible and/or negligible.  But in 3E, you can just keep gaining ranks.  Rather than diminishing returns, the effect continues linearly.  At no point does this become magic.  And I doubt the 20th level rogue has shown up magic in any way when as he clings to the glass with all fours he watches as a 1st level spider climbing mage trots by.

Is splitting an arrow magic to you?
You are being far too black and white for my taste.


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> 4E doesn't work for exploration/roleplaying as a *playstyle *because there are powers and abilities that work for no other reason than to support the *story.*




I think the powers are there to give players more interesting tactical options.  I think that's why they were included in the first place.  I don't think they have anything to do with supporting collaborative story creation.



ExploderWizard said:


> LS to answer your question directly, yes the DM can rule that certain powers cannot function under prescribed circumstances _if that better fits the story the DM and players are creating together. The DM can also just say that the power works just fine if it was dramatically appropriate. _Oh no! We're back to "mother may I!!"




Creating a story isn't the only reason for a DM to make a ruling.  

Why can't he make a ruling that the _attempted action_ (be it a power or whatever) doesn't work because it doesn't make sense in the fictional situation - and the reason he's doing this is to maintain a consistent world in order for players to anticipate, learn, explore, and generally be _challenged._

Okay, but given that, why wouldn't a 4E DM make a ruling that says a power can't work?  Are there other implications that I haven't seen (other than the players having to pay more attention to the fiction and key off of it instead of the battlemat)?


----------



## Scribble

Ariosto said:


> I, in contrast, see no need to deny the magical in my fantasy games.




Well, you're not really. It's just that "Magic" has a somewhat specific nature in D&D, that seperates it for game rules.

IE so that we can have rules for the game part, we need to say magic is X and is effected by A, B, and C, but not H.

This way we can have other effects that in the real world might seem magical in nature if we want, (or at the least super human in nature) but since they aren't magic (as defined by the game) then they aren't effected by the same things that effect what you HAVE defined as magic.

This opens up possibilities as far as I'm concerned. In game it alllows different classes to have different abilities, strengths and weaknesses, while out of game it allows even the mundane to be a little more fundane. (Which is pretty much what D&D has always bowed to, eve before it started to really label categories of abilities and powers.)


----------



## ExploderWizard

LostSoul said:


> Creating a story isn't the only reason for a DM to make a ruling.
> 
> Why can't he make a ruling that the _attempted action_ (be it a power or whatever) doesn't work because it doesn't make sense in the fictional situation - and the reason he's doing this is to maintain a consistent world in order for players to anticipate, learn, explore, and generally be _challenged._




The DM _can_ make such rulings but thats against the stated design goals of 4E and the powers system. The powers system was designed  to make the play experience equal for the player at the table. Whats going on in the fictional world must bend around that. A power just kind of works for whatever reason so that player A can feel equal to player B on a round by round basis. Justify the whys and wherefores to taste.



LostSoul said:


> Okay, but given that, why wouldn't a 4E DM make a ruling that says a power can't work? Are there other implications that I haven't seen (other than the players having to pay more attention to the fiction and key off of it instead of the battlemat)?




Because a player might feel like the DM was infringing on his fun? The right to have powers function as written is part if the guaranteed fun contract that players are entitled to. If you were to rule that a power doesn't function due to consistency/common sense issues for player A then you couldn't let a power that made sense function for player B because that be unfair to player A and could result in unfun.


----------



## Ariosto

Simply hitting one arrow with another is not terribly amazing. I have parted cedar arrows along several inches of their length simply with the shattering force of a target-shooting tip -- and I was a pretty poor marksman!

Splitting the _full length_ of a wooden shaft is highly improbable because (for one thing) the blade tends to follow the twisting grain of the wood. I suppose it might have occurred, but I think the feat was clearly meant to highlight the "larger than (real) life" nature of Robin Hood, a figure of legend.

The ability to accomplish such a shot regularly by choice with a given try would be to my mind as magical as a similar ability to win a game of chance such as a state lottery.

That in fact falls short of literally breaking any known law of physics, if the "by choice" bit is actually just coincidence. Stretch those laws far enough into the realm of improbability -- into the domain of things that might happen once in a number of universes surpassing the number of stars in our own -- and they can accommodate miracles indeed.

So, if actually breaking them is not warrant enough for magic, then what is left as a standard of definition? Only superficials, I fear. To me, that saps wonder not only from the supernatural but also from the *natural* in contrast with which it has traditionally been defined.

Perhaps the rejection of magic may express, more deeply than its embracing, a flight from reality.


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> The DM _can_ make such rulings but thats against the stated design goals of 4E and the powers system. The powers system was designed  to make the play experience equal for the player at the table.



I think you're reading way too much into the powers system. It is designed with balance between classes in mind, and it does tries to avoid getting bogged down with rules for every corner case (therefore you can trip an ooze!). 

However, to suggest that it somehow prevents, or even cautions against, a DM making conditional common sense judgments (and restrictions) seems like a deliberate misreading, one pegged to that already tired argument about how latter-edition players suffer from a sense of entitlement (though I admit, I could be reading too much into your point!).


----------



## Ariosto

Stated or not, the philosophy to which Exploder Wizard referred seems to me pretty clearly expressed in the design. To apply realistic considerations wholesale would, I think, be likely to mess up the game unless done with care on par with the designers' original work. The return on personal effort does not appeal to me -- but who can say what might arise from collective effort over the next few tears?

In the meantime, 4E is definitely not what I would choose for any scenario in which verisimilitude matters. Its strengths by design lie in other areas.


----------



## D'karr

ExploderWizard said:


> Because a player might feel like the DM was infringing on his fun? The right to have powers function as written is part if the guaranteed fun contract that players are entitled to. If you were to rule that a power doesn't function due to consistency/common sense issues for player A then you couldn't let a power that made sense function for player B because that be unfair to player A and could result in unfun.




If that is the entirety of the reason, then I see why threads like this seem so silly.  The rules should not be seen as a straight-jacket for the DM.

Since your argument on that seems so facetious, I honestly don't know if you are being serious, then I'll point to some of the places in the rules that gives some guidance in this respect.



> PHB pg. 8
> Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM *decides* how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.
> 
> PHB pg. 10
> The Dungeon Master decides whether or not something you try actually works. Some actions automatically succeed (you can move around without
> trouble, *usually*), some require one or more die rolls, called checks (breaking down a locked door, for example), and some simply can’t succeed.
> 
> PHB pg. 54
> You can use a power whenever you are able to take the action the power requires. (Certain conditions, as defined in Chapter 9, prohibit you from taking actions.) Your DM might rule that you can’t use powers in special circumstances, such as when your hands are tied.
> 
> DMG pg. 7
> It’s not the DM’s job to entertain the players and make sure they have fun. Every person playing the game is responsible for the fun of the game. Everyone speeds the game along, heightens the drama, helps set how much roleplaying the group is comfortable with, and brings the game world to life with their imaginations...
> 
> Remember that the “right way” to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy.
> 
> DMG pg. 12
> Then take a little time to describe to the players how you want the game to go. Let them give you input. It’s their game, too. Lay that groundwork early, so your players can make informed choices and help you maintain the type of game you want to run.
> 
> DMG pg. 16
> Narration: A big part of the DM’s job is letting the players know what’s going on. Give the players the information they need and keep it lively.
> 
> Dispensing Information: Give the characters theinformation they need to make smart choices.
> 
> DMG pg. 22
> Portraying Rules Situations: It’s easy to fall into the rut of describing events merely in terms of the *applicable rules*. Although it’s important that the players understand what’s going on in such terms, the D&D game can be at its dullest if everyone talks in “gamespeak.”
> 
> DMG pg. 23
> Your narration of the fantastic world of the game needs to seem real—not as a simulation of the real world, but as if the game world were a real place with coherent, logical rules. Actions should have logical consequences, and the things the PCs do should have an impact on the world.




Those are just some of the ones that I was able to look up in a reasonable amount of time.  There is more than enough guidance in both books that allow the DM to "modify" the rules to fit a specific situation.  Or that give him guidance on how to adjudicate special situations.  As long as the DM is not being an asshat, I can't see anyone getting up in arms about a specific change to a specific power during a specific situation.  

The big thing should be that the player's are kept informed.  So if the DM decides that Spells can't be used when tied up, that is clearly a "house-rule" (though there is a precedent in the power descriptions that specifies special circumstances).  I see no reason why a DM could not say that is the way he wants to run a specific game and let the players be informed.


----------



## Scribble

Ariosto said:


> Stated or not, the philosophy to which Exploder Wizard referred seems to me pretty clearly expressed in the design. To apply realistic considerations wholesale would, I think, be likely to mess up the game unless done with care on par with the designers' original work. The return on personal effort does not appeal to me -- but who can say what might arise from collective effort over the next few tears?
> 
> In the meantime, 4E is definitely not what I would choose for any scenario in which verisimilitude matters. Its strengths by design lie in other areas.




I think that applies to pretty much every edition of D&D.

D&D seems to bow in most cases to unrealistic but fun, and even the "realistic" parts tend to be realistic only so far as the common person understands. 

If you're talking about splitting arrows being special because it's an "impossibly" hard task that only those above and beyond the normal mortal can accomplish- that's D&D reality.

If you're talking about splitting arrows being special because of the nature of wood grain patterns and their effect on physics and aerodynamics... you're out of the range od D&D reality, and into something completely different.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> Stated or not, the philosophy to which Exploder Wizard referred seems to me pretty clearly expressed in the design.



Honestly, it doesn't to me. "Don't sweat the small stuff on a formal level" != "never use common sense rulings". 



> To apply realistic considerations wholesale would, I think, be likely to mess up the game unless done with care on par with the designers' original work.



Can you give an example of what you mean? I _think_ you're saying that 4e will come down like a house of cards if you start applying conditional DM rulings to it's power framework, and from personal experience, that just isn't the case. 



> In the meantime, 4E is definitely not what I would choose for any scenario in which verisimilitude matters.



For what's it's worth, I more interesting in the maintenance of verisimilitude when it comes to the fictional people in the game world; the way NPC's react to events. 

I'm not looking for the rules to be the physics for the game world. I don't think they can, nnot without bowdlerizing the meaning of 'physics'.


----------



## LostSoul

Ariosto said:


> To apply realistic considerations wholesale would, I think, be likely to mess up the game unless done with care on par with the designers' original work.




Why?

Are there reasons other than players feeling that their DM is judging things unfairly?


----------



## Raven Crowking

So far, we have only the same arguments going past each other from each side.

If we could agree on a set of terms (such as what "magic" means), maybe we would also agree on more than we expect.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Someone Unless I'm going nutso said:
			
		

> Can't find the quote... guess I AM going nutso.  It was asking if people actually DO play the game and make changes to the rules to make them more "realistic" basically.




Sometimes, but not always. I used to do this a LOT back in the day, but now that I'm older I don't feel like it adds anything to the game. Usually if I do, it's because as a group, we've decided something seems wonky, or doesn't fit our play style. In fact, I'm somewhat more apt to allow a rule to apply to an action even LESS realistic if the player just wants to do something fun, has a good explanation, and it won't amount to game crashage.

Now, as Mallus stated, my verisimilitude comes from the setting, the characters, and the world as opposed to the rules.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> So far, we have only the same arguments going past each other from each side.
> 
> If we could agree on a set of terms (such as what "magic" means), maybe we would also agree on more than we expect.
> 
> 
> RC




Are you looking for an in game explanation or out of game explanation?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Sometimes, but not always. I used to do this a LOT back in the day, but now that I'm older I don't feel like it adds anything to the game. Usually if I do, it's because as a group, we've decided something seems wonky, or doesn't fit our play style. In fact, I'm somewhat more apt to allow a rule to apply to an action even LESS realistic if the player just wants to do something fun, has a good explanation, and it won't amount to game crashage.
> 
> Now, as Mallus stated, my verisimilitude comes from the setting, the characters, and the world as opposed to the rules.




