D&D 4E Let's Talk About 4E On Its Own Terms [+]

[FrogReaver]

More examples from Warriors and Priests of the Realms:
View attachment 354696
Also, the Warriors of Rashemen, who gain the same 1/day rage.

I don’t read that one as magical/supernatural.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, so, you know what the square-cubed law is, right? So, you know that a 12' tall giant is 8x heavier than a 6' tall human, and thus logically must also be 8 times stronger, not to mention having twice the reach! I mean, I'm no ancient warrior, but I did do plenty of SCA stuff. I can guarantee you, you are toast if you try to take on someone 8x stronger than you with twice the reach (and a weapon appropriate to that). You're NOT DOING IT. Crap, they can just drop kick your ass, you're done. 1,600 pounds of sheer muscle. Yeah, you might actually beat a hill giant, one time in 50 with a really lucky shot (not really even emulated well by D&D's combat system, but whatever). There SIMPLY IS NOTHING realistic about this stuff. It ain't a matter of opinion. There are plenty of 'bad assed' people in the world, they'd be crushed flat, no matter what, period, end of story. So it is NOT happening as a mundane process. It isn't something you can handwave away, MAGICAL naughty word IS HAPPENING WHEN YOU FIGHT, end of story.

I didn’t say it was realistic. I said it was not magical.

 

[Staffan]

Right, so, you know what the square-cubed law is, right? So, you know that a 12' tall giant is 8x heavier than a 6' tall human, and thus logically must also be 8 times stronger, not to mention having twice the reach!

That's not exactly what the square-cube law is. The square-cube law is, strictly speaking, about how when a thing increases proportionally in size by a factor x, it's surface area and cross-sectional area increases by a factor of x squared, and its volume and mass by x cubed.

When applied to biomechanics, one of the main effects is that muscle power is proportional to their cross-sectional area (which in turn is proportional to the square of height, assuming equal proportions) and the mass they need to move is proportional to volume (proportional to height cubed). It also applies to structural loads – the bones of a giant twice as tall as a man need to support eight times the weight on four times the area. so they need to be twice as strong. It explains why elephants look like they do, with extremely thick legs; why giants don't exist in the real world; and why small animals like insects can lift ridiculous amounts proportional to their own weight.

Since things like giants, dragons, and other large land animals clearly exist in D&D, it is apparent that the square-cube law doesn't work in the same way, or at least that said creatures have ways of mitigating its effects.

 

[FrogReaver]

i'd say calling the first magic or supernatural would be a stretch. it seems to me to be more a reference to japanese martial arts shouts then anything else.

I don’t think so.

the second explicitly states it is an "ability natural to the Savage" and "not truly magic" and that "Detect magic will not detect it". it could not be any more clear that the ability is not magic or supernatural.

Again, disagree.

But we already have an example I agree isn’t magical or supernatural so not sure why we are beating this horse.

 

[Retreater]

We're really discussing this again? In a thread with a (+) specifically asking us to talk about 4e with out edition warring comparisons to other versions of the game?
There are some of us actively running games of this system and sharing advice. We don't need to be reminded (again) of reasons why some can't wrap their heads around the mechanics.
4E is a game. It's not attempting to simulate a fantasy reality. It sacrifices that "reality" and "natural language" in an attempt for balance across the character classes. It's the one time in D&D history where the designers made an effort to balance warrior classes against caster classes, where DMs were given tools to balance encounters that mostly work, where monster statblocks are presented in a streamlined fashion for quick/ready reference at the table. This approach can be to your liking or not. If it's not - go play OD&D, B/X, AD&D 1-2, 3.x/PF1, 5e, or any of the numerous OSR variants.
4E is the one game in a 50 year history to try its own thing. It broke with tradition to the scorn of the community (who apparently are still here today starting issues). Just let those of us who enjoy this game for what it is continue to enjoy it.
For me, running 4E is a special treat after running 5e multiple times a week for nearly a decade. I'll probably get to enjoy this experiment for a few months before it's back to mainstream D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

We're really discussing this again? In a thread with a (+) specifically asking us to talk about 4e with out edition warring comparisons to other versions of the game?
There are some of us actively running games of this system and sharing advice. We don't need to be reminded (again) of reasons why some can't wrap their heads around the mechanics.
4E is a game. It's not attempting to simulate a fantasy reality. It sacrifices that "reality" and "natural language" in an attempt for balance across the character classes. It's the one time in D&D history where the designers made an effort to balance warrior classes against caster classes, where DMs were given tools to balance encounters that mostly work, where monster statblocks are presented in a streamlined fashion for quick/ready reference at the table. This approach can be to your liking or not. If it's not - go play OD&D, B/X, AD&D 1-2, 3.x/PF1, 5e, or any of the numerous OSR variants.
4E is the one game in a 50 year history to try its own thing. It broke with tradition to the scorn of the community (who apparently are still here today starting issues). Just let those of us who enjoy this game for what it is continue to enjoy it.
For me, running 4E is a special treat after running 5e multiple times a week for nearly a decade. I'll probably get to enjoy this experiment for a few months before it's back to mainstream D&D.

I’d just add, this also means people shouldn’t be using this thread to mock or deride other play preferences. Like implying it’s absurd for me to view something as non-magical or as magical. Both need to stop.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

i probably wouldn't even have made this reply if it weren't for the last two statements i'm going to respond to here, but here goes...

I don’t think so.

...why not? like, do you have a reason? i'd be interested to hear it.

Again, disagree.

i'm directly quoting the text. what are you even disagreeing with?

