Why have dissociated mechanics returned?

tomBitonti · Sep 6, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
Only very slightly if you're running on exception based design and have a competent DM. But 3.X fireball for all practical purposes doesn't have a unique mechanic. I would be amazed if as many as 5% of all fireballs cast ever used the "explodes early" or the "through arrowslit" clauses. And I'd be surprised if it hit 1%. Most of the time fireball is just a big ball of fire (and I've never seen a single person object that 4e changed what the caster did to create one to "create a big ball of fire in his hands then throw it").

Additional text omitted.

I do think you are understating the uniqueness of "explodes on impact". Line-of-effect is the rule for most spells, and if line of effect is blocked, either the spell fizzles, or you get to choose a new target location. What happens for rays is quite different, but this isn't a ray. One other unique case is magic missile, which "unerringly" seeks out its target. There, if you block line-of-effect, the missile fizzles (or maybe you get to choose a new target. I'm a little fuzzy if you are allowed to interrupt the spell after targets are selected; I do know that casting builds in target selection as a part of the casting decision. I'll have to go back to the detailed rules to tell what actually happens.)

Thx!

TomB

pemerton · Sep 7, 2012

[MENTION=13107]tomBitonti[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] - interesting discusssion and elucidation of the classic D&D fireball spell.

I agree with Neonchameleon on the desirability of sharp, pithy spell descriptions, preferably with key info in statblocks. (I learned this preference from Rolemaster, which tends to fit 10 or more spells on a page in Spell Law.)

I think Tom is right about the desire, in 3.5 at least, to have fireball behave as a type of "area ray". Should it have read something like:

The fireball detonates when the bead strikes a solid object or surface. The caster aims the bead as a ray; a miss is resolved as if the bead were a grenade-like missile.

Then instead of a unique mechanic, the spell is framed by reference to existing rules.

Neonchameleon · Sep 7, 2012

tomBitonti said:
Additional text omitted.

I do think you are understating the uniqueness of "explodes on impact".

I don't. I think you are significantly overstating its importance and uniqueness. It's just effectively a ray that explodes when it hits - and for 95%+ of all fireballs this doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. Or it makes a vast difference and SOP is to catch fireballs on shields and have the things blocked by the shield - but that would be an entirely different spell.

Neonchameleon · Sep 7, 2012

pemerton said:
I think Tom is right about the desire, in 3.5 at least, to have fireball behave as a type of "area ray". Should it have read something like:

The fireball detonates when the bead strikes a solid object or surface. The caster aims the bead as a ray; a miss is resolved as if the bead were a grenade-like missile.
Then instead of a unique mechanic, the spell is framed by reference to existing rules.

Nice expansion. On the other hand this significantly changes the spell (gives it an attack roll) - and any caster with a brain aims it at the target's feet or the square of ground - AC 5, and by the time you get it you're at least +2 to hit.

Neonchameleon · Sep 7, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
Well that does make for an amusing situation then. Do you think they would have done the same if the forced movement rules were different? Or was it that there might be pit traps as well as pits?

No. Because pits without forced movement are about as relevant as wallpaper. You just step round them. With forced movement, holes in the floor are a constant threat.

You might as well ask if the PCs would have brought the same amount of light in if they all had darkvision.

GreyICE · Sep 7, 2012

Drago Rinato said:
WotC should do 2 version: One with a Setting and one without (just like a srd, clean of reference)

I would LOVE this.

pemerton · Sep 7, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
Nice expansion. On the other hand this significantly changes the spell (gives it an attack roll) - and any caster with a brain aims it at the target's feet or the square of ground - AC 5, and by the time you get it you're at least +2 to hit.

I agree that it adds extra mechanical detail for little practical effect in most (the overwhelming number of?) cases.

I was going to suggest it might make a difference in Against the Giants, when you want to fireball the caves full of trolls - because the trolls provide cover to the ground in the middle of them - but you can probably just detonate it on the roof instead!

Tony Vargas · Sep 7, 2012

tomBitonti said:
Many, many examples omitted.

A question: Do you find detail that you provide for the examples to make the abilities more satisfying?

I find player-provided detail more satisfying than boilerplate, yes. I like having a wide range of possibilities. With the abstraction of RPG rules, one mechanic can often serve for a variety of concepts - making a virtue (flexibility) of necessity (abstraction).

But, it's also very important to have strong, evocative examples and flavor in the game, itself, to serve as defaults and as inspiration. It just shouldn't be so tightly coupled to specific mechanics as to be indistinguishable from them.

we the reader must provide these explanations. Isn't that the responsibility (read "job") of the game designer?

I can't disagree: 5e does seem to take every opportunity to leave it to the user (DM or player) to complete the design process.

Chris_Nightwing · Sep 7, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
No. Because pits without forced movement are about as relevant as wallpaper. You just step round them. With forced movement, holes in the floor are a constant threat.

You might as well ask if the PCs would have brought the same amount of light in if they all had darkvision.

I didn't say 'if there were no forced movement', I said 'if the forced movement rules were different'. Things can physically push you into pits, but perhaps running in fear won't have the precisely identical effect. The difference could be as little as making the saving throw against falling causing you to jump over/around the pit instead of fall prone. It might be as great as forced movement being in a straight line, or giving the player control over the movement (for fleeing, not being pushed).

My point being that the mechanics result in metagame decisions that might not make full sense in a particular scenario and separate the players' worldview from that of their characters.

tomBitonti · Sep 7, 2012

GreyICE said:
I would LOVE this.

Yeah. Seems that having both should be possible. What gets in the way are page counts, for print media, and copy protection for electronic media.

In this space I'm struck by the utility of the PathFinder SRD:

Pathfinder_OGC

We should be at a point where a truly useful SRD + Expandable Background + Character Builder + Monster Builder + Encounter Builder application can be created. There would be plenty of room to put in an "Expandable Background" section.

TomB

Why have dissociated mechanics returned?

tomBitonti

Adventurer

pemerton

Legend

Neonchameleon

Legend

Neonchameleon

Legend

Neonchameleon

Legend

GreyICE

Banned

pemerton

Legend

Tony Vargas

Legend

Chris_Nightwing

First Post

tomBitonti

Adventurer

Similar Threads