I don't even know how this is supposed to relate to what I wrote (that you were quoting).


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't even know how this is supposed to relate to what I wrote (that you were quoting).




It's not. I was quoting something else, but somehow that quote got in there.... not sure how I managed that one? I will change.

Interesting- I can't seem to find the original thing I wanted to quote. Did you edit your post or something? 

The thing I was quoting asked if people actually play that way (changing the rules to match what is more "realistic" basically.)


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> For what's it's worth, I more interesting in the maintenance of verisimilitude when it comes to the fictional people in the game world; the way NPC's react to events.
> 
> I'm not looking for the rules to be the physics for the game world. I don't think they can, nnot without bowdlerizing the meaning of 'physics'.



I completely agree with your priorities.
However, for me the way people react to events is not between the covers of a book.  
I spend money for good models for how the world works.
The rest I already have for free. 

I'm certain I could sit around a table with my friends and 100% ad hoc an RPG that would provide us the same fun as 4E.  Why should I pay WotC for zero value added?

As to the idea that you can't model the physics of the game world, I obviously again greatly disagree.  I'm certain we could quibble back and forth about what constitutes "bowdlerizing the meaning of 'physics'".  But I have a high standard of "good enough" and I meet my own standard.

Edit: It is also a false choice to compare these priorities.  My true priority is neither A nor B, but rather C: Both A and B.


----------



## BryonD

Ariosto said:


> Splitting the _full length_ of a wooden shaft is highly improbable because (for one thing) the blade tends to follow the twisting grain of the wood. I suppose it might have occurred, but I think the feat was clearly meant to highlight the "larger than (real) life" nature of Robin Hood, a figure of legend.



This is exactly my point.  "Larger than life", is just a more poetic way of saying "impossible".  But in many many cases, fantasy heroes are greatly larger than life without magic.

Would Beowulf stay under water for days in your game?
Would Robin Hood, reliably, on command, split the full length of the sheriff's arrow?
Would Conan even exist?


----------



## ExploderWizard

D'karr said:


> If that is the entirety of the reason, then I see why threads like this seem so silly. The rules should not be seen as a straight-jacket for the DM.
> 
> Since your argument on that seems so facetious, I honestly don't know if you are being serious, then I'll point to some of the places in the rules that gives some guidance in this respect.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are just some of the ones that I was able to look up in a reasonable amount of time. There is more than enough guidance in both books that allow the DM to "modify" the rules to fit a specific situation. Or that give him guidance on how to adjudicate special situations. As long as the DM is not being an asshat, I can't see anyone getting up in arms about a specific change to a specific power during a specific situation.
> 
> The big thing should be that the player's are kept informed. So if the DM decides that Spells can't be used when tied up, that is clearly a "house-rule" (though there is a precedent in the power descriptions that specifies special circumstances). I see no reason why a DM could not say that is the way he wants to run a specific game and let the players be informed.




The DMG quotes seem to support a different game than the one presented in the PHB. Taking into consideration all the wisdom in those quotes all one needs are a few simple rules and a few guidelines on making effective rulings. It seems that the only thing out of place about it all are the hundreds of pages of rules that tell you exactly when you can push, pull, slide, and fart.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Would Beowulf stay under water for days in your game?




Not without magic.



> Would Robin Hood, reliably, on command, split the full length of the sheriff's arrow?




Not without magic.



> Would Conan even exist?




Yes


RC


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> Not without magic.








> Not without magic.








> Yes



whew!!


----------



## BryonD

So, are you claiming that both Beowulf and Robin Hood are popularly assumed to have used magic?  Or are you just stating that those archetypes, as commonly established, are banned from your game?


----------



## D'karr

ExploderWizard said:


> The DMG quotes seem to support a different game than the one presented in the PHB. Taking into consideration all the wisdom in those quotes all one needs are a few simple rules and a few guidelines on making effective rulings. It seems that the only thing out of place about it all are the hundreds of pages of rules that tell you exactly when you can push, pull, slide, and fart.




Sure, that's it.  When exaggeration is the only "negative" against the system then I guess there really is no common ground to discuss.  The initial assertion was that DMs couldn't do something.  Obviously the game provides the DM with plenty of leeway and guidance to handle adjudication in the game.  The claims of "you can't do that because of player entitlement" simply fall flat when examined against what the game actually provides.

If someone doesn't like the game, that is perfectly fine.  They should play what they like.  Hopefully nobody is forcing them to play.  However, all I have seen in most of these threads are alleged grievances that bear little resemblance to reality.


----------



## Ariosto

BryonD said:


> So, are you claiming that both Beowulf and Robin Hood are popularly assumed to have used magic?  Or are you just stating that those archetypes, as commonly established, are banned from your game?



Did Beowulf use magic, or did magic use Beowulf? That he was, or became, a creature of the numinous realm is I think obvious.

If one is really interested in games of archetypes driven by the laws of Story, then digging down to such root stock is not a bad idea!

Robin Hood's adventures, in the (20th century) form in which we have widely received them, form an epic. It is a myth of heroic instauration. Were Robin merely a man, pursuing a man's ends, fantastic feats would make no more than a cartoon-like "tall tale". The magic lies in his instrumentality.

As Robert E. Howard depicted him, Conan was thoroughly human -- not an absurd superman to raise as an example in support of the revisionist argument. To invoke pastiches and bowdlerizations, comic books and B movies, is not a tactic likely to inspire assent from fans of classic sword-and-sorcery literature.


----------



## ExploderWizard

D'karr said:


> Sure, that's it. When exaggeration is the only "negative" against the system then I guess there really is no common ground to discuss. The initial assertion was that DMs couldn't do something. Obviously the game provides the DM with plenty of leeway and guidance to handle adjudication in the game. The claims of "you can't do that because of player entitlement" simply fall flat when examined against what the game actually provides.
> 
> If someone doesn't like the game, that is perfectly fine. They should play what they like. Hopefully nobody is forcing them to play. However, all I have seen in most of these threads are alleged grievances that bear little resemblance to reality.




I was just trying to understand the disparity between the message from one rulebook to another for the same game system.

Its all about the language:

You see these keywords? Too accurate for sandrulings. Only Imperial rules lawyers are so precise..


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> So, are you claiming that both Beowulf and Robin Hood are popularly assumed to have used magic?  Or are you just stating that those archetypes, as commonly established, are banned from your game?




Um.....No?

I am claiming that, if Beowulf stays three days under water, then either the water is magical or Beowulf is using a magical effect.

Robin Hood couldn't reliable and on demand split a clothyard shaft, although it is notable that the guy who did the archery stunts for Errol Flynn's Robin Hood could reliable and on demand shoot two arrows, using the second to knock the first out of the air.


RC


----------



## D'karr

ExploderWizard said:


> You see these keywords? Too accurate for sandrulings. Only Imperial rules lawyers are so precise..




Now that was funny...


----------



## Kask

Raven Crowking said:


> although it is notable that the guy who did the archery stunts for Errol Flynn's Robin Hood could reliable and on demand shoot two arrows, using the second to knock the first out of the air.




Check this out. YouTube : The Sling Shot Man - Amazing Marksman - Mixx


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:


> /snip
> As Robert E. Howard depicted him, Conan was thoroughly human -- not an absurd superman to raise as an example in support of the revisionist argument. To invoke pastiches and bowdlerizations, comic books and B movies, is not a tactic likely to inspire assent from fans of classic sword-and-sorcery literature.




Yeah, because normal people can be crucified, hung from a cross for an entire day in the desert, ride the beam all the way down when someone comes along and cuts down the pole, pull the spikes out of his own hands and feet by himself, all after having been savagely beated earlier that day, and THEN, hop on a horse and ride at a hard gallop for several hours.

All without suffering more than a few weeks of rest and some scars.  

Yeah, thoroughly human.  

((In case you've never read it, check out Howard's "A Witch is Born" for that little escapade.))


----------



## Hussar

Kask said:


> Check this out. YouTube : The Sling Shot Man - Amazing Marksman - Mixx




Yeah, but in the Errol Flynn movies, they used hollow arrows made of bamboo.

Check out the Mythbusters take on the thing.  

Ariosto, if you're able to split arrows a third of the way down, well done you.  I shot competitively for about five years, and have done kyudo here in Japan for the past seven, and I've never once seen an arrow split by another arrow.  I have seen the ends of arrows blown apart by the impact of other arrows, but, I've never seen one split down the length like the myth.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> Um.....No?
> 
> I am claiming that, if Beowulf stays three days under water, then either the water is magical or Beowulf is using a magical effect.
> 
> Robin Hood couldn't reliable and on demand split a clothyard shaft, although it is notable that the guy who did the archery stunts for Errol Flynn's Robin Hood could reliable and on demand shoot two arrows, using the second to knock the first out of the air.
> 
> 
> RC



You are arbitraily rejecting the stories and imposing your own modification.
I'm not interested in your version, nor in my own version, I'm interested in the popular culture version.

And I got no beef with it being that way in your game.  That is cool.

But I will stand by the position that there is ample room for larger than life heroes, who can do things truly impossible in real life, completely without magic.  And further, that common fantasy fiction is full of these and it is quite a shame to reject them out of hand. 
To be sure, great campaigns and settings are in a large part defined by their differences, not their conformity.  But, I think it is vauleable to start from the expected and build in special understandings from there.  So keeping them straight is of value.

That's my opinion.


----------



## BryonD

Ariosto said:


> Robin Hood's adventures, in the (20th century) form in which we have widely received them, form an epic. It is a myth of heroic instauration. Were Robin merely a man, pursuing a man's ends, fantastic feats would make no more than a cartoon-like "tall tale". The magic lies in his instrumentality.



Lets make this simple:

Go walk up to someone on the street and ask them if Robin Hood used magic.

Let me know their answer.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hussar said:


> Yeah, because normal people can be crucified, hung from a cross for an entire day in the desert, ride the beam all the way down when someone comes along and cuts down the pole, pull the spikes out of his own hands and feet by himself, all after having been savagely beated earlier that day, and THEN, hop on a horse and ride at a hard gallop for several hours.
> 
> All without suffering more than a few weeks of rest and some scars.
> 
> Yeah, thoroughly human.
> 
> ((In case you've never read it, check out Howard's "A Witch is Born" for that little escapade.))




Thats pretty darn tough, not exactly an example of what a human can realistically withstand, but then you check out how badass Rasputin was in real life and the fiction doesn't seem so far stretched beyond reality.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> You are arbitraily rejecting the stories and imposing your own modification.




Not so far as I know.  What part of Beowulf are you suggesting I am rejecting?  What part of the legendary Robin Hood?  

You say you are "interested in the popular culture version" but I'm not at all sure what is "the popular culture version" you refer to.  For Beowulf, does the animated film trump the original work to you?  If so, we are not on the same page.  Does Kevin Cosner trump Errol Flynn or Sean Connery as Robin Hood?  Again, if so, we are not on the same page.



> But I will stand by the position that there is ample room for larger than life heroes, who can do things truly impossible in real life, completely without magic.




And I will stand by the position that the "larger than life hero" who does something "truly impossible" is, by definition, performing magic.

Of course, the twin position is that lots of folks have very little idea of what is truly impossible in life.

For example, in the Mythbusters episode about the Errol Flynn Robin Hood movies, the conclusions was that they *thought* they used hollow arrows made of bamboo, but they also showed footage of the trick shooter performing tasks that were pretty amazing, and they couldn't say for sure exactly how it was done.