But we already have an example I agree isn’t magical or supernatural so not sure why we are beating this horse.

because we made our posts before that example was posted? i mean, the post you're replying to here was literally the first post in this thread after you disagreed with the examples in question. hell, i replied to that example before you ever agreed with it (to point out it looked like a double image post).

Like implying it’s absurd for me to view something as non-magical or as magical.

first off, if (generic) you say something that's just flat out wrong, i don't know why it'd be a bad thing to correct you on it. you said the savage ability was magical or supernatural. i pointed out that the text outright states it's neither. i guess if you were running a game where someone had that ability you could rule it as one or the other if you really wanted to, but then you'd be going against the text. i also didn't imply you viewing the samurai/ronin ability as magical was "absurd". i said i thought it was a stretch, and explained why. that's not the same thing - i was disagreeing with you.

second, you JUST accused me of "beating [a dead] horse" because of a post that hadn't been made at the time of my post. how are you going to criticize other people for bad behaviour when you are, at best, making accusations without taking the most basic steps to check if they even make sense?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I didn’t say it was realistic. I said it was not magical.

Only by reducing the word 'magical' to meaninglessness. I agree, you can reinvent the meanings of any words to transform their meaning to anything at all. I won't analogize this to anything going on in the world today, but it is pretty clear that standards for what means what have slipped in the Internet Age.

Honestly though, you don't have to like time limited 'powers'. I'm not even going to TRY to imply that they aren't essentially a gamist/narrativist device. I think it just reinforces that 4e really is that sort of game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not exactly what the square-cube law is. The square-cube law is, strictly speaking, about how when a thing increases proportionally in size by a factor x, it's surface area and cross-sectional area increases by a factor of x squared, and its volume and mass by x cubed.

Yes, I understand. I'm not trying to be pedantic about it. You cube the mass of things when you double their size. Actually though it is a bit more complex than that, since the square-cube law DOES come into play in terms of things like limb strength. This tells us that doubling the dimensions of a creature actually must increase it's mass MUCH MORE than squared, and closer to cubed. So I'm actually being kind of generous in my numbers. A 12' giant would actually need to weigh more like 3,000 or 4,000 pounds, and thus be more like 15x stronger than a human if it was to actually be able to move. The mass of elephants bears this out, though not being humanoid the extrapolations aren't as exact.

When applied to biomechanics, one of the main effects is that muscle power is proportional to their cross-sectional area (which in turn is proportional to the square of height, assuming equal proportions) and the mass they need to move is proportional to volume (proportional to height cubed). It also applies to structural loads – the bones of a giant twice as tall as a man need to support eight times the weight on four times the area. so they need to be twice as strong. It explains why elephants look like they do, with extremely thick legs; why giants don't exist in the real world; and why small animals like insects can lift ridiculous amounts proportional to their own weight.

Yes, I understand all of this. There was a famous Dragon article way way back (I suppose someone could look up exactly which issue, I'm sure I have it) that went through ALL of this, called "How Heavy is My Giant?" but it is all just basic biomechanics. This is all why I say above that a 12' giant would ACTUALLY need to weigh something like 2x or 3x what a simple application of cubing (1200 lbs or so) would give you, because all its limbs, even its trunk, and its skeletal structure would have to be MUCH thicker proportionally than a human's.

Since things like giants, dragons, and other large land animals clearly exist in D&D, it is apparent that the square-cube law doesn't work in the same way, or at least that said creatures have ways of mitigating its effects.

Well, giant sauropods clearly had ways. I mean, gigantism of some type is clearly possible. It needn't be magical, though that would certainly make things comport more with folklore giants, which seem to be proportioned the same as humans mostly. Partly hollow bones, thicker limbs, special joint architecture, extra dense musculature, etc. These are all things that very large animals seem to do, at least on land. I think we can agree that bipedal creatures larger than, maybe at most, 12' are probably impossible in nature though. I mean, I don't think any serious research has been done on it, if someone told me 15' giants are possible, I won't argue the point.

In any case, any creature in this size scale, giant, dragon, whatever, is going to need strength of a level that is simply overwhelming in terms of human scale. In Kenya I saw elephants smash down huge trees. No person, modern weaponry excepted, is going to fight an elephant. Now give it some serious intellect, and weapons, you're just dead. I don't care how incredibly skilled you are, it will not matter. Anyone who can fight stuff like that is 'magical'.

I know the stubborn argument, that people can define 'magic' in some sort of game-technical way that makes fighters "non-magical" but any such sophistry also completely undermines the argument that they're bound by actual physical law! So my point stands, this is all fantastical and a rule that says "fantastical can only happen 2x per day" CANNOT be argued against on the basis of its realism or lack thereof! The argument itself is irrational at that point. I accept people's preferences, but even the Internet cannot defeat logic, only ignore it!

 

[FrogReaver]

Only by reducing the word 'magical' to meaninglessness. I agree, you can reinvent the meanings of any words to transform their meaning to anything at all. I won't analogize this to anything going on in the world today, but it is pretty clear that standards for what means what have slipped in the Internet Age.

Not what’s happening here. But thanks for the continued mockery.

Honestly though, you don't have to like time limited 'powers'. I'm not even going to TRY to imply that they aren't essentially a gamist/narrativist device. I think it just reinforces that 4e really is that sort of game.

I defended them against the most recent poster on the thread complaining about them.

What I’m pushing back against hasn’t been that, it’s been the implications that those that disagree with you (general you) either are hypocrites, dumb, posting in bad faith, etc. if those comments stopped then this thread would happily be humming along talking about 4e on its own terms.