That was actually a great episode.


RC


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> Not so far as I know.  What part of Beowulf are you suggesting I am rejecting?  What part of the legendary Robin Hood?
> 
> And I will stand by the position that the "larger than life hero" who does something "truly impossible" is, by definition, performing magic.
> 
> 
> RC




Same answer for both questions.

Walk up to a random person and ask them if Robin Hood used magic.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

ExploderWizard said:


> Thats pretty darn tough, not exactly an example of what a human can realistically withstand, but then you check out how badass Rasputin was in real life and the fiction doesn't seem so far stretched beyond reality.



*Shifty eyes* Someone mentioned Rasputin *Shifty eyes*

Breaks out into song:
_"RA RA RASPUTIN
Lover of the Russian queen
There was a cat that really was gone
RA RA RASPUTIN
Russia's greatest love machine
It was a shame how he carried on"_


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Same answer for both questions.
> 
> Walk up to a random person and ask them if Robin Hood used magic.




I walked up to a random person and asked "If I could split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand, would that be magic?"   The answer was Yes.  EDIT:  After some sort of con or trickery was eliminated.

I walked up to another random person and asked "Could Robin Hood split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand?"  The answer was "I thought that was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime shot" or words to that effect.

What did I prove?


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Raven Crowking said:


> I walked up to a random person and asked "If I could split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand, would that be magic?" The answer was Yes. EDIT: After some sort of con or trickery was eliminated.
> 
> I walked up to another random person and asked "Could Robin Hood split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand?" The answer was "I thought that was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime shot" or words to that effect.
> 
> What did I prove?
> 
> 
> RC




I can understand a once in a lifetime shot. If it was a million to one though, then he should be able to make it 9 times out of ten.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I have been told that there is apparently some television series where Robin Hood does use magic?


----------



## jensun

Raven Crowking said:


> I have been told that there is apparently some television series where Robin Hood does use magic?



The 70/80's UK TV version gave him a Son of Hern the Huntsman vibe.  Not necessarily "using magic" as such but with definate connections to a whole load of Cletic Mythology, much of which was entirely inappropriate but still made for good television.

Or so the teenage version of me thought.


----------



## Ariosto

Should one judge any exploit of Conan's as magical, it is likely to be in keeping with the understanding of high-level characters in old D&D as including magic in their nature. There is quite a difference between such endurance, acknowledged as magical, and stark "impossibilities" the magic of which is strenuously denied.


----------



## Hussar

It seems to me, throughout this thread, that there are those who want to have it both ways.  

For example, when I talked about hitting something, Kask told me that earlier editions of D&D had a specific meaning of "to hit" that was different from what is commonly understood.  In earlier editions, a "hit" is defined as an attack that does damage.  This is most certainly not how hit is defined commonly though.  If I hit a tennis ball, I do no damage to it, or if I hit a steel wall with my hand, I do no damage to it (although I might hurt my hand  ) yet, I am, in fact hitting it.

Yet, apparently, putting on heavy armor makes me harder to hit.  Now, I totally agree that D&D has a specific definition of "hit" that is different than common usage.  100% agree.  Yet, for some reason, when 4e has a specific definition that differs from common usage, that's a bad thing and leads to completely unbelievable situations that cannot possibly be justified in any other way than with "magic".

Or, going back to being stronger makes me more accurate.  A barbarian (3rd edition) flies into a rage to the point where he loses a great deal of control, cannot concentrate, cannot perform complicated tasks, yet he is more accurate than the character who aims carefully and lines up the shot.  This is an example where the rules of the game giving implications of the game world (what I called rules=physics although Imaro disagrees) making implications that are pretty much ludicrous.  Being stronger should not make me hit more often.  Yet, for some reason, the big, slow brute hits far more often than the skinny, weaker, but definitely faster, guy.  

But, again, when apparently we cannot apply the same blinders to 4e that we do to earlier editions because, that's just not believable.  

Or, take the example of the hippogriff.  Imaro says that the hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but because of its monster type.  It's a magical beast, therefore it can fly.  This brings up two points.  First, can any magical beast fly?  If there is something about being a magical beast that allows flight, I sure missed it in the rules.  Imaro has clearly added something in here that isn't in the rules, but, again, we're not allowed to do that in 4e.

But, secondly, if we are allowed to justify a creature's abilities solely on its metagame type, then why can't fighters do stuff that ordinary people can't?  If a hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but solely because of its type, then why can't fighters pull people out of position, not out of magic, but solely because of the character's class?  Type and Class are both metagame constructs that have no in game parallels.  So, why is it ok to justify a hippogriff's flight with its type, but, not a fighter's abilities with its class?

Like I said, people want to have it both ways.



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> Should one judge any exploit of Conan's as magical, it is likely to be in keeping with the understanding of high-level characters in old D&D as including magic in their nature. There is quite a difference between such endurance, acknowledged as magical, and stark "impossibilities" the magic of which is strenuously denied.




Hang on a sec.  You're now claiming that all high level PC's in older editions are now magical in nature, regardless of class?

If that's true, then what the heck are you bitching about with 4e?  If you consider all classes to be magical in nature in all editions of D&D, the only difference being the level at which you go from mundane to magical, then, what's your beef with 4e?  Why does it bother you that you have explicit exploits for martial characters, when you already have every class being magical in nature in every other edition?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> It seems to me, throughout this thread, that there are those who want to have it both ways.
> 
> For example, when I talked about hitting something, Kask told me that earlier editions of D&D had a specific meaning of "to hit" that was different from what is commonly understood.




It is true that a game, like a profession, can have a specialized jargon that uses commonly understood words in unique ways.  That is perfectly acceptable.  One can say that X isn't magic within the confines of the definition of game system Y, while at the same time accepting that X would be considered magic in the common parlance.

Because a term can mean two things, it does not mean that the meanings are conflated, or that both cannot be discussed intelligently.

I can bear (put up with) seeing a bear (mammal) without either word suddenly meaning the same as the other, or the sentence suddenly not making sense.


RC


----------



## rounser

> Like I said, people want to have it both ways.



And they can, because that's suspension of disbelief for you.  Rationally it may not make sense, but in terms of believability, a hippogriff flying is more plausible than a 4E class's "I Can't Believe It's Not Magic".

No, it's not fair, but the effect is cumulative (i.e. one hippogriff versus an entire system of handwaved implausible powers for "mundane" classes).  I remember predicting this problem of making the mundane compete plausibly with magic, and how hard it would be to design without implausibility.

You also overlook the screentime of a single monster versus continually used powers of a PC class, and how much that matters.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I find that a certain quote from a certain Barbarian clearly states how I feel about realism in gaming. 

"I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

Of course, realism in gaming does have it's merits. Good thing there's a product out there for people who want that kind of thing.


----------



## Ariosto

Hussar said:


> Hang on a sec.  You're now claiming that all high level PC's in older editions are now magical in nature, regardless of class?
> 
> If that's true, then what the heck are you bitching about with 4e?  If you consider all classes to be magical in nature in all editions of D&D, the only difference being the level at which you go from mundane to magical, then, what's your beef with 4e?  Why does it bother you that you have explicit exploits for martial characters, when you already have every class being magical in nature in every other edition?




Yes, all high-level human(oid) characters (PC or NPC) in AD&D have explicitly, "by the book", a magical component. How you manage to miss the first word in "magical beast" -- much less to consider it any more than stating what ought to be obvious in the case of a hippogriff -- is beyond me.

The difference is in the details. As musketeers were already equipped with guns, why should it matter if we depict them with machine-guns?

Game jargon is not the issue. We all recognize that in the limited game-mechanical precincts of the 4E rules set, martial powers are not "magic per se" -- just as some violations of law may not be "crimes per se".

When you take that rather eccentric usage as negating the more conventional meaning of the term, you raise a problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ariosto said:


> When you take that rather eccentric usage as negating the more conventional meaning of the term, you raise a problem.





Exactly.

Sorry I can't give you more XP right now.


RC


----------



## LostSoul

Ariosto said:


> Yes, all high-level human(oid) characters (PC or NPC) in AD&D have explicitly, "by the book", a magical component. How you manage to miss the first word in "magical beast" -- much less to consider it any more than stating what ought to be obvious in the case of a hippogriff -- is beyond me.




What happens when you cast _Dispel Magic_ on them?


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:


> Yes, all high-level human(oid) characters (PC or NPC) in AD&D have explicitly, "by the book", a magical component. How you manage to miss the first word in "magical beast" -- much less to consider it any more than stating what ought to be obvious in the case of a hippogriff -- is beyond me.
> 
> The difference is in the details. As musketeers were already equipped with guns, why should it matter if we depict them with machine-guns?
> 
> Game jargon is not the issue. We all recognize that in the limited game-mechanical precincts of the 4E rules set, martial powers are not "magic per se" -- just as some violations of law may not be "crimes per se".
> 
> When you take that rather eccentric usage as negating the more conventional meaning of the term, you raise a problem.




But, Magical Beast only applies to one single edition, 3.5.  Pre 3.5, hippogriffs were either Beasts, or nothing.  

And, remember, again, if something is magical, then it has very specific rules regarding it.  If I smack a hippogriff with a Disjunction, does it fall out of the air?  Can it fly in an anti-magic shell?  By the rules, it certainly can.

And, in 1e D&D, what explicit magical component did a Fighter have at any level?  



			
				Rounser said:
			
		

> And they can, because that's suspension of disbelief for you. Rationally it may not make sense, but in terms of believability, a hippogriff flying is more plausible than a 4E class's "I Can't Believe It's Not Magic".




For you maybe.  But, that's hardly universal.  It's pretty apparent from this thread alone that people find the 4e classes to be perfectly plausible.



> No, it's not fair, but the effect is cumulative (i.e. one hippogriff versus an entire system of handwaved implausible powers for "mundane" classes). I remember predicting this problem of making the mundane compete plausibly with magic, and how hard it would be to design without implausibility.
> 
> You also overlook the screentime of a single monster versus continually used powers of a PC class, and how much that matters.




I don't overlook it, I just don't care.  I think you overestimate how much players actually give a toss about this sort of thing.  The overwhelmingly vast majority of players couldn't give two figs about this sort of thing.  And it's not simply "one hippogriff".  It's EVERY SINGLE MONSTER.  Giants that ignore the square cube law.  Giant insects that cannot possibly exist.  Far too many predators for any ecosystem.  Far too many beings with far too much intelligence to ever allow humans to be the dominant species.  On and on and on.  

Again, we've seen multiple examples in this thread alone which show that people have no problems believing that the exploits are not magical.  It's no different than believing that any of the seven billion other impossibilities that make up the hobby.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> What happens when you cast _Dispel Magic_ on them?




Again, you are conflating a bear with to bear, the ell of a house with a carpenter's ell, the specialized jargon of D&D (dispel magic) with the commonly understood parlance of the word (magic).

Specialized jargon does not negate common parlance.

Because a term has more than one definition, it does not follow that an object cannot be discussed in terms of both definitions.......barring ignorance of the multiplicity of meanings, or willful ignorance of the same.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

LostSoul said:


> What happens when you cast _Dispel Magic_ on them?



Nothing -- just as no injury (necessarily) happens to them when they are "hit" for "damage".

It is the conflation of game-mechanical with common usage that poses a hurdle here. I'm not sure what it might mean if there is (as I suspect) a "generation gap" in this fundamental understanding.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, you are conflating a bear with to bear, the ell of a house with a carpenter's ell, the specialized jargon of D&D (dispel magic) with the commonly understood parlance of the word (magic).
> 
> Specialized jargon does not negate common parlance.
> 
> Because a term has more than one definition, it does not follow that an object cannot be discussed in terms of both definitions.......barring ignorance of the multiplicity of meanings, or willful ignorance of the same.




I'm tired so I just don't get it.

Isn't _Dispel Magic_ the name of a spell in the gameworld?


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> I'm tired so I just don't get it.
> 
> Isn't _Dispel Magic_ the name of a spell in the gameworld?




Sure is, but it is a spell name that uses specialized jargon, in the same way that specialized (professional) jargon has always been used.  It restricts the word to specific meaning within the context of its use; it does not rewrite the definition in common parlance.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

LostSoul said:


> I'm tired so I just don't get it.
> 
> Isn't _Dispel Magic_ the name of a spell in the gameworld?



That's up to the GM. The inhabitants of Fantasyland might know it as "The Enervation of Enchantments" -- and, whatever it is called, it does not follow that it is a sovereign remedy to all spells. From the Celestial Spheres to the Earthly Plane, there may be Deeper Magic and stronger than any mortal legerdemain.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure is, but it is a spell name that uses specialized jargon, in the same way that specialized (professional) jargon has always been used.  It restricts the word to specific meaning within the context of its use; it does not rewrite the definition in common parlance.




Yeah, okay, I think I get it now.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> I walked up to a random person and asked "If I could split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand, would that be magic?"   The answer was Yes.  EDIT:  After some sort of con or trickery was eliminated.
> 
> I walked up to another random person and asked "Could Robin Hood split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand?"  The answer was "I thought that was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime shot" or words to that effect.
> 
> What did I prove?
> 
> 
> RC



Nothing.  But I strongly question how truly random your selection was.  It also shows you know a bit about push polling (at least subconciously), because you tilted the question away from the point.

Again: go to a truly random person and ask THIS QUESTION:
"Did Robin Hood use magic?"
or even
"Did Robin Hood use magic as part of his archery?"

The whole point of the question is: is the character popularly assumed to use magic.  Your case is that he did use magic, and yet both of your versions of the question left some critical part of that scenario out.  (The first question left out the larger than life and popularly recognized character and the second completely avoided magic).

Regardless, in my opinion, you have marginalized the meaning of magic to the detriment of the experience.  But if it works for you, then great.  

Being good enough at climbing a stone wall is not magic.
Being even better at climbing is not magic.
Being a vast amount better at climbing is not magic.
Being so astoundingly good that you can cling to the underside of glass is not magic.  It is larger than life.  But if you demand that the rogue hanging there must be using magic in some way, shape, or form, then you are screwing the character out of part of what makes it.

So be it.


----------



## BryonD

IMO there is a very important difference between the swordplay skill of an 8th level fighter with a normal sword and an otherwise identical 5th level fighter with a +3 sword.


Magic can replicate any normal or larger than life ability.  That is cool.
A lot of larger than life things can be done without magic (in a high fantasy RPG).  That is cool.

Scratching a line through the second item is scratching some degree of cool out of the game.


----------



## Ariosto

So, a suddenly rapid-firing crossbow or a "boomerang" dagger is not magical ... and just calling it that "is scratching some degree of cool out of the game."

Likewise, apparently, the game lacked "cool" before spells and items were "nerfed".


----------



## Mad Mac

> So, a suddenly rapid-firing crossbow or a "boomerang" dagger is not magical ... and just calling it that "is scratching some degree of cool out of the game."




  Boomerang Dagger? You can use a magical dagger to make multiple thrown attacks because returning is now an inherent property of magical throwing weapons. Otherwise you'd need a pile of throwing daggers to use Blinding Barrage, if that is what you mean.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Nothing.




That's what I thought.

"Did Robin Hood use magic?" doesn't prove that Robin Hood, _*as you envision him*_ didn't use magic, unless you avoid leaving out the specifics that are being questioned.

I would be happy to agree that Robin Hood is not popularly assumed to use magic if you are happy to agree that he is not popularly assumed to be able to split an arrow any time he tries.  My case is not that Robin Hood used magic (as you contend), but that *IF* Robin Hood can split an arrow any time he tries *THEN* Robin Hood is using magic.  And I believe that I have been clear about that.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

Mad Mac said:


> Boomerang Dagger? You can use a magical dagger to make multiple thrown attacks because returning is now an inherent property of magical throwing weapons. Otherwise you'd need a pile of throwing daggers to use Blinding Barrage, if that is what you mean.



Do you mean that, as Blinding Barrage in fact does not require a pile of throwing daggers, a dagger *becomes magical* when a rogue so employs it?


----------



## Mad Mac

> Do you mean that, as Blinding Barrage in fact does not require a pile of throwing daggers, a dagger becomes magical when a rogue so employs it?




  From the PHB FAQ

_14. I am using a magical thrown weapon as part of an area of effect power.  If I am attacking multiple enemies within that area, do I need multiple weapons, or will one suffice?

    One is enough in this case.  Magical thrown weapons return to you after each attack, so you’ll be able to use it against each enemy as part of using your power._

  And from the Players Handbook

_If you are using a projectile weapon to make a close attack, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you're using thrown weapons, you need one for each target. _


----------



## Ariosto

Thanks, Mac! The PHB page number would be handy; it's nice (to me) to see that sorted out, as I have not seen it actually applied. The ROF for the crossbow, at least, is utterly bizarre (perhaps even with superhuman strength) ... and the "close attack" condition is odd.


----------



## Mad Mac

Page 271 of the PHB. Now that I look, it has the same language under "area attack" so it's not just for close attacks.

  Blinding Barrage with a crossbow can be a bit odd, but it's an edge case that I've never seen come up in actual play. The only viable way to play a crossbow Rogue is to go the "sniping with stealth" route, while Blinding Barrage is an "in your grill" power that appeals mostly to dagger Rogues.

  Really, the crossbow in 4E works the way it does because it would be completely hosed compared to other ranged weapons otherwise. If I had a player who used a lot of crossbow multi-attack powers I'd probably just flavor it as him having a sweet "customized" repeater style crossbow. He wouldn't get multiple attack with it outside of powers because no-one in 4th gets multiple attacks without powers.


----------



## Ariosto

> Being so astoundingly good that you can cling to the underside of glass is not magic.



Well, it's not _Boots of Spider Climbing_, anyway. 
What's the rogue power for that?


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> My case is not that Robin Hood used magic (as you contend), but that *IF* Robin Hood can split an arrow any time he tries *THEN* Robin Hood is using magic.  And I believe that I have been clear about that.




's not a case, 's an opinion.

Make your case for it, just like we've been making cases for CaGI.  We'll still disagree, because it all comes back to personal preference and opinion.  You can use terms like "common parlance" and dive deep into the wonderful world of logic and systems, but in the end...it's all about preference.  No getting away from it.


----------



## FireLance

Raven Crowking said:


> My case is not that Robin Hood used magic (as you contend), but that *IF* Robin Hood can split an arrow any time he tries *THEN* Robin Hood is using magic.  And I believe that I have been clear about that.



As a supplement to Clarke's Law, it appears that any sufficiently advanced skill is _also_ indistinguishable from magic.


----------



## RefinedBean

FireLance said:


> As a supplement to Clarke's Law, it appears that any sufficiently advanced skill is _also_ indistinguishable from magic.




My mother manages to make the tastiest meatloaf in the world whenever she cooks it.  MAGIC, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> That's what I thought.



Well duh, you change the question so it proves nothing then you seem to think it is meanignful that you proved nothing.  Gee, thats deep.



> "Did Robin Hood use magic?" doesn't prove that Robin Hood, _*as you envision him*_ didn't use magic, unless you avoid leaving out the specifics that are being questioned.
> 
> I would be happy to agree that Robin Hood is not popularly assumed to use magic if you are happy to agree that he is not popularly assumed to be able to split an arrow any time he tries.  My case is not that Robin Hood used magic (as you contend), but that *IF* Robin Hood can split an arrow any time he tries *THEN* Robin Hood is using magic.  And I believe that I have been clear about that.
> 
> 
> RC



No, I'd have to say you have not been remotely clear about that.

But whatever....  I am confused that you both agree that it is the popular conception and also try to claim that it is somehow "as I envision it".  As I said before, it has nothing to do with my view and everything to do with popular view.

How many times did Robin Hood try?  How many times did he succeed?  How many times did he fail?

As the story goes, he decided he needed to do that, so he did.  I call that "on demand".  It seems quite clear he could do it again if needed.  Yet no magic.  

Does James Bond use magic?  Or is he not larger than life?
What about the other JBs?
(Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer)


----------



## BryonD

FireLance said:


> As a supplement to Clarke's Law, it appears that any sufficiently advanced skill is _also_ indistinguishable from magic.



Well, I can easily imagine goblins on the ground assuming the rogue must be using magic because they can't imagine that he could be that skilled.  Being beyond the goblin's ability to distingish is not the question.


----------



## Doug McCrae

BryonD said:


> Does James Bond use magic?  Or is he not larger than life?



James Bond is magic, he'd have to be to survive all the ludicrously dangerous situations he's been in, and consistently save the world by a hair's breadth time after time.

He isn't magic like Dr Strange though, it's a different sense of the word magic. Dr Strange uses magic, James Bond is magic.

Another way to look at it is to say that James Bond, like Robin Hood, is a fictional character and can do the things he does not because he is magic but because he is part of the action hero genre. If James Bond were real he'd probably not get past the interview stage for MI6.


----------



## Doug McCrae

There are at least two senses of magic here, three if you count the technical D&D sense. Magic as unknown, mysterious and magic as impossible, breaking the laws of physics (of our world). The magic of Clarke's law is magic as unknown. To a caveman a mobile phone would be magic. Sufficiently advanced technology. This is also what I think people mean when they talk about magic items not feeling magical enough in D&D when all their stats are listed in the book and you can buy them for cold hard cash. It's not mysterious enough to be magic, not weird enough.

So magic is unusual, out of the ordinary. And yet it has been said that Robin Hood's shaft-splitting would only be magic if it were performed consistently. This is another sense of magic. Magic as impossible. James Bond is magic in this sense.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Another sense of magic would be believing that correspondence, imitation or symbolism have power. Voodoo dolls, eating a lion's heart to give strength in battle, a little ball of bat guano and sulphur creating a fireball and so forth.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Kask said:


> Check this out. YouTube : The Sling Shot Man - Amazing Marksman - Mixx



That's a Took! Or at least, there's some o' that ancestry goin' on there. 

Pretty awesome, anyway. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> 's not a case, 's an opinion.




No; it is a summation.



> Make your case for it, just like we've been making cases for CaGI.




Go back upthread.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Well duh, you change the question so it proves nothing then you seem to think it is meanignful that you proved nothing.  Gee, thats deep.




My point was that the original question proved nothing, and was deisnged to push a point by avoiding giving the person asked the information necessary to make a meaningful answer.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> My point was that the original question proved nothing, and was deisnged to push a point by avoiding giving the person asked the information necessary to make a meaningful answer.




Well, you failed to demonstrate that point.  My point is that Robin Hood is a well known character and is not associated with magic.  The question, if polled correctly, would easily demonstrate that obvious truth.  Your description of the question is completely flawed.


----------



## BryonD

Doug McCrae said:


> James Bond is magic, he'd have to be to survive all the ludicrously dangerous situations he's been in, and consistently save the world by a hair's breadth time after time.
> 
> He isn't magic like Dr Strange though, it's a different sense of the word magic. Dr Strange uses magic, James Bond is magic.
> 
> Another way to look at it is to say that James Bond, like Robin Hood, is a fictional character and can do the things he does not because he is magic but because he is part of the action hero genre. If James Bond were real he'd probably not get past the interview stage for MI6.




I think you are missing the real <> Larger than life <> Magic point.

I mean, yeah, I guess that is another way to look at it.  But I personally find that way to be vastly over simplistic and unsatisfying.  A more developed definition of magic, as a subset of things that can't happen in real life, is more rewarding for the game experience I want.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Well, you failed to demonstrate that point.




I have also, sadly, not yet gotten the Flat-Earthers to agree that our world is roughly spherical.   

So many failures.  



> My point is that Robin Hood is a well known character and is not associated with magic.  The question, if polled correctly, would easily demonstrate that obvious truth.




Ah, but you conflated the idea that "Robin Hood is a well known character and is not associated with magic" and that "Robin Hood could consistantly, and on demand, split an arrow."

Anyone who does not believe the second premise could easily believe the first.  Moreover, if the second premise is not widely believed, your "point" in the first premise is moot.  Given an absence of supernatural abilities, we can (I think) all agree that Robin Hood is not supernatural.

Nowhere here (Robin Hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), for example, is Robin Hood said to be able to consistently and on demand split an arrow.

As a result, I think your protest



> Your description of the question is completely flawed.




is flawed.




RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

FireLance said:


> As a supplement to Clarke's Law, it appears that any sufficiently advanced skill is _also_ indistinguishable from magic.




I hope it doesn't surprise you that, in most (if not all) ancient cultures, great skill was often viewed as being supernatural in origin, either as favour of the gods or as favour of/purchased from less savoury supernatural beings.

Remember that people were accused -- and convicted of -- witchcraft because their fields/animals prospered when their neighbours' did not.


RC


----------



## Hussar

Actually, I disagree.  I think Doug McCrae hits it rather well.  

Look at the reaction to the 3e definition of Extraordinary in this thread.  Is Extraordinary magic or not?  Some are arguing that a high level fighter is inherently magical.  

And, really, based on their own personal definition of magic, both sides are fairly right.  If you define magic as D&D defines it - a specific set of rules that interact in very specific ways, then no, hippogriffs don't fly with magic and CAGI is not magical either.  OTOH, if you define magic as "anything that allows you to regularly do superhuman things" then Robin Hood becomes a magic user.

The problem is, as usual in any thread of this length, neither side is willing to accept the other side's definition.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> The problem is, as usual in any thread of this length, neither side is willing to accept the other side's definition.




Not so.  Accepting the other side's definition is not the same thing as believing that said definition becomes universal.

As I can accept that "bear" means to carry something while discussing an ursine "bear", without believing that the carrying term impacts the ursine term, likewise I can accept that the game system uses a term in a limited sense without believing that the game term impacts the meaning in common parlance.

As I've said before.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> I mean, yeah, I guess that is another way to look at it.  But I personally find that way to be vastly over simplistic and unsatisfying.  A more developed definition of magic, as a subset of things that can't happen in real life, is more rewarding for the game experience I want.





I would also say that the above is an example of the other side accepting the broader definition, without necessarily being willing to apply that definition to the game.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

Actually, one definition of magic *includes* the other -- which is distinguished by the limitation of its compass.


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Go back upthread.




I can't seem to find your case for it, other than "If Robin Hood could do that unerringly, it must be magic."

Either way, though, we're probably going to disagree.  We have very different opinions on what constitutes magic in D&D (and its various editions), and if we haven't agreed so far...(shrug)


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Not so.  Accepting the other side's definition is not the same thing as believing that said definition becomes universal.
> 
> As I can accept that "bear" means to carry something while discussing an ursine "bear", without believing that the carrying term impacts the ursine term, likewise I can accept that the game system uses a term in a limited sense without believing that the game term impacts the meaning in common parlance.
> 
> As I've said before.
> 
> 
> RC




Isn't the reverse then true? You can accept that the meaning of magic in "common parlance" has no effect on game rules, and therefore classes having access to abilities that might (in common parlance) be described as magic, larger then life, super awesome, etc- is no different then it ever was? (As the game has always allowed for abilities and powers not in the "magic" system that could still be considered "magic.")


----------



## Ariosto

But we observe that it IS different -- else the issue should not have arisen in the first place.

The "no different then it ever was" line is curious, because if taken seriously it would negate the incentive to rush out and plop down hard-earned cash for the new product.


----------



## Scribble

And also it seems that objectively- whether or not something not in the game's magic system should be/ would be considered "magic" in the common parlance... is quite subjective.


----------



## rounser

> I don't overlook it, I just don't care. I think you overestimate how much players actually give a toss about this sort of thing. The overwhelmingly vast majority of players couldn't give two figs about this sort of thing.



The same could be said for game balance, but that's been made an all-consuming false idol.  A semblance of believability, suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude got sacrificed on the game balance altar, for instance.  Hit points, mundane "magic" etc all have to be handwaved until your wrist falls off, and that's a feat and a half: making D&D even more disconnected from intuition and even more self-referencing than it already was.  It's bad design IMO.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

This has been a very interesting read that has killed productivity for me lately.

Thank you all.

I shall now attempt to incite further productivity death....



ExploderWizard said:


> The DMG quotes seem to support a different game than the one presented in the PHB. Taking into consideration all the wisdom in those quotes all one needs are a few simple rules and a few guidelines on making effective rulings. It seems that the only thing out of place about it all are the hundreds of pages of rules that tell you exactly when you can push, pull, slide, and fart.



The difference between the PHB and DMG "philosophies" is not a bug, it's a feature.

The PHB gives you the tools to interact with an imagined world.  Period. (included caveat: the DM can change this as needed).  You need lots of those rules in place for reasons of depth and choice for the players.  However, the PHB doesn't do a whole ton of parting the veil.  It isn't necessarily intended for the players to think about "the physics engine" as it were.  When you are playing a video game, if you stop and think about how the terrain is being rendered.... the game has failed to sell you the illusion.  One could make a case that the same applies here.  Ideally, the players shouldn't see the strings.  In fact, it's more fun when they don't (IMO.  When I want to interact with the strings, I'll DM).  They really don't want to know when the DM fudged a dice roll to help them take out the BBEG, for example.  The majority want to play a game, not meditate on a philosophical mountaintop about the meaning of narrativist versus simulationist tropes.  In any case, the tropes that are readily available to them are all very gamist (if they choose to think of them as such).

The DMG, on the other hand, _lives_ on the other side of the veil (or behind the curtain, if you prefer).  The DM needs to be aware that there are things more important than the rules.  The DM needs to spend a least a little cognitive power in a very meta place.  He needs to see the strings, and pluck or pull the right ones as needed.

The problem is that people have taken the term "implied setting" to extravagant heights.  They are also looking for some vast unity of principle for no discernible reason.

Vast unitary principles might be philosophically satisfying (to some), but they are not necessarily fun.  (They can be fun.  But they are not inherently so anymore than a polyglot is inherently badwrongfun)



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But beware that that a consistent formal logic is incomplete, that means there are true properties that you cannot prove via your logic.



You likely just broke the brain of many people who think they understand logic.

Which is reminding me of an old truism about people who understand binary....

While I'm on the subject of logic..... if the outcomes of events in your world are determined regularly by the rules of any game system I've ever seen or heard of.... your world is NOT "logical."

It may have been very logical and internally consistent before the player characters got there, but I'm sorry, there is no set of rules that won't dump logic down the rabbit hole fast.

Also... "logical" worlds are not realistic.  Study history or psychology for 5 minutes and you realize that human beings and animals are not only really, really stupid, but defy expectations and logic with such consistency that one day we really, really need to start expecting it.



rounser said:


> The same could be said for game balance, but that's been made an all-consuming false idol at the expense of believability.  It's just the result of an extreme stance that I'm railing against, and you're cheerleading for, for some reason.



I've bumped into more people who I could never get to play again "because the only classes worth playing have spells" than people who were obsessed with "believability" in their game about slaying orcs and dragons.

There may be a market issue there.


----------



## rounser

> I've bumped into more people who I could never get to play again "because the only classes worth playing have spells"



And I've never met even one of these, nor ever found a party where everyone wanted to be the mage or cleric.  Ever.  Go figure.


----------



## Scribble

Ariosto said:


> But we observe that it IS different -- else the issue should not have arisen in the first place.




I won't argue you obviously perceive it as different.

I'm just saying the reality I think doesn't match your perception.



> The "no different then it ever was" line is curious, because if taken seriously it would negate the incentive to rush out and plop down hard-earned cash for the new product.




Umm... I think you are drawing an erroneous unsupported conclusion with that one.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

rounser said:


> And I've never met even one of these, nor ever found a party where everyone wanted to be the mage or cleric.  Ever.  Go figure.



I will assume that is at least partially because you travel in gaming circles where those kinds of things are just more or less expected.  I frequently find myself trying to introduce new people to the hobby, usually people who have played computer games and board games with a reasonable concept of balance.

2e and 3e were more or less completely unpalatable to most.  And these are intelligent, creative cats with multiple degrees and the ability to immerse themselves in theater, Settlers of Catan, Blizzard video games, or a deep, introspective discussion of the merits William Shatner's singing career, coarse ground mustard, and Socratic teaching methods, among other things.  You would think I'd be in a fertile land for planting D&D enthusiasts.  They should be growing like kudzu on steroids.

I have not had the opportunity to try 4th with them yet, though the Penny Arcade/PVP/Wheaton podcasts are doing some reasonable evangelizing for me, so hope springs eternal.... at least until my wife finishes her current degree and we move again next year and I get to start all over again.... again.


----------



## rounser

> 2e and 3e were more or less completely unpalatable to most. And these are intelligent, creative cats with multiple degrees and the ability to immerse themselves in theater, Settlers of Catan, Blizzard video games, or a deep, introspective discussion of the merits William Shatner's singing career, coarse ground mustard, and Socratic teaching methods, among other things. You would think I'd be in a fertile land for planting D&D enthusiasts. They should be growing like kudzu on steroids.



I have multiple degrees.  Big deal.  I also don't like Star Trek, even though it's a stereotypical geek thing to like.  Who cares?  People have different tastes, and a lot of people I know who were up to the hilt in M:tG wouldn't give D&D the time of day, and vice versa.  

I think you're stretching to suggest that newbie players give up on D&D for game balance issues, it just doesn't seem credible when veteran players can't spot the gotchas until years after the fact (e.g. remember when 3E was perfect and couldn't be improved on?).  They were easier to spot in 2E splat, but by the time you've read that you're well embedded in the D&Diverse.


----------



## FireLance

Raven Crowking said:


> I hope it doesn't surprise you that, in most (if not all) ancient cultures, great skill was often viewed as being supernatural in origin, either as favour of the gods or as favour of/purchased from less savoury supernatural beings.
> 
> Remember that people were accused -- and convicted of -- witchcraft because their fields/animals prospered when their neighbours' did not.



No, it doesn't surprise me, for the reason you mentioned in the post. Nonetheless, as alluded to by Clarke's Law, the _perception_ of magic does not necessarily mean that magic is actually involved. 

Many staples of the science fiction genre - teleportation, matter transmutation, force fields, etc. - seem magical, but the genre convention is that they are not.

Similarly, many abilities from the superhero genre - telepathy, telekinesis, flight, resistance to harm, great strength, regeneration, shape changing, etc. - are defined as non-magical by the genre because they are natural abilities of the character's (usually alien) race, or they are acquired through mutation, whether natural or induced (gamma radiation, cosmic rays, radioactive spider venom, etc.).

The wuxia genre, and (IMO) its close Western analogue, Star Wars, add another aspect to special abilities. Kung fu (occasionally translated as *martial* arts ) and Force abilities are considered by the genre to be both non-magical and non-innate. In other words, they are acquired through training and practice. While D&D muddies the water with the idea of separate Ki and Psionic power sources, the fundamental concept which the genre introduces is that skill is as limitless in its potential as alien or mutant abilities, technology, or magic. And that, I believe, should be the basic premise behind the Martial power source.


----------



## Ariosto

FireLance, your three examples of SF "magic" are actually real-world phenomena ... just not of the character you probably have in mind. If the how and why are not treated, then a story had better have *something* besides "genre convention" to justify the "science" part of the term -- or else (as with Star Wars) it might as well be called fantasy. Indeed, the difference between SF and "rationalized fantasy" can be pretty superficial ... and really "hard SF" eschews baloney with dedicated (if not total) rigor.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Canis said:


> The difference between the PHB and DMG "philosophies" is not a bug, it's a feature.
> 
> The PHB gives you the tools to interact with an imagined world. Period. (included caveat: the DM can change this as needed). You need lots of those rules in place for reasons of depth and choice for the players.




No you don't. You need lots of these kinds of rules in place for the same reason that one child cannot have a slightly larger scoop of ice cream at the party. The multitude of rules exist to sell books after convincing the players that the game falls apart without them.



Canis said:


> However, the PHB doesn't do a whole ton of parting the veil. It isn't necessarily intended for the players to think about "the physics engine" as it were.




A set of good rules shouldn't require the players the to think about the physics engine at all. If the game world and the game rules are created in a manner that compliment each other the issue doesn't even come up.



Canis said:


> When you are playing a video game, if you stop and think about how the terrain is being rendered.... the game has failed to sell you the illusion. One could make a case that the same applies here. Ideally, the players shouldn't see the strings. In fact, it's more fun when they don't (IMO. When I want to interact with the strings, I'll DM).




When you are playing a videogame, the mechanics are all under the hood and all you do is handle the steering wheel and watch the road. In a tabletop game the hood stays open and the engine has to be interacted with directly. Every sputter,stall, and cloud of black smoke is visible to the player. The more at odds the mechanics are with what is happening the uglier the engine is to look at.



Canis said:


> They really don't want to know when the DM fudged a dice roll to help them take out the BBEG, for example. The majority want to play a game, not meditate on a philosophical mountaintop about the meaning of narrativist versus simulationist tropes. In any case, the tropes that are readily available to them are all very gamist (if they choose to think of them as such).




Fudging die rolls and the use of other such DMing tactics is a separate issue from the quality of the rules design.



Canis said:


> The DMG, on the other hand, _lives_ on the other side of the veil (or behind the curtain, if you prefer). The DM needs to be aware that there are things more important than the rules. The DM needs to spend a least a little cognitive power in a very meta place. He needs to see the strings, and pluck or pull the right ones as needed.
> 
> The problem is that people have taken the term "implied setting" to extravagant heights. They are also looking for some vast unity of principle for no discernible reason.




Tell me about it. There is nothing as trite as the "narrative" unified principle used to explain every nonsensical rule and design concept. That gets old real fast.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

ExploderWizard said:


> No you don't. You need lots of these kinds of rules in place for the same reason that one child cannot have a slightly larger scoop of ice cream at the party. The multitude of rules exist to sell books after convincing the players that the game falls apart without them.



That's one (slightly cynical but very valid) way of looking at it.  It's certainly part of the reason for a company to build rules this way: expandability.  But I think it also has some positives.  Learning a new set of mechanics when you play a new class is good for your brain (scientifically proven fact!) and adds to replayability (my opinion, YMMV).



> A set of good rules shouldn't require the players the to think about the physics engine at all. If the game world and the game rules are created in a manner that compliment each other the issue doesn't even come up.



That's exactly what I was saying.  That's part of the distinction between the player and the DM.  The players should ideally just see the coliseum.  The DM is the one who is constantly aware that the walls are press board and lions are CGI.

Maybe this is because I came from videogames first and then picked up D&D, but I think the 4e rules are fine this way.  I do just about the same suspending of disbelief in 4e that I did in 3e.  Maybe that's because I've played it even less.  Maybe I haven't seen the seams yet.  I'll acknowledge the possibility.



> When you are playing a videogame, the mechanics are all under the hood and all you do is handle the steering wheel and watch the road.



Nonsense.  I spent years as a main tank and raid leader in WoW.  Only just recently took a break (hence finding myself gravitating back here again)  I was constantly up to my elbows in a level of math far beyond anything I've ever done in D&D in order to optimize a character, since my moment-to-moment performance had a huge impact on the play experience of 10, 25, or 40 other people.



> In a tabletop game the hood stays open and the engine has to be interacted with directly. Every sputter,stall, and cloud of black smoke is visible to the player. The more at odds the mechanics are with what is happening the uglier the engine is to look at.



Oh, god, no.  I don't really think about the game in those terms at all.  It's much more of a movie or a Wizard of OZ (man behind the curtain) metaphor for me.  The players should see the pyrotechnic show and hear the roaring voice, not have access to the control panel.



> Fudging die rolls and the use of other such DMing tactics is a separate issue from the quality of the rules design.



True.  But my point was that the precise structure of the rules design and things like fudging die rolls should be over on the DM's side of the screen, because they are not a value add for the player.  For the player, being immersed in that can have a very corrosive effect on their ability to believe the illusion of the game world, regardless of system.

Are my "storyteller" genes showing up a bit strongly?

Maybe I should be playing Paranoia.



> Tell me about it. There is nothing as trite as the "narrative" unified principle used to explain every nonsensical rule and design concept. That gets old real fast.



Not sure why I'm on the receiving end of that particular snark.  I can disagree quite comfortably with almost everyone who has posted so far, so don't assume I'm all over the narrativist idea.  If there *is* a unifying principle in 4e, I'm of the opinion that it is a gamist one.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

rounser said:


> I think you're stretching to suggest that newbie players give up on D&D for game balance issues, it just doesn't seem credible when veteran players can't spot the gotchas until years after the fact (e.g. remember when 3E was perfect and couldn't be improved on?).  They were easier to spot in 2E splat, but by the time you've read that you're well embedded in the D&Diverse.



You severely underestimate how important game balance is to other types of gamers (it's very much at the core of MMOs, for example).  And you severely overestimate the complexity of the D&D rules.  Go look at the math and reasoning in any reasonable analysis of WoW rogue dps.  Those cats scare _me_, and I taught statistics for two semesters.  A friend who contributes regularly to those discussions read the combat and classes sections of the 3e PHB once and e-mailed, "Who in their right mind would ever play a ranger or monk?"  He then asked what the party would need more, a sorcerer or a druid.

In any case, balance was one of the reasons given when people got bored with it.  None of the newbies spotted things like trip monkeys and rules cheese, but they noticed that the Rogue got really, really hosed by some of the most popular enemies and that the Druid was a better fighter than the Fighter, as two examples.

A couple of the WoW players started an extended riff on the differences in class balance between D&D and WoW that was actually quite funny.  i.e. The WoW designers were probably all rogues in D&D and really just wanted to take out their frustrations on casters.


----------



## rounser

> You severely underestimate how important game balance is to other types of gamers (it's very much at the core of MMOs, for example). And you severely overestimate the complexity of the D&D rules.



Oh I see, it's MMORPG players we're talking about in particular, now.  With multiple degrees in game balance, and who read the entire ruleset of games they'll eventually decide they'll not bother to play.  Gotcha.  Must be millions of them out there, all immediately noticing the brokenness of scry/buff/teleport and find the path on the first skim read, and putting D&D back on the shelf.


----------



## MichaelSomething

WOTC 4E Character Optimization Board Threads/Posts: 4,334/79,360
WOTC 4E Character Development Board Threads/Posts: 867/16,522

WOTC D20 Character Optimization Board Threads/Posts: 4,721/137,326
WOTC D20 Character Development Board Threads/Posts: 222/3,195

Looks like people seem to be more intrested in pumping their character's power level then their backstory 

If you look at the number of posts and threads on the WOTC boards and here, you'll notice that system rules talk takes up a good chunk of the space.  I guess D&D was made more balanced because people were asking for it.  I guess those voices were louder then the voices who wanted other stuff.


----------



## Ariosto

The "game balance" concept is certainly central to 4E, and in particular to the controversial rules for powers.

OD&D and AD&D were balanced in a different way than what is desired by whoever is driving design decisions at Wizards. One problem with 3E was that the old context got dumped, but attempts (such as they were) to "correct for" that were inadequate.

Basically, the degree to which it's become less of an actual _game_ makes "game balance" nigh impossible without radically altering the relationships among classes. When level advancement is essentially reduced to an entitlement, it's pretty ruinous to make one class significantly more powerful than another of the same level.

Thus, the need to "nerf" spell-casting classes and "buff" the others that the designers of 4E recognized. The most expedient way to do that was by putting the abstract game and its maths ahead -- by leagues -- of any other concern. Slap on some mumbo-jumbo and colorful pictures, and Bob's your uncle: It's a bouncing baby "D&D" game.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Ariosto said:


> OD&D and AD&D were balanced in a different way than what is desired by whoever is driving design decisions at Wizards. One problem with 3E was that the old context got dumped, but attempts (such as they were) to "correct for" that were inadequate.
> 
> Basically, the degree to which it's become less of an actual _game_ makes "game balance" nigh impossible without radically altering the relationships among classes. When level advancement is essentially reduced to an entitlement, it's pretty ruinous to make one class significantly more powerful than another of the same level.
> 
> Thus, the need to "nerf" spell-casting classes and "buff" the others that the designers of 4E recognized.




Would you mind elaborating on what you mean? I started with 3E, but I'd like to get a good idea what you're talking about here.


----------



## Ariosto

Hexmage-EN said:


> Would you mind elaborating on what you mean? I started with 3E, but I'd like to get a good idea what you're talking about here.



To the small degree it makes a difference, I'll be focusing here on first-edition Advanced D&D prior to _Unearthed Arcana_.

Basically, dead men earn no XP -- and at low levels, are unlikely to get resurrected. Magic-users tend to end up dead enough more often than fighters for the latter to get (and stay) well ahead in levels.

Moving from the original edition (plus supplements) to AD&D, everyone got a boost to average hit points except the magic-user (a.k.a. "wizard" for later-edition players) still stuck with 1 to 4. There was no "maximum HP to start" rule, and it took a constitution of at least 15 to get a bonus. High intelligence was critical in terms of how many (and ultimately what levels of) spells one could learn.

With no armor, four (or five, if the DM was generous) pretty random spells in his grimoire, and the ability to cast but one of those a day, a 1st-level m-u was very vulnerable. He might also be quite powerful, if he was lucky enough to have (or acquire) such a spell as _charm person_ or _sleep_, and _magic missile_ was not only a sure shot but able to affect things untouchable without enchantment -- but dishing it out and taking it were different matters.

So, unless they were played with a great combination of skill and luck, low-level magic-users tended to have a notably higher mortality rate than fighters.

And it kept on being a challenge. Fighters, thieves (a.k.a. rogues) and even clerics (a.k.a. priests, in 2E) just had their capabilities handed to them upon attaining a new level. A magic-user got the power to cast more spells ... if he could acquire more spells to cast.

Beyond one "freebie" per level, that meant purchase from other mages (who of course would charge all the market could bear if they were willing to part with their secrets at all), securing scrolls or books, or engaging in costly, uncertain and time consuming independent research. The latter recourse naturally meant fewer XP-garnering adventures.

After all that effort, woe betide the conjurer (or thaumaturgist, theurgist, etc.) deprived of his books! Making back-ups and securing them from mishap and thievery consumed more gold, and time even more precious.

Well rested and with books on hand, the master of the mystic arts could replenish his spells. That required a quarter hour per level of spell. For instance, a sorcerer (9th-level m-u) could memorize 4 of 1st, 3 each of 2nd and 3rd, 2 of 4th and 1 of 5th = (4+6+9+8+5)/4 hrs. = 8 hours of preparation. A 25th-level wizard would need 56.25 hours (not including necessary rest) to recover his full allotment -- a far cry from having it as a set of "daily" powers!

What to take? A tyro with _sleep_ available is easily tempted to forget that there are other spells, but planning is key to the most effective preparation. Knowledge is indeed power, and an assault on a stronghold of any sort is best preceded by research and reconnaissance.

Then there were material components, only occasionally of notable cost to acquire or carry -- but without which the careless caster might find himself embarrassed.

It was most definitely not an "easy" class to play!

At every level, the greatest peril to a magic-user was posed by others of his profession. Of course, he was also the prime target for every monster with a modicum of intelligence and something nasty to send his way -- and the First Rule of Initiative was, or so it might seem, "Screw the magic-users."

After (probably) having a few candidates perish, and then taking time off from adventuring for the survivor to research spells, one might at last get a magic-user to the lofty status of (7th level) enchanter. Even without such delays, a player who likewise has suffered no setbacks and has earned a similar number of XP will have a 6th-level fighter with (on average) almost twice as many hit points.

The fighter probably has a magic weapon as well, and maybe enchanted armor. At the next level, he gets 3 melee attacks per 2 rounds versus creatures tougher than normal men. He already gets 6 per round versus lesser foes -- such as the bulk of the world's armies.

Just surviving to enchanter is quite an accomplishment, though. Given only average skill and luck, the fellow playing a fighter might well be a 9th-level Lord by then ... and commanding a company of men at arms.

(Upon becoming an 11th-level wizard, you can also establish a stronghold. However, followers will not come to you as to a fighter, and the revenue from your territory shall be less.)

Unless you were lucky enough to roll an 18, you'll eventually need either to raise your intelligence or stop learning higher-level spells -- or possibly any more at all, except via new research. That is possible via _wishes_ and some other magical means, but not by any mundane method (including gaining levels).

One could make scrolls and potions upon attaining 7th level, and other magic items at 12th. This was no simple matter! Eye of basilisk or mind-flayer brain might be among the ingredients, for instance. The process could require weeks or months. Potions further required upkeep of an alchemical laboratory; a smudge could spoil a scroll, requiring even a virgin quill (of griffon plumage or whatever) for a fresh start; and the manufacture of other items was so debilitating as to require (e.g.) 30 days of complete rest after making a _helm of telepathy_.

Still ... woo-hoo!

Until some upstart thaumaturgist gets the jump on your enchanter with a 5-die lightning bolt, and you fail the save, and your m-u dies.

Of course, by then you've made arrangements to get raised from the dead. If you make your survival roll, that's down one point of constitution and one of your 9 (or whatever your initial score was) "lives". If the roll fails, or you've used the last of your chances at resurrection, then it's all over.

Eventually (around 15th level, I think) the fighter starts gaining levels faster in terms of needed XP.


----------



## Ariosto

I don't remember all the details of 3E (in which I played a barbarian), but I'm pretty sure it made life easier for magic-users/wizards in a lot of ways. And although it was not exactly a rule, I saw a tendency to make sure that "The Party" was all pretty nearly the same level.

(In AD&D, "an adventure for characters levels 9-14" means that the party members might reasonably encompass that range at one time. As I understand it, that note on a 3E module means that the party should _start_ at the low end, and _reach_ the high end by the adventure's conclusion.)

In 4E, "leveling up" is so nearly an entitlement, a reward for merely marking time, that the DMG goes so far as to suggest that even players who _don't show up to play_ could get it "on schedule". (DMG, p. 121) It notes that "there's nothing wrong with" characters getting XP only for encounters in which they participate. On the other hand, it is claimed that: _The game works better in a lot of ways if you just assume that the characters all gain experience and advance levels at the same rate, even if their players miss a session_.

In AD&D, one had to score points by accomplishment -- and defeating monsters was at best icing on the cake. The cake, the goal, the home run, the perhaps literal gold ring ... was securing treasure.

Success required not "skill ratings" on a character sheet but actual skill on the part of players, not least of which was knowing how and when to minimize reliance on the luck of the dice.

There was a balance of risk and reward, great defeat or great glory for those who dared great undertakings. A first-level character joining an expedition of 4th-level heroes (actual level title for fighters) was very likely to get killed -- but survival would probably mean gaining 2nd level in a single session. (And if he's able to keep up, then by the time he's 4th, they'll at most be 5th.)

In that context, choosing to play a magic-user was to choose a strategy of high risk commensurate with the potential great reward down the line. It called for a more demanding skill set than playing a fighter or cleric.

The cleric might have an edge over the fighter in the early game, but in the "late game" of high levels and military-political strategy that tended to reverse. The cleric got a leg up in establishing a stronghold, but even the magic-user pulled ahead in hit points. Thieves were always fairly weak in straight-up combat, but gained levels rapidly (despite some drag in training costs) and were rather "jacks of all trades" even if masters of none but their own stealthy craft.

Non-humans started with advantages, but their chief one -- multiclassing -- slowed advancement (which was capped in classes other than thief, or assassin for half-orcs, and for half-elves druid). In the long run, humans outshone them. The limitations, however -- especially on halflings -- were ultimately matters less of game balance per se than of humanocentrism. That rationale was made quite clear in the DMG.

Paladins and rangers advancing to high enough levels acquired some spell-casting along with other powers. Besides the rarity of ability scores required, strict rules of conduct limited their frequency. Monks were both rare and -- like magic-users -- a challenge to get through lower levels to the ones in which they really stood out as powerful.


----------



## LostSoul

When did the Armor spell come into play?


----------



## Ariosto

I'm not sure, but the _armor_ spell was probably introduced first in an issue of Dragon magazine (as I don't recall it from _Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth_). It was among the spells in _Unearthed Arcana_ (1985).

The terrific _flaming sphere_ was another I missed by neglecting UA; it did not come to my attention until 3E!


----------



## ExploderWizard

Game balance in early editions was achieved throughout the entire game and not just on the battle mat. Maintaining such a balance was more work for a DM but the tradeoff for a more satisfying game in which the character's differences were more meaningful was worth it.

4E (and 3E to an extent) went with the concept of micromanaged auto-balance that requires less DM effort to maintain. There are gamist benefits to this style of balance but at the price of heavy-handed adjustments to flavor.


----------



## Ariosto

Out-of-battle versatility was where even low-level magic-users could really shine. Their combat effectiveness even at high levels was of a notably different nature than the fighter's "mow 'em down till sundown" ability.

Their fragility meant that they were extremely vulnerable without the protection of tougher types until attaining fairly high levels. A mere duo of fighters, operating with appropriate caution and stealth, might well pull off a successful venture where a pair of mages alone dared not tread.

Note that their armament (pre-UA) was limited to dagger, dart and staff (plus poison and lit oil). _Unearthed Arcana_ significantly added the sling to their repertoire, but I don't think crossbows came in until 3E.

Making them more capable combatants infringes on the fighter's "niche", and their other abilities then become salt in that wound. I'm not sure whether that's worse when combat is merely a means often of last resort, or when it is made an end in itself.

In any case, 4E puts the emphasis clearly on balancing the combat game. The concept of a class that is (even if only at low levels) not well suited to engaging in the clash of arms has been set aside.

"If it's a fair fight, then Plan A has failed" used to be the maxim especially of thieves ... and magic-users!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Isn't the reverse then true? You can accept that the meaning of magic in "common parlance" has no effect on game rules, and therefore classes having access to abilities that might (in common parlance) be described as magic, larger then life, super awesome, etc- is no different then it ever was? (As the game has always allowed for abilities and powers not in the "magic" system that could still be considered "magic.")




Scribble,

I can accept that the meaning of magic in common parlance has no effect on game rules, obviously, because I have already said as much.

It is, indeed, true, that within the construct of the game world, some of these "magical in the common parlance meaning" powers might be thought of as mundane.  I.e., the line within the game world as to what is, and what is not, magic (as used in common parlance) has become extremely blurry.

Thus my thesis:  Everything is magic, and everyone uses magic.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Scribble,
> 
> I can accept that the meaning of magic in common parlance has no effect on game rules, obviously, because I have already said as much.
> 
> It is, indeed, true, that within the construct of the game world, some of these "magical in the common parlance meaning" powers might be thought of as mundane.  I.e., the line within the game world as to what is, and what is not, magic (as used in common parlance) has become extremely blurry.
> 
> Thus my thesis:  Everything is magic, and everyone uses magic.
> 
> 
> RC




Well... if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I just don't get the point, because D&D has always separated it's elements this way- to allow for a more larger then life (as others have said) play experience. It's a part of D&D that I think helps make D&D what it is.

As a wise man named Dave once said-

_"Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was..."_


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> I just don't get the point




That much we agree on.



That it is the "same as it ever was", however, we disagree on.  Perhaps your gradients used to measure difference are simply far coarser than my own.  I.e., as though it is within the same kilometer for you, therefore my measurement in meters simply doesn't matter.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

Raven, I see that difference in gauges -- but I think it depends somewhat on whose ox is getting gored.

A week (or longer, at high levels) to recover full hit points, or six hours? Neither is terribly realistic, and naturally one is likely to be a "lumper" if one prefers the latter and healing surges.

Both the "same as it ever was" and "now for something completely different" positions matter to us because the question of what D&D is matters to us. Take away the title of the work, let it not be offered as a proper replacement for what was formerly known as D&D, and that resonance would be absent.

I think it matters so because we respond to the game as to a significant work of art. Whatever its status in a wider context, it is within our subculture something important. Partisans of the old take it as a touchstone; those favoring the new want to keep the cachet of the name.

The conflict is analogous to that between those who consider Howard's the one true Conan and those who think De Camp's not merely as legitimate but an improvement.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> That it is the "same as it ever was", however, we disagree on.  Perhaps your gradients used to measure difference are simply far coarser than my own.  I.e., as though it is within the same kilometer for you, therefore my measurement in meters simply doesn't matter.




Use whatever sized stick you want the end result doesn't change- it isn't a new thing, as it's been with the game since the beginning.  

Some powers in D&D are better then they could be in real life. These powers aren't considered magic by the game. They may or may not be considered "magic" by players of the game based on common perception of what "magic" is outside of the game. (Combined with the level of knowledge players have about physics and such.)

The "implied setting" is the same as it ever was. "Larger then life."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Use whatever sized stick you want the end result doesn't change- it isn't a new thing, as it's been with the game since the beginning.




This is true only insofar as automobiles haven't changed from the Model T Ford to the most recent Corvette.  They still have wheels (most often four) and an engine, so they are exactly the same thing.   



> The "implied setting" is the same as it ever was. "Larger then life."




The implied speed of automobiles hasn't changed from the Model T to the Corvette, either.  "Faster than walking."




RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Another way of looking at it is that I could write a pastiche of Robert E. Howard, making Conan roughly the size of Paul Bunyan, breathing spurts of flame through his nostrils, and fighting robot assassins sent from the future, and then claim that my pastiche is essentially the same as REH's work (because they are both "larger than life"), but it would not make it so.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Another way of looking at it is that I could write a pastiche of Robert E. Howard, making Conan roughly the size of Paul Bunyan, breathing spurts of flame through his nostrils, and fighting robot assassins sent from the future, and then claim that my pastiche is essentially the same as REH's work (because they are both "larger than life"), but it would not make it so.




I liked your car analogy better.

Earlier editions are the Model T.  4 wheels.  Engine.  Probably some kind of windshield.

4th edition is a corvette.  4 wheels.  Engine.  Probably some kind of windshield.

Everything else that's different is just window dressing.  Fundamentally, they're the same thing:  a car.

So to is it with "magic" in D&D, regardless of edition.  Magic is spells, prayers, and whatever else people think should be labeled magical instead of "fantastical."  It's whatever the book says it is, really.

That's not to say people don't modify their corvettes, or even their Model T's.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> I liked your car analogy better.




Not surprising.  

However, both analogies are equally valid.

The REH pastiche analogy simply makes the absurdity of claiming that the two are the same thing a little more obvious, for those who are not used to using a more subtle standard of measurement.

Not that recognizing the differences between a Model T and a Corvette ought to require anything approaching a subtle standard of measurement.

Nor should recognizing the difference between the "larger than life" qualities of TSR-D&D and 4e.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Nor should recognizing the difference between the "larger than life" qualities of TSR-D&D and 4e.




I guess I just don't see any difference.    It's all been crazy, out-there, earth-shattering heroics for at least the two editions I've played.

We can go ahead and say that your measure of difference between one insanity and another is more "subtle," but that doesn't make it correct.

The only people who are in charge of saying what magic is and isn't in D&D is WotC, really, and ain't nothin' changing it.  I suppose it's merely a happy coincidence that I enjoy what they've presented so far, and agree with it.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> This is true only insofar as automobiles haven't changed from the Model T Ford to the most recent Corvette.  They still have wheels (most often four) and an engine, so they are exactly the same thing.




Sure, but you can't argue:

1. The Corvette is no longer an automobile because it's faster then a model T.

2. Movement is a new function of Automobiles as of the Corvette.

Which seems to be some of the arguments you've been making. 

4e is not 1e, I will not argue that. (Even though I feel it's closer to 1e then we've had in a while.) But the changes made, don't take it out of the realm of anything D&D wasn't already doing.


----------



## RefinedBean

Scribble said:


> But the changes made, don't take it out of the realm of anything D&D wasn't already doing.




The argument seems to be, since some of the non-magical classes are now doing what some of the magical classes were doing in previous editions, that makes it magic.

I think.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

For me, magic is more something like "use sulfur and bat guano to create a bead that explodes into a blast of flames" or "pray to the god and your wounds will heal!"
The cause (bat guano) and effect (fireball) are magic - you're using something symbolic to achieve something in (game world) reality. Of course, this is possible in the real world, too - you push a button and somewhere else a door opens, for example - the button was just a symbol for opening the door, but thanks to some kind of mechanismn it opened the door. Magic introduces such a mechanism that is totally invisible but yet ever present. It is as if you never needed to install the wires and the door mechanism, it's just there. 

I wouldn't assume such a "hidden" mechanism for martial abilities. If the fighter uses Come and Get It, there is a clearly visible thing going on - even if it's just him saying "Come and Get it!" to his enemies and them reacting to it. That's why I also tend to assume the "narrative" approach here it's the player using Come and Get It, the Fighter just says something to provoke his enemies (or maybe he uses a lasso, or shakes the tree the Goblin archers are hiding on, or whatever.)


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I wouldn't assume such a "hidden" mechanism for martial abilities. If the fighter uses Come and Get It, there is a clearly visible thing going on - even if it's just him saying "Come and Get it!" to his enemies and them reacting to it. That's why I also tend to assume the "narrative" approach here it's the player using Come and Get It, the Fighter just says something to provoke his enemies (or maybe he uses a lasso, or shakes the tree the Goblin archers are hiding on, or whatever.)




I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ExploderWizard said:


> I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.



Luckiky, I like my hack'n'slash storytelling game.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> I guess I just don't see any difference.




And, of course, because you don't see it, it isn't there.  

In the same way, perhaps, that someone "couldn't see" the difference between my pastiche of Robert E. Howard, making Conan roughly the size of Paul Bunyan, breathing spurts of flame through his nostrils, and fighting robot assassins sent from the future, and REH's work.



> It's all been crazy, out-there, earth-shattering heroics for at least the two editions I've played.




If your metric is that limited, I think I see the problem.  



> The only people who are in charge of saying what magic is and isn't in D&D is WotC, really, and ain't nothin' changing it.




Game terms do not change the meaning of common parlance.  



Scribble said:


> Sure, but you can't argue:
> 
> 1. The Corvette is no longer an automobile because it's faster then a model T.
> 
> 2. Movement is a new function of Automobiles as of the Corvette.
> 
> Which seems to be some of the arguments you've been making.
> 
> 4e is not 1e, I will not argue that. (Even though I feel it's closer to 1e then we've had in a while.) But the changes made, don't take it out of the realm of anything D&D wasn't already doing.




Oh, I don't argue that 4e "isn't D&D", and I don't argue that there is no relationship between (say) 1e and 4e.  If you believe otherwise, please point out to me what I said that made you believe so.

I am talking only about one specific change to the implied setting of the game, from TSR-D&D to 4e.


RC


----------



## RefinedBean

Raven Crowking said:


> Game terms do not change the meaning of common parlance.




Common parlance means jack-squat in D&D.  One of the classes is named "Fighter," of all things.  Every class FIGHTS.

And you say my metric is limited.  So be it; I think my metric is pretty standard for what most D&D players use, so if that means it's limited, well, there ya go.

But once again, we're both just using personal opinions on what magic is and isn't to tackle the issue from both sides.  There's no one right answer, and there never will be.

I'm going to excuse myself from the discussion; I've done my best to make my points.  Magic is the same in 4E as it was in any other edition: spells, prayers, rituals, and DM fiat.  And magic is as important in 4E as it was in 3E.

Y'all have fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking

RefinedBean said:


> Common parlance means jack-squat in D&D.




If you really feel that way, I suppose you don't actually believe that "Every class FIGHTS".  Either that, or you accept that common parlance and game terms are both applicable to discussions of the game.

It seems to me that there are some to whom common parlance is only applicable when it supports their position; otherwise it is not.  However, to others common parlance is applicable to any discussion wherein common terms are being used, while game terms are applicable to game mechanics.

If one can only discuss a ruleset from within the limitations of the terms defined by that ruleset, one will have limited discussions indeed.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.



That is a key difference. The storytelling game has been coming into its own with new titles. Changing an established role-playing game into a game of that type is bound to create some friction.

"It's not magic, just narrative control" highlights the difference.

It may present difficulties over a wider range of approaches than some other games, because it does not have a storytelling foundation. By that, I mean that "narrative control" for players is not the focus around which the rules are built. The whole thing is muddled, which is more awkward in a rules-heavy design than in one that "supports" different modes mainly by not getting in their way.

The same sort of awkwardness is evident in 3E, with its attempt to change the "game balance" concept while retaining elements designed with quite another model in mind.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> I think the lack of a mechanism for the ability makes perfect sense in a storytelling game. For those using the game system who are not wishing to play a storytelling game then there are issues.




I wouldn't say I play a "storytelling game." Yet the lack of a "mechanic" for that part doesn't bother me. The reason is that I just don't need/want a rule or a die role for every conceivable action or part of an action. That road gets way to cumbersome for me, and doesn't help me in any way. Just give me the abstracted idea basically and I'm happy.  

If, as the DM i find CAGI (or any rule) to be disruptive, or harmful to our gameplay in some way, I will override parts of it as needed. The same is true for monster abilities, as I'm not playing against my players. I'm the neutral ref between players and the challenge. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Oh, I don't argue that 4e "isn't D&D", and I don't argue that there is no relationship between (say) 1e and 4e.  If you believe otherwise, please point out to me what I said that made you believe so.
> 
> I am talking only about one specific change to the implied setting of the game, from TSR-D&D to 4e.




This statement is part of what makes me believe what I said. It's not a change in the "implied setting." D&D characters have ALWAYS been able to do this stuff. (In fact I think it's closer to how it was originally when D&D characters were indicated to be more then the common person.)

It's a world where heroes fight monsters, and even "non magical" beings/characters can do things above and beyond what normal people can/should be able to do. It's a world of "larger then life heroes and villains" where physics only need apply at the VERY most basic level.  It's a world where archers can split arrows because they're THAT good, and things like wood grain have no impact. It's a world where Conan can bend metal bars with his bare hands, or fall off a cliff and survive. It's a world where men with swords can somehow defeat creatures 10 times their size without first having to somehow get to their level, or hamstring them somehow. It's a world where there are countless creatures stronger/faster/better then humans yet still we somehow seem to be on top.  

And it's a game system where "games should be fun not work," and certain things are just left to  approximates rather then endless strings of rolls,  charts, and tables. It's a game where Conan survives that cliff fall because he had enough hit points, but the players add in things like "you manage to grab on to the edges, and to the weeds just enough to slow your decent and survive the fall."

It's a world where the fundane replaces the mundane. It's fantasy, same as it ever was.

Sure the rules have been changed to achieve what the designers hope to be a better/easier/more fun play experience. In my opinion they achieved their goal overall. You might (and probably do) disagree.

Maybe I misunderstand your point though. What IS your overall point?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> This statement is part of what makes me believe what I said. It's not a change in the "implied setting."




Likewise, my pastiche of Howard is exactly the same as the real thing, and since New Coke and Classic Coke are both Coke, there is no way to discuss changes in flavour.  These things are ridiculous to assert.




RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> I wouldn't say I play a "storytelling game." Yet the lack of a "mechanic" for that part doesn't bother me. The reason is that I just don't need/want a rule or a die role for every conceivable action or part of an action. That road gets way to cumbersome for me, and doesn't help me in any way. Just give me the abstracted idea basically and I'm happy.
> 
> If, as the DM i find CAGI (or any rule) to be disruptive, or harmful to our gameplay in some way, I will override parts of it as needed. The same is true for monster abilities, as I'm not playing against my players. I'm the neutral ref between players and the challenge.




I'm not a fan of excessive die rolling either. As far as mechanics go a power just working because the power says it does is self justifying. It doesn't answer anything. I never mentioned extra die rolls. The power (unless ruled magic or supernatural) would work in some situations and not in others. No extra die rolls or mechanics, just the application of plausability vs. gamism within the environment of the game world.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not a fan of excessive die rolling either. As far as mechanics go a power just working because the power says it does is self justifying. It doesn't answer anything. I never mentioned extra die rolls. The power (unless ruled magic or supernatural) would work in some situations and not in others. No extra die rolls or mechanics, just the application of plausability vs. gamism within the environment of the game world.




Well see that's the issue I guess. 

 I'm completely satisfied by the rules not indicating what situations (aside from when it impacts other rules) the element would work in, because I will handle those, and I don't expect the designer to have thought of all situations.

The power says, "this is how it works." I expect it to be "self satisfying." I'm not using it for any other purpose then what it indicates. If I find at some point I don't accept that, then I change it. 




			
				Raven CrowKing said:
			
		

> Likewise, my pastiche of Howard is exactly the same as the real thing, and since New Coke and Classic Coke are both Coke, there is no way to discuss changes in flavour. These things are ridiculous to assert.




I think you're combining elements that shouldn't be combined.

Coke changed the recipe (rules) which upset a lot of people. It didn't cease to be their caramel colored trademark cola beverage. Just a new edition of the same concept (implied setting.) 

Your Conan hyperbole is faulty. It implies that I'm arguing that a conan with a host of new powers and abilities would be the same. Which I am not. 

I don't believe the characters are utilizing anything out of line with what was accepted in the older editions. 

The old Conan was always able to lift insanely heavy objects, so the fact that the Conan in the new story lifts a huge bronze statue is not out of line.

Sure there might be  a few areas where Conan's abilities get slightly more flashy, but not enough so that it constitutes a whole new "implied setting."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> It implies that I'm arguing that a conan with a host of new powers and abilities would be the same. Which I am not.




I fail to see the difference.  I don't believe that Conan in my pastiche is utilizing anything out of line with what was accepted in the older stories.


RC


----------

